[merijnv]

> New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when it's much easier just to stop going to Facebook? Only a perverse sadist would prefer legislation over ostracism.

Right, this is why the US is such a shiny beacon of safe products, consumer-friendliness, and consumer rights compared to the horrible European markets... :)

I always find this sentiment on HN so amusing. "Legislation hurts companies, we should all just ostracise/boycott companies instead!" despite all practical evidence suggesting that legislation actually gets things done. Like, I can actually get fast affordable internet here, unlike when I was in the US :)

[mikeash]

I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary. If complaining or boycotting gets the job done, then that should be the first option. I'll never understand people who think we shouldn't complain or boycott. Surely this is just an exercise of one's right to free association? (Not saying you're objecting to them. But a lot of people seem to think that it's somehow wrong.)

On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job done, we shouldn't shy away from it. To describe someone as "a perverse sadist" for wanting to legislate pseudonyms on social networks is bonkers.

[minority-one]

> I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary.

In other words: if legislation.necessary? then enact else avoid.

> On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job done, we shouldn't shy away from it.

In other words: if issue.important? and legislation.effective? then enact else avoid.

These two are contradictory. Which is it for you?

[mikeash]

"Shouldn't shy away" does not equate to "always do it."