Re:Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising
by AnthonyMouse on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @02:44PM
(#19445416)
Nope, deterrence is still only required proportionally. If someone parks on a crosswalk and the cost of that to society is $200 and the fine is $500 then the fact that they're paying $500 means you're still coming out ahead. And if the cost to society is more than $500 then you've set the fine wrong regardless of who is paying it.
Re:Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising
by mfoy_ on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @04:56PM
(#19446819)
But the point isn't to turn something bad into a valid transaction that is simply unfavourable. The point is to deter the behaviour in the first place, regardless of how much you're willing to pay to do it.
Re:Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising
by AnthonyMouse on Friday March 22, 2019 @12:45PM
(#19464302)
But why would you want to do that? Why would you prefer no-transaction over one that generates a $300 profit?
No, because the issue here is not like a fee, it's about breaking the law and how you should be punished for it in order for it to deter you. A more apt comparison would be "you can be happy that the a rich person is voluntarily paying 500$ to park on top of a crosswalk. In this case you want to deter the person from doing something that harms others, not just to make them pay for it, which in this case means either a fine indexed to income or jail time, so it hurts you even if you are a billionaire.