Hacker News Reader

Comment by adnzzzzZ | Hacker News Reader

The vetting process and requirements for compliance likely makes it harder for schools who have alternative methods of teaching to be able to experiment and find better solutions to the problem. This pushes innovation in this field out of your state, which you may be okay with as long as people aren't getting swindled. But there's always a cost to these things.

View on HN

California is known for overbearing compliance, but it isn't known for stifling innovation because of it. Our State recognizes that innovation is its lifeblood.

I'm not too worried about them stifling innovation. For one, it was stated elsewhere that they are working with Lambda school to get them certified, and for two, I think the fact that most of the self-driving car companies are working here now is a perfect example.

At first they experimented outside the state in areas with less regulation, but the state was happy to work with them to come up with a viable regulatory framework that still protects people while allowing innovation.

I don't see how California's tech innovation is proof that regulation isn't stifling innovation in other, tangentially related at best, sectors. I would also argue CA regulations stifle a lot more industries than just education.

California is the world's 5th biggest economy. We lead the nation or are close to the top in every major industry except finance.

What industries do you think are being stymied by regulation in CA?

>...likely...

Are you familiar with the regs? Your conclusion seems to be based on no actual knowledge, just assumptions.

I don't buy these "regulation kills innovation" type arguments. While regulation does put up barriers to entry, it also ensures a baseline level of quality and prevents abuse of the system.

I mean there's a reason we don't allow everyone to perform surgery or fly commercial aircraft.

What does manually ensuring a baseline level of quality have to do with innovation? Your comment makes a case for why regulation exists, not a case against the claim that it harms innovation.

The parent poster offered a false dichotomy where you have regulation on one end and innovation on the other. The reason this dichotomy is false is because it assumes that innovation is only introduced by small and new players in a market. My objection is that not only is that not true (some of the largest companies in any regulated market can also be the most significant innovators in that market), it is also the case that small and new players are often in it to cheat and fleece customers, and regulation is a good defense against them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com