5 ms·

What's this thing the government has been doing recently where they're no longer content to just let major corporations screw consumers?

tatelax 3y ago
Election coming up
- sigzero 3y ago
  100%
- MrZongle2 3y ago
  Exactly this. Regardless of the winners of said election, expect a return to business as usual afterward.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    Would you like to make a wager on that? I would be prepared to bet money (and give you very generous odds) that, contra your claim, if Biden is re-elected in November the FCC will not undo this change and remove net neutrality afterward.
  - llamaimperative 3y ago
    Not really. There has been a continuous stream of pro-consumer actions out of the Biden admin since day one. Lots of anti-trust activity in really critical sectors, for example. You’re not paying very close attention if you can’t spot any substantive differences between the two sides.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    Eh... I wouldn't say so much. I'd expect that if Biden gets a second term, then after the election you can basically expect little to no action for the next 3 years. Business as usual... ish. Major changes will likely happen before the next election just to try and keep a democrat in office. The Trump second term will likely immediately start with rolling back things like Net Neutrality. Biden's admin likely wouldn't do that as that'd keep them from getting cabinet positions in the future and Trump's admin will do it right away because it can both be sold as a referendum on the previous admin and would help them get future positions for the next republican president. For trump, I doubt he'll do anything at the end of his term different from the beginning. I really don't think Trump cares about keeping republicans in office.
    - hobs 3y ago
      It's true that he cares about himself first, but he only stumps for republicans (as long as they support him) and he packed the federal and supreme court with republicans (and they've won important cases about redistricting rules and other things that keep republicans in power). So saying he doesn't care about keeping republicans in office makes no sense as he's probably cemented them in office in places they have no business being elected for another 30 years.
      - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
        >and he packed the federal and supreme court I can tell where the hypocrisy starts and the eye roll begins.
      - cogman10 3y ago
        I can't say this for certain, but my guess is that Trump's supreme court picks weren't really him looking at potential nominees and instead were done based on the advice of his cabinet. (I'm certain that's how it is for most presidents). Trump will likely appoint a republican friendly cabinet, for sure, which means their goals and agendas will be centered around the party as much as they are for trump. But that said, I just don't think Trump cares about the republican party. He cares about it in as much as it's a vehicle for him to maintain power. Said another way, I don't think trump the person cares about the republican party. I think the trump admin does. If he wins, the only way I really see him personally caring about the next presidency is if he decide to try and run for a 3rd term (like he's floated).
- Cody-99 3y ago
  Changing government policy isn't always an instant process. Most of the FCC rules go through the "notice and comment" process that takes quiet a long time. The net neutrality rule for example has been in the works since at least January 2022 [1]. [1] https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-a-comeback-again-in-2022/ https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-...
- cal5k 3y ago
  All of the new "rules" being proposed by executive agencies will be subject to court challenge, and some of them (like the FTC's non-compete "rule") will likely be subject to a preliminary injunction. The goal is to get people to think "Yeah! Taking action on non-competes is great! Darn politicized courts!", when in reality this is not something an executive agency should be doing without an act of congress, or it may not even be a matter that falls to the federal government at all. Most employment law, for example, falls to the state in which the worker lives, and some have chosen to ban non-competes via legislation. This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat, even though I tend to agree that non-competes are more harmful than good in many situations.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat What exactly "more democratic" means is a bit unclear to me. Is an act of Congress more democratic than agency policy because more reps voted on it? Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? Or is a policy democratic based on its alignment with the will of the electorate regardless of provenance?
    - cal5k 3y ago
      > Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? The presidency is not an elected autocracy. The extent of his powers are strictly limited to those granted by a) the constitution, and b) acts of congress. Attempts to circumvent these limitations through clever legal theories are undemocratic, doubly so when that circumvention bypasses duly elected state governments. No act of congress has ever explicitly banned non-compete agreements or authorized the FTC to do so, and the plethora of employment law at the state level strongly supports the notion that it wasn't even a federal matter to begin with. Would you argue that it's more democratic or less democratic when powers previously belonging to states are subsumed by the executive in this way? What if the people of Texas believe non-compete agreements are important? Why not just federalize all laws and tell state legislatures to pound sand?
objektif 3y ago
Administration sees they are losing the young vote. Administration checks what can get them more young votes…..
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  Which is democracy working as intended and not a cynical thing at all.
- triceratops 3y ago
  Politicians doing what voters want?! What a radical concept!
  - objektif 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - MrZongle2 3y ago
    Funny how they seem to rack up most of these high-profile accomplishments in election years....
    - triceratops 3y ago
      Tell me you've never started an assignment the day before it's due.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Ahh yes courting the young vote, that group famous for going out to the polls in large numbers. The 16-25 age group is really into FCC regulation and anti-TikTok right now.
  - objektif 3y ago
    Check to see if Biden loses what will most likely cause it.
tootie 3y ago
Not to be glib, but it's just Democrats. They are not immune from corporate interests, but they are not wholly owned by them. And really, corporate interests are American interests so long as they don't needlessly harm citizens.

tatelax 3y ago

Election coming up

sigzero 3y ago
100%
MrZongle2 3y ago
Exactly this. Regardless of the winners of said election, expect a return to business as usual afterward.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  Would you like to make a wager on that? I would be prepared to bet money (and give you very generous odds) that, contra your claim, if Biden is re-elected in November the FCC will not undo this change and remove net neutrality afterward.
- llamaimperative 3y ago
  Not really. There has been a continuous stream of pro-consumer actions out of the Biden admin since day one. Lots of anti-trust activity in really critical sectors, for example. You’re not paying very close attention if you can’t spot any substantive differences between the two sides.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Eh... I wouldn't say so much. I'd expect that if Biden gets a second term, then after the election you can basically expect little to no action for the next 3 years. Business as usual... ish. Major changes will likely happen before the next election just to try and keep a democrat in office. The Trump second term will likely immediately start with rolling back things like Net Neutrality. Biden's admin likely wouldn't do that as that'd keep them from getting cabinet positions in the future and Trump's admin will do it right away because it can both be sold as a referendum on the previous admin and would help them get future positions for the next republican president. For trump, I doubt he'll do anything at the end of his term different from the beginning. I really don't think Trump cares about keeping republicans in office.
  - hobs 3y ago
    It's true that he cares about himself first, but he only stumps for republicans (as long as they support him) and he packed the federal and supreme court with republicans (and they've won important cases about redistricting rules and other things that keep republicans in power). So saying he doesn't care about keeping republicans in office makes no sense as he's probably cemented them in office in places they have no business being elected for another 30 years.
    - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      >and he packed the federal and supreme court I can tell where the hypocrisy starts and the eye roll begins.
    - cogman10 3y ago
      I can't say this for certain, but my guess is that Trump's supreme court picks weren't really him looking at potential nominees and instead were done based on the advice of his cabinet. (I'm certain that's how it is for most presidents). Trump will likely appoint a republican friendly cabinet, for sure, which means their goals and agendas will be centered around the party as much as they are for trump. But that said, I just don't think Trump cares about the republican party. He cares about it in as much as it's a vehicle for him to maintain power. Said another way, I don't think trump the person cares about the republican party. I think the trump admin does. If he wins, the only way I really see him personally caring about the next presidency is if he decide to try and run for a 3rd term (like he's floated).
Cody-99 3y ago
Changing government policy isn't always an instant process. Most of the FCC rules go through the "notice and comment" process that takes quiet a long time. The net neutrality rule for example has been in the works since at least January 2022 [1]. [1] https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-a-comeback-again-in-2022/ https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-...
cal5k 3y ago
All of the new "rules" being proposed by executive agencies will be subject to court challenge, and some of them (like the FTC's non-compete "rule") will likely be subject to a preliminary injunction. The goal is to get people to think "Yeah! Taking action on non-competes is great! Darn politicized courts!", when in reality this is not something an executive agency should be doing without an act of congress, or it may not even be a matter that falls to the federal government at all. Most employment law, for example, falls to the state in which the worker lives, and some have chosen to ban non-competes via legislation. This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat, even though I tend to agree that non-competes are more harmful than good in many situations.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat What exactly "more democratic" means is a bit unclear to me. Is an act of Congress more democratic than agency policy because more reps voted on it? Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? Or is a policy democratic based on its alignment with the will of the electorate regardless of provenance?
  - cal5k 3y ago
    > Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? The presidency is not an elected autocracy. The extent of his powers are strictly limited to those granted by a) the constitution, and b) acts of congress. Attempts to circumvent these limitations through clever legal theories are undemocratic, doubly so when that circumvention bypasses duly elected state governments. No act of congress has ever explicitly banned non-compete agreements or authorized the FTC to do so, and the plethora of employment law at the state level strongly supports the notion that it wasn't even a federal matter to begin with. Would you argue that it's more democratic or less democratic when powers previously belonging to states are subsumed by the executive in this way? What if the people of Texas believe non-compete agreements are important? Why not just federalize all laws and tell state legislatures to pound sand?

objektif 3y ago

Administration sees they are losing the young vote. Administration checks what can get them more young votes…..

spywaregorilla 3y ago
Which is democracy working as intended and not a cynical thing at all.
triceratops 3y ago
Politicians doing what voters want?! What a radical concept!
- objektif 3y ago
  [flagged]
- MrZongle2 3y ago
  Funny how they seem to rack up most of these high-profile accomplishments in election years....
  - triceratops 3y ago
    Tell me you've never started an assignment the day before it's due.
Spivak 3y ago
Ahh yes courting the young vote, that group famous for going out to the polls in large numbers. The 16-25 age group is really into FCC regulation and anti-TikTok right now.
- objektif 3y ago
  Check to see if Biden loses what will most likely cause it.

tootie 3y ago

Not to be glib, but it's just Democrats. They are not immune from corporate interests, but they are not wholly owned by them. And really, corporate interests are American interests so long as they don't needlessly harm citizens.