this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
19 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

81026 readers
4742 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Government by regulation structures how constitutional democracies normally operate. Legislatures and executive agencies enact formal rules that govern conduct, embodying the ideal of government by laws rather than by individuals. Yet regulators also govern through threats of regulation. When public officials seek to alter private behavior, they may warn regulated actors that failure to comply will trigger new or stricter rules. These warnings can achieve regulatory goals without the adoption of formal rules. Because officials often issue such threats in informal, private communications, the practice escapes public scrutiny and challenges the dominant model of democratic rule-making, which assumes open deliberation by accountable institutions. This paper theorizes threats of regulation as a governance device that remains largely invisible to outsiders but offers significant advantages to regulators. Although United States courts attempt to distinguish unlawful coercion from permissible persuasion, they struggle to enforce these boundaries in practice. The paper argues that increasing transparency in routine communications between regulators and corporate actors would reduce the risk of abuse while preserving regulatory effectiveness.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

What I'm hearing is laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation?

[โ€“] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

It's just a promise of violence that's enacted and police are basically an occupying army, you know what I mean?