It is not a necessary that the regulators messed up - it is also possible that the parties being moderated, are actively subverting the system.
As I see it, that is a problem with the regulation.
By analogy, when a hacker breaks into your system, you can't say, "our security checks weren't wrong; the users just weren't supposed to enter those inputs". It's your job to anticipate all the possible bad inputs, and guard against them.
Similarly, it's the job of the regulators to anticipate all possible routes around the regulations, and account for those.
Now, a bit of thought will lead to the conclusion that this is impossible except in all but the most trivial cases. I submit that this does NOT give us leave to shrug and just go through it anyway. Instead, it should force us to step back and consider whether the intended benefits of the regulations are great enough to counterbalance the cost of the complications that are certain to occur down the road.
(and I note a certain irony in your pseudonym "intended", since the problem here is UNintended consequences)
As I see it, that is a problem with the regulation.
By analogy, when a hacker breaks into your system, you can't say, "our security checks weren't wrong; the users just weren't supposed to enter those inputs". It's your job to anticipate all the possible bad inputs, and guard against them.
Similarly, it's the job of the regulators to anticipate all possible routes around the regulations, and account for those.
Now, a bit of thought will lead to the conclusion that this is impossible except in all but the most trivial cases. I submit that this does NOT give us leave to shrug and just go through it anyway. Instead, it should force us to step back and consider whether the intended benefits of the regulations are great enough to counterbalance the cost of the complications that are certain to occur down the road.
(and I note a certain irony in your pseudonym "intended", since the problem here is UNintended consequences)