4 ms·

Passed 3-2 along party lines. Remember this when you're going to vote. Elections matter.

by coldpie 2y ago

randcraw 2y ago
How could ANYBODY vote against this?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Mental models are tricky. Some people believe there is a right to pull a fast one on others or make their life hard in the name of revenue or business. As coldpie said: > Remember this when you're going to vote. Elections matter. (high empathy justice sensitive human)
- kristofferR 2y ago
  It's "anti-business" (read: pro-consumer).
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    Tbh I don't think it's _even_ anti-business; if people were more comfortable with subscriptions, which this should achieve, they would be more willing to enter into them. It's anti-bad-business, granted, but you'd probably expect it to if anything increase commerce in the long run.
- minkzilla 2y ago
  Posted elsewhere in this thread but here is the reasoning why from Melissa Holyoak, who voted no. This rule goes further than just the cancellation mentioned in this article and there are some legitimate concerns with that. It is unclear but I think Melissa Holyoak would have voted yes if it was just the cancellation rule. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissenting-statement-re-negative-option-rule.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissent...
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      Automatic renewal is convenient and appreciated when you like the service. It's a dark-pattern underhanded dirty trick when you don't.
    - ARandomerDude 2y ago
      This is why you shouldn't let ChatGPT do your thinking for you. Skimming is an important art. Her basic points are: 1. The FTC doesn't have the authority to make this rule, and in government there must be a hard line between "I want this" and "this is legal" unless you want a dictatorship. 2. The reason the FTC has so many Congressionally-enacted laws to follow is because of a history of overstepping its legal authority. The more they push the boundary, the less authority the FTC will have in the long-run. 3. The rule is too broad. Broad regulation is bad because it leaves too much legal wiggle-room for violators with deep pockets and smart lawyers. At the same time, small businesses who may be acting legitimately can't know they'll be accused of violating overly broad rules, or afford to defend themselves if they draw government scrutiny. 4. The FTC has a specific procedure it needs to follow for making a rule but they didn't follow that procedure. 5. Because of the above, the rule will be challenged by BigCo and struck down in court, wasting time and harming the FTC's reputation. I'm hopeful about a "Click to Cancel" future (who wouldn't be?) but it's pretty hard to dismiss those points as "typical pro-business grift".
      - the_gastropod 2y ago
        If someone were just attempting to maintain a "pro-business grift", wouldn't this be exactly the argument they'd make? That the FTC is, effectively, legally toothless?
        mardifoufs 2y ago
        I mean, making rules that will end up getting over turned in courts, setting a precedent is also exactly how you end up making institutions toothless (see, the recent supreme court decision that overturned Chevron). I'm totally for this type of regulation though, it's just that I don't think that their argument is bad at all.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - macinjosh 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Sure, that is how it was designed. The reason it doesn't work that way anymore is because of a continuous parade of states violating Americans' rights, each one so egregious that people said "yeah, it was designed the way macinjosh describes, but boy it turns out a lot of these state 'cultures' or 'identities' are producing despicable outcomes for our fellow Americans, and we should step up to prevent those abuses."
      - sickofparadox 2y ago
        "I know better than the people that voted for their own state government so I am going to force my will upon them." Mindsets like this are actually why democracies fail.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        What? In that case, why have a state government? Why not have everything determined county-by-county? In fact, why have it be county rule? Why not just neighborhood by neighborhood? You place the locus of control according to the problems you need to solve. Neighborhoods combine to cities combine to counties combine to states combine to countries in order to be competitive and thrive against the broader environment. Yes, it does typically entail a loss of autonomy, but the benefit is that your little independent enclave doesn't get taken over by the next-strongest neighbor.
        sickofparadox 2y ago
        Why vote at all? You don't care about the consent of the governed, we should just make you chairman of the federal government and have your enlightened rule bring us to a new era of prosperity!
- invaderzirp 2y ago
  A lot of people's salaries depend on screwing over customers.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
walrushunter 2y ago
[flagged]
ranlork 2y ago
[flagged]
- tshaddox 2y ago
  “Of course”?
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  > Of course Republican commissioners are going to vote "no" if the FTC is handing out popular rulings like candy just before the election. What? Why is that defensible? Make life worse/keep life bad for Americans so we have a better chance in an election? Do you hear yourself?
  - macinjosh 2y ago
    Why is it defensible for an administration to wait until the last days of their term, right around election time, to do their job?
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      See here for a rebuttal of the same argument on a different topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626251 Short answer is that you're just not paying attention.
    - xrd 2y ago
      I think the main reason to vote for the current administration is because of the actions taken by the FTC in the last four years. It isn't just this last month. I would recommend reading the newsletter "Big" by Matt Stoller for context. Lina Khan seems widely hated across the aisle, so that's a good first step. The SEC has also taken unprecedented actions under Rohit Chopra.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      The FTC under the current administration has been going gangbusters the entire term. On what basis do you make the accusation that the administration has been sandbagging their own policy changes?
NotPractical 2y ago
Not surprised that you're being downvoted despite telling the truth, because "politics is off-topic while technology is on-topic" (even though politics is often deeply intertwined with technology).
- invaderzirp 2y ago
  I've seen people argue for the most heinous shit here without so much as a slap on the wrist. HN isn't above politics, it's just above the _wrong_ politics.
- pc86 2y ago
  Politics is deeply intertwined with everything, but simplistic summaries like "party lines! remember this!!1" are as much disinformation as anything else. I mean look at some of the comments in this subthread specifically along similar lines. Completely ignorant of (or more likely, willfully ignoring) the fact that there's more to this rule than just "make cancellations easy." One of the people who voted against it explained why and it has nothing to do with wanting to make cancellations harder. But we can't acknowledge that truth because that goes against the "one side is good, one side is bad" narrative so many here try to push so often and so hard.
- coldpie 2y ago
  I'm not being downvoted, quite the opposite :) HN mods sometimes stick comments towards the bottom of a thread, probably when they feel it will invite flame wars. Not an unfair thing to do, tbh, I don't disagree with the policy. But I still think it's worth making the comment.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Sure, everything is political. But that's meaningless, and it just gets tiring to see the same debates over and over because someone said the thing "remember this when you vote". Like yeah, that's usually how voting works; you vote based on policies like this. It would be similar to going into an israel-palestine war thread and saying that "remember, if you vote Biden you're voting for a president that is enabling a genocide" or saying that "those bombs were given by Biden's administration " whenever a hospital gets hit in that war. Is it true? Sure. Is it stirring the pot? Absolutely. Do people who vote for Biden already know that and don't really care? Almost certainly. The exact same applies to comments like this. Like yes, republicans vote for Republican candidates knowing this. It's not like they weren't aware that the party they support leans heavily towards favoring business interests.

Passed 3-2 along party lines. Remember this when you're going to vote. Elections matter.

randcraw 2y ago

How could ANYBODY vote against this?

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Mental models are tricky. Some people believe there is a right to pull a fast one on others or make their life hard in the name of revenue or business. As coldpie said: > Remember this when you're going to vote. Elections matter. (high empathy justice sensitive human)
kristofferR 2y ago
It's "anti-business" (read: pro-consumer).
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Tbh I don't think it's _even_ anti-business; if people were more comfortable with subscriptions, which this should achieve, they would be more willing to enter into them. It's anti-bad-business, granted, but you'd probably expect it to if anything increase commerce in the long run.
minkzilla 2y ago
Posted elsewhere in this thread but here is the reasoning why from Melissa Holyoak, who voted no. This rule goes further than just the cancellation mentioned in this article and there are some legitimate concerns with that. It is unclear but I think Melissa Holyoak would have voted yes if it was just the cancellation rule. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissenting-statement-re-negative-option-rule.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissent...
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Automatic renewal is convenient and appreciated when you like the service. It's a dark-pattern underhanded dirty trick when you don't.
  - ARandomerDude 2y ago
    This is why you shouldn't let ChatGPT do your thinking for you. Skimming is an important art. Her basic points are: 1. The FTC doesn't have the authority to make this rule, and in government there must be a hard line between "I want this" and "this is legal" unless you want a dictatorship. 2. The reason the FTC has so many Congressionally-enacted laws to follow is because of a history of overstepping its legal authority. The more they push the boundary, the less authority the FTC will have in the long-run. 3. The rule is too broad. Broad regulation is bad because it leaves too much legal wiggle-room for violators with deep pockets and smart lawyers. At the same time, small businesses who may be acting legitimately can't know they'll be accused of violating overly broad rules, or afford to defend themselves if they draw government scrutiny. 4. The FTC has a specific procedure it needs to follow for making a rule but they didn't follow that procedure. 5. Because of the above, the rule will be challenged by BigCo and struck down in court, wasting time and harming the FTC's reputation. I'm hopeful about a "Click to Cancel" future (who wouldn't be?) but it's pretty hard to dismiss those points as "typical pro-business grift".
    - the_gastropod 2y ago
      If someone were just attempting to maintain a "pro-business grift", wouldn't this be exactly the argument they'd make? That the FTC is, effectively, legally toothless?
      - mardifoufs 2y ago
        I mean, making rules that will end up getting over turned in courts, setting a precedent is also exactly how you end up making institutions toothless (see, the recent supreme court decision that overturned Chevron). I'm totally for this type of regulation though, it's just that I don't think that their argument is bad at all.
llamaimperative 2y ago
[flagged]
- macinjosh 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Sure, that is how it was designed. The reason it doesn't work that way anymore is because of a continuous parade of states violating Americans' rights, each one so egregious that people said "yeah, it was designed the way macinjosh describes, but boy it turns out a lot of these state 'cultures' or 'identities' are producing despicable outcomes for our fellow Americans, and we should step up to prevent those abuses."
    - sickofparadox 2y ago
      "I know better than the people that voted for their own state government so I am going to force my will upon them." Mindsets like this are actually why democracies fail.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        What? In that case, why have a state government? Why not have everything determined county-by-county? In fact, why have it be county rule? Why not just neighborhood by neighborhood? You place the locus of control according to the problems you need to solve. Neighborhoods combine to cities combine to counties combine to states combine to countries in order to be competitive and thrive against the broader environment. Yes, it does typically entail a loss of autonomy, but the benefit is that your little independent enclave doesn't get taken over by the next-strongest neighbor.
        sickofparadox 2y ago
        Why vote at all? You don't care about the consent of the governed, we should just make you chairman of the federal government and have your enlightened rule bring us to a new era of prosperity!
invaderzirp 2y ago
A lot of people's salaries depend on screwing over customers.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

walrushunter 2y ago

[flagged]

ranlork 2y ago

[flagged]

tshaddox 2y ago
“Of course”?
llamaimperative 2y ago
> Of course Republican commissioners are going to vote "no" if the FTC is handing out popular rulings like candy just before the election. What? Why is that defensible? Make life worse/keep life bad for Americans so we have a better chance in an election? Do you hear yourself?
- macinjosh 2y ago
  Why is it defensible for an administration to wait until the last days of their term, right around election time, to do their job?
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    See here for a rebuttal of the same argument on a different topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626251 Short answer is that you're just not paying attention.
  - xrd 2y ago
    I think the main reason to vote for the current administration is because of the actions taken by the FTC in the last four years. It isn't just this last month. I would recommend reading the newsletter "Big" by Matt Stoller for context. Lina Khan seems widely hated across the aisle, so that's a good first step. The SEC has also taken unprecedented actions under Rohit Chopra.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    The FTC under the current administration has been going gangbusters the entire term. On what basis do you make the accusation that the administration has been sandbagging their own policy changes?

NotPractical 2y ago

Not surprised that you're being downvoted despite telling the truth, because "politics is off-topic while technology is on-topic" (even though politics is often deeply intertwined with technology).

invaderzirp 2y ago
I've seen people argue for the most heinous shit here without so much as a slap on the wrist. HN isn't above politics, it's just above the _wrong_ politics.
pc86 2y ago
Politics is deeply intertwined with everything, but simplistic summaries like "party lines! remember this!!1" are as much disinformation as anything else. I mean look at some of the comments in this subthread specifically along similar lines. Completely ignorant of (or more likely, willfully ignoring) the fact that there's more to this rule than just "make cancellations easy." One of the people who voted against it explained why and it has nothing to do with wanting to make cancellations harder. But we can't acknowledge that truth because that goes against the "one side is good, one side is bad" narrative so many here try to push so often and so hard.
coldpie 2y ago
I'm not being downvoted, quite the opposite :) HN mods sometimes stick comments towards the bottom of a thread, probably when they feel it will invite flame wars. Not an unfair thing to do, tbh, I don't disagree with the policy. But I still think it's worth making the comment.
mardifoufs 2y ago
Sure, everything is political. But that's meaningless, and it just gets tiring to see the same debates over and over because someone said the thing "remember this when you vote". Like yeah, that's usually how voting works; you vote based on policies like this. It would be similar to going into an israel-palestine war thread and saying that "remember, if you vote Biden you're voting for a president that is enabling a genocide" or saying that "those bombs were given by Biden's administration " whenever a hospital gets hit in that war. Is it true? Sure. Is it stirring the pot? Absolutely. Do people who vote for Biden already know that and don't really care? Almost certainly. The exact same applies to comments like this. Like yes, republicans vote for Republican candidates knowing this. It's not like they weren't aware that the party they support leans heavily towards favoring business interests.