I often hear this argument on HN (usually to oppose regulations out of principle) but while it obviously happens at times it doesn't have to be.

Anti-trust regulations for instance are clearly about encouraging competition. Similarly many jurisdictions price dumping is illegal which is a way to prevent big players from destroying small ones by playing dirty. Regulation is whatever you want it to be. "Regulations are good/bad" makes almost as little sense as "GMOs are good/bad", to take an other usually divisive topic.

It doesn't have to be. It just usually ends up working out that way.

I don't always lose in Vegas either, but I don't go there looking to drum up money for my my mortgage payment.

I think the right way to look at regulation is that is very likely to fail, or arrive with enough unintended consequences that it probably makes things worse but everything else was sure to fail so even though its a long shot, its the best chance we've got so...

It's like jumping from the 3rd story of a burning building. It might be our only chance, but we should be damn sure the stairs aren't an option before we take the leap.

Not true either - policy depends on the type of market, and whether there is enough political will to make it happen.

Several markets tend towards single players (telecom for example) without regulation you will always have a poor economic outcome (for the majority of citizens aka customer Education)

Telecom is a good example of an instance where the stairs are clearly blocked.

Cosmetology is a perfect example of where the stairs were clearly passable but we jumped anyway.

Taxi cabs are a good example of where its not necessarily obvious. Proceed with an abundance of caution.

My argument is that we cosmetology more than we telecom and we should head back the other way.

Don’t know -all the major tech firms in the social media space tend to cluster around the belief that owning the whole network is the core source of value.

Matter of fact social dynamics end up putting massive pressure on any firm

This does not tend towards anything but scenarios where regulatory intervention is required.

Also -intervention is required in scenarios where products are known to subvert or pervert the normal decision making systems of humans - or create unintended side effects.

Cigarettes, gambling, addiction or health harming products come to mind. - but I suppose that’s under the umbrella of citizen health and safety.

"Usually" is a quantitative claim (and one that doesn't have a lot of evidence). It doesn't have a lot of power to inform qualitative judgments like whether regulation is inherently good or bad.

Regulation, like software, can be designed well or designed poorly. It can entrench special interests or it can protect against them.

When Coca-Cola lobbied to have the FDA ban stevia as a food additive, it hurt certain regional sodas and entrenched Coca-Cola's market position.

But there are plenty of regulations that do not entrench market players, but protect the free market. Part 2635 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (5 C.F.R. 2635), for example, prohibits federal employees from accepting gifts from anyone doing business with their agency or seeking to do so, and implements limitations on other gifts. This significantly reduces the likelihood of bribery.

That happens because the actual efforts are so watered down that they don't actually stop the offensive actions.

Take Money Laundering. One of the largest vehicles is real estate. The National Association of Realtors lobbied hard for an exemption to the AML rules, and they were granted a temporary exemption that was extended multiple times:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title31-vol1/pdf/CFR-...

It definitely seems like it often does, simply by raising the barrier to entry requiring a lot more hoops to jump through.

I don’t think the things like the Do Not Call list has entrenched anyone’s position? Happy to hear how I’m wrong.

I think there is a big difference between prohibiting certain behaviors and installing a regulatory compliance regime

Thank you for saying this.

The market will decide. And it's becoming clear to the population who these current players really are.

The market is oblivious to what's going on. The population only gets to know what they hear from the news media (or their 'social networks'), the same media that's controlled by advertisers. The same advertisers who want to build the market to advance corporate interests. The "market" (and population) will do whatever they are told and privacy is seen as a force that prevents the market from thriving.

The market decided already. They love having no privacy.

But what if it turns out the market has the judgement of a drunk teenager?