4 ms·

This is a disingenuous argument. I too think they're engaging in law-making, but if that were their concern then they have the influence, time, and specialized

This is a disingenuous argument. I too think they're engaging in law-making, but if that were their concern then they have the influence, time, and specialized knowledge to convince Congress to make it a law. You know, so everything's proper. When the criminal says "hey, that's not fair, the legislature didn't make this thing illegal that should be illegal"... well, let's pass it as a law. Anyone not a criminal should be on board with that, including the complainants. Make no mistake. This is fraud by any sane standard, fraud of the criminal sort. These companies should be fined tens of billions of dollars, if not more. Those who cannot afford such fines (Planet Fitness, etc), should be bankrupted, their assets sold at auction, and their executives and directors prohibited from ever holding such jobs again. Make the shareholders of these companies destitute.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Anyone not a criminal should be on board with that, including the complainants There are plenty of reasons to oppose new laws and rules than your own guilt.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  There are plenty of reasons to oppose new arbitrary/irrelevant/random laws other than your own guilt. No reason to oppose such a one as I hinted at. Other than your own guilt.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    Here is one, and it will come up almost certainly. A service has all your source code. Click to cancel is super easy. Privacy laws mean that data must be destroyed almost instantly. You accidentally click and POOF all your stuff is gone. So... to avoid that the service implements something like github - now you have to enter details of the repo, maybe 2fa in because security, and so on. An overzealous Lina Khan type now comes after a service doing the right thing making it hard to shoot yourself in the foot. every new rule has lots of cases like this. At any given point a good number of the agency heads are ambitious folks trying to build a career of note, not actually protect society.
    - blacksmith_tb 2y ago
      I don't think this scenario is credible in the sense that the FTC would have to receive complaints from devs who love nuking all their code, complaining that GH made it far too difficult to wipe away all their work.
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        No, they wouldn't have to receive complaints. The FTC doesn't sit around waiting for complaints to take action. They also take action (sometimes) after receiving complaints, but it's not the only way.
lyu07282 2y ago
That's not why it's disingenuous, it's very simple: This will reduce their profits. Any additional analysis is superfluous. There is a good reason why Harris doesn't use the FTC (under Lina Kahn) to gain political capital. This is the sort of stuff that actually matters, so naturally barely anyone ever talks about it.
danielmarkbruce 2y ago
An argument about what mechanism of law should be used, who has jurisdiction isn't disingenuous. A class action lawsuit could likely work. This doesn't need to be a rule per se. These companies are behaving poorly and it should cost them billions - but we don't need to create red tape every time this happens.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Anyone not a criminal should be on board with that, including the complainants There are plenty of reasons to oppose new laws and rules than your own guilt.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
There are plenty of reasons to oppose new arbitrary/irrelevant/random laws other than your own guilt. No reason to oppose such a one as I hinted at. Other than your own guilt.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  Here is one, and it will come up almost certainly. A service has all your source code. Click to cancel is super easy. Privacy laws mean that data must be destroyed almost instantly. You accidentally click and POOF all your stuff is gone. So... to avoid that the service implements something like github - now you have to enter details of the repo, maybe 2fa in because security, and so on. An overzealous Lina Khan type now comes after a service doing the right thing making it hard to shoot yourself in the foot. every new rule has lots of cases like this. At any given point a good number of the agency heads are ambitious folks trying to build a career of note, not actually protect society.
  - blacksmith_tb 2y ago
    I don't think this scenario is credible in the sense that the FTC would have to receive complaints from devs who love nuking all their code, complaining that GH made it far too difficult to wipe away all their work.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      No, they wouldn't have to receive complaints. The FTC doesn't sit around waiting for complaints to take action. They also take action (sometimes) after receiving complaints, but it's not the only way.

lyu07282 2y ago

That's not why it's disingenuous, it's very simple: This will reduce their profits. Any additional analysis is superfluous. There is a good reason why Harris doesn't use the FTC (under Lina Kahn) to gain political capital. This is the sort of stuff that actually matters, so naturally barely anyone ever talks about it.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

An argument about what mechanism of law should be used, who has jurisdiction isn't disingenuous. A class action lawsuit could likely work. This doesn't need to be a rule per se. These companies are behaving poorly and it should cost them billions - but we don't need to create red tape every time this happens.