Good EU regulations

Site and presentation

• Several commenters found the site slow, laggy, or intermittently down; others used a Vercel mirror or Wayback archive.
• The cursor‑following effect and scrolling behavior were described as distracting or infuriating, which some saw as ironically undermining the message.

Regulation concept and subjectivity

• Many note the list reflects the curator’s idea of “good” regulation; policy benefits are inherently subjective and detail‑dependent.
• Some argue regulations should be judged by outcomes and second‑/third‑order effects, not intentions or bullet‑point framing.
• There’s disagreement over what the “default” should be: an unregulated world vs. a world where inaction is also an active choice with consequences.

USB‑C common charger

• Critics: standardization may freeze an imperfect connector, slow innovation, and force any future alternative to pass a political/committee hurdle instead of market testing.
• Supporters: USB‑C is “good enough,” drastically cuts e‑waste and drawer chaos, and ends an oligopolistic stalemate (notably Apple). Historical convergence to one interface is viewed as pro‑innovation.
• Concerns include flaky connectors, opaque cable capabilities, and loss of superior alternatives like MagSafe; others counter that adapters and future 5‑year reviews can address this.

Car safety, emissions, and cost

• One side blames safety and emissions rules, EV push, and mandated tech (AEB, lane‑keeping) for tripling entry‑level car prices and making simple <€10k cars vanish.
• Others attribute price hikes mainly to inflation, chip shortages, and manufacturer strategy (pushing higher‑margin models), arguing mandated safety tech is relatively cheap and demonstrably reduces crashes.
• Debate over whether features like AEB and lane assist are net‑positive or introduce new risks (false positives, over‑automation), and whether low‑mileage or urban drivers should be forced to pay for them.
• Some suggest regulation pushed consumers toward SUVs (e.g., differing fuel‑efficiency standards) with unintended safety/emissions consequences; others find this causality unproven.

GDPR and cookie banners

• Many complain GDPR (or related rules) produced massive, annoying cookie banners; some think cookie handling should have been standardized at browser level.
• Others stress banners stem mostly from ad‑tech incentives and dark patterns, not the law’s intent; they argue GDPR significantly improved privacy and worker rights beyond cookies.
• There’s tension between blaming lawmakers for weak/indirect rules vs. blaming industry for exploiting every loophole.

Single‑use plastics (straws, cutlery)

• Detractors call the “straw ban” symbolic, high‑friction, and ineffective, noting poor alternatives (paper disintegrating, PFAS coatings) and that much ocean plastic originates outside Europe.
• Supporters point out the directive targets a broad set of high‑litter single‑use plastics, not just straws, and cite research on single‑use items’ large share of beach litter.
• Some argue upstream bans are valid precisely because waste systems and behavior are hard to fix; critics see this as costly tokenism with hidden convenience costs.

Digital single market and net neutrality

• Streaming portability rules are seen as half‑measures: subscriptions travel, but catalogues remain country‑locked and TV/streaming rights still fragment the “single market.”
• Net‑neutrality claims (“ISPs can’t block or throttle”) are challenged: many sites are blocked via courts/governments, leading to concerns that regulations restrain private actors but not state power.

Broader attitudes toward regulation

• Commenters span from broadly pro‑regulation (“curb‑cut effect,” safety, privacy) to strongly skeptical (“blocks innovation,” entrenches big firms).
• Some emphasize that lack of regulation also has harms, while others stress democratic legitimacy, difficulty of reversing bad rules, and the risk of bureaucratic overreach.