Oh fuck no. Social consensus is too slow. Look at the social consensus that tracking was bad followed expert consensus by like a decade, and really only started appearing after EU regulation.
How many lives are you willing to ruin and how much blood are you willing to spill getting things wrong? The power of the state shouldn't be thrown around on a whim or subject to subject specific industry fads and circle jerks.
Look, I invest in companies that stand to benefit in this transition and I want my stonks to go up -- but I'm horrified by the apathetic excuses people toss out to rationalize ignoring the externalities. Strengthening the safety net is the least we can do. "What if we get it wrong?" sounds an awful lot like "it's gonna cost money and I don't want to pay" to my ears.
I'm not saying don't do anything. I'm saying it's more than ill-advised to get the vast resources of the modern state involved in things on the whims of "experts" because hubris abounds.
I also think you're not really disagreeing. GP is talking about specific implementations while you are talking about high level philosophy.
> The "experts" also thought if Vietnam went communist the whole continent would.
The domino theory was advocated by politicians, not experts.
> The "experts" gave us the war on drugs.
Nixon gave us the war on drugs as an excuse to be racist towards black people and let cops beat up hippies. Experts have derided the war on drugs (as opposed to treatment for addicts) and the classification of weed as schedule 1.
> The fatherless black household [wasn't] stereotypes until the "experts" tried to help minorities.
The stereotype preceded the experts, but yeah, Moynihan fucked up there.
> How many lives are you willing to ruin and how much blood are you willing to spill getting things wrong?
I mean, a not insignificant number. The US has 350 million people. Any decision at that scale is likely to fuck over a lot of people, whether that's allowing any company to put out a self-driving car or changing fuel efficiency levels.
> The power of the state shouldn't be thrown around on a whim or subject to subject specific industry fads and circle jerks.
On the contrary, I'm advocating the power of the state to take action against industry fads faster than the public notices the issues. Such as using governmental power to limit invasive tracking of internet activity.
There are surely interest groups and think thanks that are working on the problem, and they will (if they don't already), have some legislation either ready to go or close to it.
The politicians won't even think about it until it becomes an actual problem that threatens votes, and when they do start caring they will just take whatever they can get from friendly/trusted think tanks and try to ram it through. The bills will be thousands of pages long and practically nobody will read them before voting for them.