4 ms·
I'll add a second bit of context - a well respected member of Congress once told me, paraphrased "we do not regulate out in front. We are America. We are usuall
by anonymouse008 6y ago
I'll add a second bit of context - a well respected member of Congress once told me, paraphrased "we do not regulate out in front. We are America. We are usually behind when it comes to regulations. We are free."
So, this legislation feels like a break from that consciousness.
Instead of playing cat and mouse with these entities - which the above quote illustrates as the American legislative way - we are going for the jugular of this issue.
- zepto 6y agoAnonymous shell companies have been a problem for decades, to the point that they are a standard trope in movies and TV. How is this ‘regulating out front’?
- anonymouse008 6y agoBecause the methods these shell companies employ to coordinate give off a greater signal in the 21st century datasets — going the personal identifier route, you’re able to target people based on personal affiliations. The goal is admirable — however, this act as a solution is hasty (opportunistic) and disguised itself as “protecting against (insert threat).”
- zepto 6y agoI’m not sure how this answers the question. How is it hasty when the problem is decades old?
- anonymouse008 6y agoHasty (maybe I should say opportunistic) because it’s ideological reasoning to pass is capitalizing on the current zeitgeist (which I believe to be leaning more antithetical to the quote above). Again, the reason this bill is intriguing is because the problem can be solved through other methods - albeit more effortful. You don’t really need beneficial identifiers on these types of companies to get who’s doing bad things.
- zepto 6y agoWhat ideological reasoning are you referring to?