These surgeries are safer and less painful than traditional gut-opening ones.
So while some are no doubt botched, overall people are better with than without, a net gain.
You cannot say that all robot surgeries are better and safer because that is not true. This new surgical technique has different pros and cons, reduces some risks but increases others, so it's use needs to be evaluated (epidemiological studies) for each kind of surgery in order to assert if it is beneficial for that kind of surgery. New things are not better just because they are new, they need to be tested and proven.
An example from a couple of years ago, some studies shown that robot prostate cancer surgery decreased the risk of in-hospital complications, but increased the risk of impotence and incontinence. So in this case (prostate cancer) robot surgery does not shows a clear net gain.
First, no human can know all the effects of all the ingredients of all the products someone consumes, not even a phd in medicine or bioquemestry. So no, I'm not saying consumers are retards, I'm saying they are only human.
And Second, yes, there is a concept of reputation, but it is something that, without oversight, can be easily manipulated by unethical advertising, fake reports/certifications, astroturfing, etc.
Before there was such legislation you could still restrict yourself to only purchase from companies that voluntarily got certified and voluntarily informed ingredients. No one were making you buy food from producers who didn't list ingredients.
There are several flaws in your hypothetical no-legislation scenario:
- - Companies can get "voluntary certified" by their own shell companies or other kind of fake/biased certification, and there is no way for the consumer to distinguish a serious/real certification from a fake/biased one.
- - Companies can "voluntary inform" an incomplete list of ingredients and there is no way for the consumer to know which product have a real collectively exhaustive list or just the ones the producer wanted you to know.
- - Competitors can band together to omit inconvenient truths together
This policy went too far, the cost to personal freedoms is too great to be justified.
Having said that, I can understand the rationale behind it. I wouldn't like to hire a smoker (even one who smoked only after hours) the same way I wouldn't like to hire an alcoholic (I mean a non recovery one). Hiring any addict has costs, he will always have times where the only thing he can think is “where is my next fix”.
As I said before, their guidelines are published, but their interpretation of the guidelines are not. So that is not an open and transparent process.
It would be the equivalent of a country having public laws, but having all case records and jurisprudence sealed for everyone but the judge and the prosecutor. Then, if you lose in court, they just say “you lost” without giving you details, so you have no base to mount your appeals.
... ban download limits for all wired service providers.
The fact that you, a consumer, is willing to let wireless carriers off the hook, and only demand just and descent service from wired carriers, only show that we all have been drinking too much of the wireless carriers' cool-aid.
I wish google would stand its ground on this issue and deny those apps with messed up policies until the developers fix that. If it is not required for the core functionality of the application then it should be blocked at OS level.
... their app submission guidelines are fairly open and transparent,
That is simply not true. Apple submission guidelines are ambiguous and their official interpretation of it is a secret. Once you are refused you have no way of knowing why or how to fix it. There are plenty of examples in the media of developers who, after having an app rejected, try in vain to get an answer from Apple on why exactly the app was refused. Most of those cases the developer simply loses all hope and abandon the app, losing months of development.