Comment by monocasa
7 hours ago
I think they're mostly looking for regulations because they've spent close to $2T, all to realized they have no technical moat, so they're trying to build a regulatory one.
7 hours ago
I think they're mostly looking for regulations because they've spent close to $2T, all to realized they have no technical moat, so they're trying to build a regulatory one.
Both things can be true.
They want stable rules they can follow, which will limit their liability as long as they stay within them.
They also would like those rules to be as restrictive as possible towards their competitors.
As restrictive as possible towards their competitors, while being as permissive as possible for them. Getting control of the regulation making process means they can make sure they don't end up too constrained anywhere that would hurt their bottom line.
They've spent close to $2T so far. At that scale the legal issues they've had are just the cost of doing business.
I'm quite sure that if there wasn't the existential threat of a lack of a moat, they would not be pushing for regulations at all.
The legal issues can sink their entire business model, not quite the cost of doing business.
1 reply →
That's the conspiracy theory, but there's no good evidence for it, and it doesn't really make sense in the long-run.
It's the only thing that makes sense for a lot of these companies to survive to any long term when open models keep nipping at their heels for pennies on the dollar.
You're assuming the open models will follow regulations though.
2 replies →
No good evidence other than their openly stated desire for that regulation? Dario and Sam have both made open pleas for it, repeatedly.
Liability is enough of a reason