Hacker News Reader

Comment by soco | Hacker News Reader

To all commenters quickly pointing out the ways this rule is far from perfect: you are completely right. This being clarified, is the alternative doing nothing? Because that's where we are.

View on HN

Rules degenerating into infinite whack-a-mole is a strong (though inconclusive) signal a mistake is being made. "Let's ban rent increases". "Whoops, now all the landlords are slacking on property maintenance; let's mandate maintenance." "Whoops, now all the landlords have stopped making improvements; let's let them increase rents X% when they spend at least $Y on improvements." "Whoops,..."

So you end up in some new equilibrium. Maybe that equilibrium is better, maybe it's worse, but it's simply not true that it's always better to do something rather than nothing, and pointing out the loopholes in the rules is valid criticism.

Well, I think where we are is having to prove its fraudulent. Agreed, impractically difficult.

When the FTC says "we're cracking down on online reviews" with things like this the average Joe gains more confidence in them, so yes, the doing nothing approach is actually better IMO.

So never do anything unless you can guarantee a particular outcome?

That’s a stretch. But things like this only create a false illusion of safety/honesty which can actually be a tailwind for dishonesty.

So, don’t do anything at all because there will always be an issue with anything you do? Being negative is a weakness.

How about; do things that you can enforce and expect a positive net impact from, do things in a way that will address the dozens of obvious first impression questions that came up here due to lack of specifics. If you’re going to do it, put some thought into its execution and administration.

And most of all, don’t make global generalizations on commentary that is quite specific and on a very particular topic.

They have though. This has been a 2 year process.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/10/...

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/...

They probably came to different conclusions as you. And I'm sure they have reasons why they left some of that stuff on the original list out. Because they spent 2 years looking at this rather than going with their "obvious first impression questions".

You'll also note from those links that they have already been pursuing some companies over this stuff. So they're probably aware of what they're up against.

My assessment is more that the average consumer won't have any idea that the FTC is doing this, so I am not real worried about the downsides.

Not initially, but in time they tend to hear about it. Some shops are bound to brag that their reviews are FTC compliant and unbiased, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com