|
|
|
|
|
by Barrin92
1032 days ago
|
|
every regulation favours big companies in the trivial sense that there's a non zero cost to comply with any rule. However this is hardly a reason to not have rules, we also don't let startup companies throw waste into the river. Smaller companies aren't somehow inherently virtuous, if they can only exist by violating user privacy even more so than large companies, I'd rather deal with large companies. Small companies aren't an end in itself. Banking is another good example of this. Canada has five big, heavily regulated banks and has not had one bank failure in a century. In the US tax payers bail out SV bank |
|
So having many firms positioning themselves differently is better than having a couple in that you’re more likely to find a good best solution.
We need some rules, but we need to err on the side of fewer not more rules.
My point is that mass ads requires massed capital. There will be few, huge, entrenched players. It’s much better to have a dynamic economy with piles of mom and pops as well as a couple of huge companies. This can only happen if mom and pop can afford to advertise. This can only work with targeted ads.