Comment by Ferret7446
6 hours ago
The argument should be stronger since the vast majority of regulation is as you say, the cost is not worth the benefit.
All regulation by default is anticompetitive and also comes with the risk of intended consequences, and thus must prove that they provide sufficient benefit. They are "guilty until proven innocent".
e.g., rather than trying to "just do something" about games, maybe we should revisit copyright law as a whole, instead of slapping a bandaid on a festering wound caused by the first bandaid
How is all regulation anti competitive?
Is it anti competitive that your product does what you say it does and is safe? Isn't that just levelling the playing field by allowing consumers to make rational choices?
What about regulation designed to make sure there is competition? Is that anticompetitive???