| Why isn't the usual "regulatory framework" around powerful new technology and products – common-law liability for harms, prohibitions against fraud & various kinds of trespass & damage to established rights, plus the checks of reputational risks and vibrant competition – enough? Do you think that because personal computers & the internet took a while to develop, states like California missed an opportunity to helpfully regulate them by forcing their makers to attest to their safety before product development (much less public release) gets underway? Should we add that sort of regulation, now? A new website could be harmful – used for "serious crimes", "bill pay", "litigation", "even war"! Should every new website require filing paperwork guaranteeing its safety with a Calfornia Department of Technology division before going live? (There were oppressive regimes that tried to control presses, printers/fax-machines, & websites like this, using "safety" rationales!) The mere fact a new technology is a "powerful tool for humanity" is not something that must "naturally require" a novel state-bureaucracy-run "regulatory framework around it to ensure its proper use and application". The state in general, and the State of California in particular, is not our wise cloud-father with the foresight & disinterest to do what's best for us. It's instead a clumsy and often-corrupted tool for solving some common-coordination problems. States usually do best when addressing a well-understood common history of specific problems & market-failures – rather than improvising new filing requirements against theoretical fears, as here. Any new "very powerful tool for humanity" deserves the same freedom from prior restraint, & forebearance from premature budens that mostly benefit incumbents and large players, that prior technological innovations enjoyed. |