[Avicebron]

> There’s a balance that needs to be carefully managed here. Yes, fairness to consumers is important. But you can’t destroy the incentive to produce value in so doing.

The value is derived from the people consuming the product. Placing the "incentive to produce value" above the people who presumably are the source of this value seems...misaligned.

[otterley]

If there’s no product or service to be consumed, there’s no value produced either. That’s the point: it’s harmful to eliminate the incentive to produce.

[Avicebron]

People will _always_ need things. There are very few things that will eliminate people's need for things and producers will of course adapt to the environment.

What we need is an environment that does not give the producers asymmetric power over consumers and the products will naturally align with that.

[inigyou]

What if only the incentive to produce bad things is eliminated

[monkpit]

* definition of bad is subjective and may vary depending upon which lobby group has the most cash to throw around

[inigyou]

no, I referred to actual bad things

[otterley]

The point is still correct. People often disagree on what is good and what is bad. It’s a judgement, not an indisputable fact.

[readread]

Oh good, nothing's possible then, we should give up on regulating bad things because hitmen think murder isn't bad when they do it.

[inigyou]

so why do anything if it's impossible to tell what's good and what's bad?