> I note that you, too, have failed to make a policy proposal that is concrete enough to discuss usefully.
I never complained that you didn't make a policy proposal, so you can't say I'm a hypocrite here. In fact, I've been pretty clear in other comments that it's foolish to hold HN comments to the level of legislation.
> If only 80% of advertising were illegal, probably Consumer Reports could continue to exist, although they would be exposed to some legal risk of being ruled to be illegal advertising, probably prompted by a letter to the Attorney General from a company whose products they reviewed poorly or neglected to review at all. Stricter regimes like most of those being proposed here would make it difficult for CR to discover the existence of products to review.
Straw man argument extraordinaire. Nobody is calling Consumer Reports advertising. On the contrary, I'm saying that independent review isn't advertising.
> But possibly you are thinking of a different structure of regulation than I am, rather than just failing to think through its unintended consequences. It's impossible to tell if your proposal stays so vague.
So maybe ask a question instead of assuming what I'm envisioning. Believe it or not, you're not obligated to guess what I'm thinking!
Legislation could pretty explicitly allow for independent reviewers: that's explicitly the solution I'm proposing to the lack of information.
> Stricter regimes like most of those being proposed here would make it difficult for CR to discover the existence of products to review.
Sorry, which commenter is proposing that independent reviewers can't be in contact with companies whose products they review?
In my thinking, companies would be explicitly allowed to submit their products for review, although I think I'd want the reviewers to still pay for the products (i.e. not receive them for free or at a discount).
I never complained that you didn't make a policy proposal, so you can't say I'm a hypocrite here. In fact, I've been pretty clear in other comments that it's foolish to hold HN comments to the level of legislation.
> If only 80% of advertising were illegal, probably Consumer Reports could continue to exist, although they would be exposed to some legal risk of being ruled to be illegal advertising, probably prompted by a letter to the Attorney General from a company whose products they reviewed poorly or neglected to review at all. Stricter regimes like most of those being proposed here would make it difficult for CR to discover the existence of products to review.
Straw man argument extraordinaire. Nobody is calling Consumer Reports advertising. On the contrary, I'm saying that independent review isn't advertising.
> But possibly you are thinking of a different structure of regulation than I am, rather than just failing to think through its unintended consequences. It's impossible to tell if your proposal stays so vague.
So maybe ask a question instead of assuming what I'm envisioning. Believe it or not, you're not obligated to guess what I'm thinking!
Legislation could pretty explicitly allow for independent reviewers: that's explicitly the solution I'm proposing to the lack of information.
> Stricter regimes like most of those being proposed here would make it difficult for CR to discover the existence of products to review.
Sorry, which commenter is proposing that independent reviewers can't be in contact with companies whose products they review?
In my thinking, companies would be explicitly allowed to submit their products for review, although I think I'd want the reviewers to still pay for the products (i.e. not receive them for free or at a discount).