Protection can save lives, prevent abuse and stabilize a fragile system. Protection can also become an all-purpose justification for preventing change. The difference depends on what risk is being addressed, how strong the evidence is and what alternatives exist.
The Collingridge dilemma
Technology governance has a well-known timing problem. Early in development, interventions are easier but the long-term impacts are poorly understood. Later, impacts become clearer but changing the established system can be costly. The OECD calls this the Collingridge dilemma and recommends adaptive, anticipatory approaches rather than one irreversible decision.
The new proposal
The Protection–Potential Paradox adds a possibility accounting question. Do not assess only the danger a rule blocks. Also assess which beneficial branches it closes, which reversible experiments it permits and what information could make the rule obsolete.
An effective restriction should specify the hazard, the evidence, its duration or review trigger, and the conditions that would justify loosening or strengthening it. This is especially relevant when a technology's future capabilities remain uncertain.
A graded alternative
Instead of a binary allow/forbid system, use bounded experiments, graduated permissions, supervised access, temporary limits and monitored reversibility. Those options are not automatically safe, but they expand the design space between recklessness and paralysis.
The lesson
The goal is not maximum freedom or maximum restriction in isolation. It is protecting the conditions under which safer, more capable futures can remain discoverable.