Yes, my statement was very broad. But the point I'm trying to make is that regulation is usually reductive, not additive. It is definitely needed in many cases, and the state should interfere when necessary to ensure safety and fairness. But regulation is never the reason innovation happens.
The spirit of the author's comment was that if you regulate for something becoming compelling, it would become compelling. That never happens. You can't regulate your way to being innovative. I think it was Ben Evans who said the difference between the US and EU is that the US sees regulation as necessary evil, while the EU sees it as an exciting project. Hence the different outcomes.
The spirit of the author's comment was that if you regulate for something becoming compelling, it would become compelling. That never happens. You can't regulate your way to being innovative. I think it was Ben Evans who said the difference between the US and EU is that the US sees regulation as necessary evil, while the EU sees it as an exciting project. Hence the different outcomes.