5 ms·

The US is strong on the doctrine that the law applies equally to people (legal entities) regardless of size / market cap. I don't think we'll ever see something

The US is strong on the doctrine that the law applies equally to people (legal entities) regardless of size / market cap. I don't think we'll ever see something like the EU's law that targets only large internet companies. It might even not fly on equal protection grounds. I think that in either Finland or Iceland people receive traffic fines that are a percentage of their income. They would never fly in the US.

taeric 3y ago
That is why I didn't say it applies differently. I said it is enforced on a ranking that is based on ROI. And... it really has to be. There are almost certainly low key levels of bad practices in small shops. But it would cost more and take more out of the economy to enforce them than it is to just not care. Now, that bar is rising, of course. Things that used to not matter years ago are easily enforced today.
- abduhl 3y ago
  So your view is that we should enforce extremely strict laws arbitrarily and capriciously based on however the particular regulator or prosecutor feels about a given entity? I can’t imagine how this could be abused.
  - taeric 3y ago
    If you've ever been on the interstate system, then you are basically with me. Literally it would be trivial in today's world to have a hookup on your car to check your speed against the local signage on a somewhat real time basis. Sounds absurd, but there is a pretty good chance every long haul truck you see out there is doing exactly that. Similarly, mens rea is a thing. Such that statutory enforcement of rules is often a regressive policy that isn't necessarily a good idea.
    - abduhl 3y ago
      I think most people who have driven on the interstate are quite aware that police arbitrarily pull people over for many things given the vast number of laws that are continuously broken by all drivers. I do not think a regime where you’re always breaking a law and can be pulled over just for driving while black is a good example when advocating for prosecutorial discretion. I’d prefer a system that doesn’t result in being subject to a regulatory action or prosecution because I was doing business while black.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Ah, agreed. And if you take the worst possible interpretation of my post I can see how you get there. My point was that many rules get enforced on a cost benefit based system. Especially in business where enforcement is necessarily an expensive undertaking. Ideally, part of enforcement will include evolution of the rules so that people don't grow into a situation where what they are doing is suddenly illegal. That said, many of the rules we are looking at here are more along the lines of "you left interstate driving and are now in a city." That is, the landscape and situation pretty much has to factor into the rules. Is why you would be an asshole for worrying about the kid's lemonade stand down the corner. Any grandstanding on how the rules apply universally is... well, just not useful.
        abduhl 3y ago
        My interpretation isn’t the worst possible interpretation, it’s the realistic interpretation based on how permitting discretionary application of the law actually works in practice. Your view is fine in theory but fails (and not just fails theoretically - it has failed and continues to fail actually) in practice. Advocating for your theoretical ideal when we know it fails in practice is… well, just not useful.
        taeric 3y ago
        I'm largely acknowledging that that is where we are. And not too concerned about that for many rules. But, and I said so in the initial post, expect that more and more will get enforced both as you get bigger, and as we get better at enforcing them. That is to say, I also expect clarification and evolution of the rules during this enforcement action. Such that I would be most happy to have some of these arrangement flat out illegal. That said, https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... was linked on Matt Levine's email today. And... "Our company monitors competitors' ads, and we sometimes offer to match special discounts or sales incentives for consumers. Is this a problem?" is answered with a no. Such that, this is a tough field to litigate right now. And, what is it you are advocating for? That we only have rules that we can universally enforce? That would require that we know all of the ways that they can be broken from the beginning, so that we can encode those in law.
bee_rider 3y ago
I think we’re OK with laws like: “don’t form a monopoly,” which applies equally to everyone (but doesn’t come up often for most people!)
kube-system 3y ago
The US has a lot of laws that apply differently based on a company's size... the Civil Rights Act, FMLA, GINA, PDA, ACA, etc. Maybe the US doesn't have a lot of laws that specifically target large organizations, but they have a ton that specifically exempt small ones.

taeric 3y ago

That is why I didn't say it applies differently. I said it is enforced on a ranking that is based on ROI. And... it really has to be. There are almost certainly low key levels of bad practices in small shops. But it would cost more and take more out of the economy to enforce them than it is to just not care. Now, that bar is rising, of course. Things that used to not matter years ago are easily enforced today.

abduhl 3y ago
So your view is that we should enforce extremely strict laws arbitrarily and capriciously based on however the particular regulator or prosecutor feels about a given entity? I can’t imagine how this could be abused.
- taeric 3y ago
  If you've ever been on the interstate system, then you are basically with me. Literally it would be trivial in today's world to have a hookup on your car to check your speed against the local signage on a somewhat real time basis. Sounds absurd, but there is a pretty good chance every long haul truck you see out there is doing exactly that. Similarly, mens rea is a thing. Such that statutory enforcement of rules is often a regressive policy that isn't necessarily a good idea.
  - abduhl 3y ago
    I think most people who have driven on the interstate are quite aware that police arbitrarily pull people over for many things given the vast number of laws that are continuously broken by all drivers. I do not think a regime where you’re always breaking a law and can be pulled over just for driving while black is a good example when advocating for prosecutorial discretion. I’d prefer a system that doesn’t result in being subject to a regulatory action or prosecution because I was doing business while black.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Ah, agreed. And if you take the worst possible interpretation of my post I can see how you get there. My point was that many rules get enforced on a cost benefit based system. Especially in business where enforcement is necessarily an expensive undertaking. Ideally, part of enforcement will include evolution of the rules so that people don't grow into a situation where what they are doing is suddenly illegal. That said, many of the rules we are looking at here are more along the lines of "you left interstate driving and are now in a city." That is, the landscape and situation pretty much has to factor into the rules. Is why you would be an asshole for worrying about the kid's lemonade stand down the corner. Any grandstanding on how the rules apply universally is... well, just not useful.
      - abduhl 3y ago
        My interpretation isn’t the worst possible interpretation, it’s the realistic interpretation based on how permitting discretionary application of the law actually works in practice. Your view is fine in theory but fails (and not just fails theoretically - it has failed and continues to fail actually) in practice. Advocating for your theoretical ideal when we know it fails in practice is… well, just not useful.
        taeric 3y ago
        I'm largely acknowledging that that is where we are. And not too concerned about that for many rules. But, and I said so in the initial post, expect that more and more will get enforced both as you get bigger, and as we get better at enforcing them. That is to say, I also expect clarification and evolution of the rules during this enforcement action. Such that I would be most happy to have some of these arrangement flat out illegal. That said, https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... was linked on Matt Levine's email today. And... "Our company monitors competitors' ads, and we sometimes offer to match special discounts or sales incentives for consumers. Is this a problem?" is answered with a no. Such that, this is a tough field to litigate right now. And, what is it you are advocating for? That we only have rules that we can universally enforce? That would require that we know all of the ways that they can be broken from the beginning, so that we can encode those in law.

bee_rider 3y ago

I think we’re OK with laws like: “don’t form a monopoly,” which applies equally to everyone (but doesn’t come up often for most people!)

kube-system 3y ago

The US has a lot of laws that apply differently based on a company's size... the Civil Rights Act, FMLA, GINA, PDA, ACA, etc. Maybe the US doesn't have a lot of laws that specifically target large organizations, but they have a ton that specifically exempt small ones.