> The company acted shitty and you took the consequences

Historically, "the consequences" have often included "you die horribly".

Sure, we can all avoid Hooker Chemical Company. (Well no, we can't, because it doesn't sell to consumers and we can't find out who consumer companies are supplied by.) But if we could, it wouldn't have saved anyone living in Love Canal. They got leukemia no matter what the market did afterwards.

I'm not being hyperbolic here. Markets work because they're iterated, voluntary transactions which gradually reveal asymmetric information. If the interaction is not iterated (e.g. fly-by-night companies), markets don't protect you. If the interaction is not voluntary (they poison your air), markets don't protect you. If the first asymmetric exchange is a disaster (you buy tainted produce and die), you never benefit from the gradual reveal of hidden information.

I'm generally a pretty staunch libertarian. But it's simply not true that this problem can be solved with a simple "you chose to buy this"; non-government solutions are vastly more complicated than that.

Erm, I think there is a major difference between those two examples.

If a digital company and me don't come along I quit contract and it is not really anybody else business nor harm, only mine if I feel treated unfair. And the companies reputation, as I will share my bad experience.

But if a company is poisoning the real world, than this is clearly a crime. And I did not say, no more police is needed.

Ah - I thought you were addressing the "bad bread" part, not just the ToS change for Hearthstone. Fair enough.

Government regulations exist to fix market failure, usually due to information asymmetry. In the old days it was milk in chalk, in the modern day it's closed source code riddled with spyware and engine firmware that cheats emissions tests. Market failure in my book.

We need more, smarter regulations, not less.

EDIT: I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to educate themselves on every technical advance. That's not possible with the complexity of technology people encounter in their everyday lives. And that's without even talking about the invisible technology we never see directly, like the software controlling our voting machines, hospital equipment, power plants, etc.

" in the modern day it's closed source code riddled with spyware and engine firmware that cheats emissions tests."

Yeah well, so the problem to me is not really missing regulations, but missing the will to use open-source.

And that is what I meant, that most people have no idea about technology.

To them it does not matter if something is open-source or not as they do not know the difference - they understand neither, it is all dark magic to them.

And of course, not everybody needs to have studied IT like we did. But I also do not understand the Linux kernel - yet I trust it. Because it is open-source and I can get in touch with the people developing it and see how it is done.

So I trust them.

And ordinary people could at least understand the same: if something is developed in the open, then other people have the chance to check it. If it is closed - much harder. Very simple. And I have no doubt, that this knowledge will get in the heads of the people. It just takes some time (and action of course) - Computers for everyone is a quite new thing ...

We've become Mexico, we cheerful pass bushel-baskets of regulations and laws we have no intention of enforcing at all; just for show. So we end up penalizing honest businessmen, should any survive.

Koch market-based ethics (see their books) really means - ignore the law, if the market allows you to cut any corner, cut it hard. That's where you end up, with third-world economic rules, and in time results. (Starting with vicious inequality.)

In past this was how I thought, and still is to a large degree and think smarter people is the core, but I do see ways in which regulation can create real positive change. Specifically on the issue of say, how companies are allowed to market. People might be smarter if they are less brainwashed.

hm, I see it more in a way, that people are not so smart because of regulation. Like, if the state allows this to be sold, it can't be fraud. So they don't bother to check further.

And regulation s about brainwashing ... I am not sure how that could really work.

As an exercise, list everything you have bought in the last month or so; food, gas, electronics, whatever. Now list all the ways those products could be adulterated, fraudulently modified, or faked. Now list the specialized knowledge and skills you would need to detect the fraud.

Now try to get some work done while you are caveat emptoring.

why should I know everything?

There are many other experts, hackers, organizations, newspapers, etc. I can google before making a purchase.

Just like it allready is, only with more responsibility for everyone, but therefore hopefully better marketpositions for nice companys.

But google could be cheating you as well. How would you know they don't keep you in an information bubble?

And of course, no one lies on the internet.

Regulation obviously does not work if you have a corrupted and dysfunctional goverment (and law).

In any case, you can not expect individual people to just "take the consequences" of bad actors and move on.