Our forming organization supports clear, fair and efficient regulations to ensure a transparent yet safe digital world. This promise encompasses not only the world wide web but any form of digital communication.
Our aim is to try and point out undesired issues that may stem from current digital communications regulations.
Let’s presuppose that at least some regulations imposed will eventually interfere with the growth of certain businesses. Regulations like embargoes and antitrust laws could arguably have an effect on business growth.
Would policies like these cut into business’ resources enough to effectively limit their ability to expand, or even endure, in a fierce global economy?
A business entity has as its sole objective the accumulation of profit. So regardless of the actual impact on said business’s bottom line, the claim will be made that any impact limits their ability to effectively compete. Likewise, a government’s sole objective is (or at the very least should be) maximizing the welfare of its citizens (as a whole).
It is expected that regulation will stifle business. An extreme historical example would be abolishing slavery. It killed the slave trade, and meant that countries such as the US lost part of its competitiveness on the global market, at least for some products. But it was a paramount decision for general human welfare.
On the one hand the business costs are pushed up by regulations, and the consumer needs to pay more in return, but there are numerous examples showing that consumers will not accept product that was produced alongside inhumane business conduct.
Companies will now pay for their carbon/pollution emissions, and this encourages them from a financial aspect to lower those emissions. We have it here already, its known as a carbon tax and most business has absorbed the cost.
There is no industry in the world immune to this.
Certain outdated business models will fail this century, as has happened in the past.
If you want to see the future of a non regulated environment, look at the smog levels in Beijing.
What is obscured (perhaps deliberately) by the arguments against regulations is that they are created, for the most part, as a response and correction to previous abuses and/or misconduct by businesses (or other parties).
The primary intent behind them is not to make life harder for corporations, but to protect smaller and weaker parties (individuals, small businesses, etc.) or those without a voice of their own (the environment, endangered species, etc.), from the excesses of industries which are driven primarily by the profit motive.
Can some regulations go too far or fail to accomplish the intended objective to protect? Certainly. But the solution is to fix those regulations, case by case, rather than to indict all regulations as being bad.
Regulations are essential, but our purpose is to keep an open eye regarding their efficiency and transparency.
More information to be presented shortly.