4 ms·

If you want to wave the flag of "the people's will", well: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public-support-for-legal-abortion-persists-2-ye

If you want to wave the flag of "the people's will", well: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public-support-for-legal-abortion-persists-2-years-after-dobbs/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public...

gruez 2y ago
There's a pretty wide gulf between "abortion should be legal in at least most or all cases" and "ads for abortion pills on facebook". The company's spokesperson specifically mentioned it was taken down due to regulations relating to advertising drugs.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  The very next sentence is: > The company also described some of the incidents as “over-enforcement.”
- roughly 2y ago
  If the reason for the takedown was "we don't allow ads for drugs of any variety on the platform" or "regulations prevent us from allowing ads for medicines on our platform" then sure, I have no problem with that. I can complain about the quality or consistency of that enforcement, but sure, if that's the reason, that's fine. If the reason for the takedown is that the popular will of the people, as manifest in the preferences of the current President, deems this thing bad, and therefore we're taking it down, then that's a) inaccurate and b) deeply out of step with American tradition, principle, and governing philosophy.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 2y ago
    >If the reason for the takedown is that the popular will of the people, as manifest in the preferences of the current President, deems this thing bad, and therefore we're taking it down, then that's a) inaccurate and b) deeply out of step with American tradition, principle, and governing philosophy. Is the implication here that any sort of proactive action by companies to dodge enforcement actions a bad thing? For instance, if after Biden appointed Lina Khan to the FTC, and M&A firms suddenly stopped doing deals out of anti-trust concerns, is that bad? Or is it somehow only limited to advertising?
    - intermerda 2y ago
      Did Biden openly threaten and target the said M&A companies?
    - roughly 2y ago
      So I'd started writing a response to this, but it got a bit long and abstract and it was a work day, so I kind of left it, but an article dropped into my lap today which was almost too perfect as a demonstration of what I was trying to get to: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/business/media/paramount-trump-cbs-news-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/business/media/paramount-... FTA: > Now Mr. Trump is back in the White House, and many executives at CBS’s parent company, Paramount, believe that settling the lawsuit would increase the odds that the Trump administration does not block or delay their planned multibillion-dollar merger with another company, according to several people with knowledge of the matter. In general, if an incoming administration signals a change in regulatory priorities or interpretation, and that causes businesses broadly to adjust their business plans, I think that's a reasonable reflection, after a relatively long chain and with all the caveats of the US electoral system, of the "people's will" as expressed in governance after an election. Lina Khan indicated that the FTC was going to take a much closer look at mergers with a renewed eye towards competition, not just consumer wellbeing, and that broadly changed the math on whether companies expected their mergers to go through. That's what I would expect - that's the point of government and regulation here, and the change in those priorities following an election fits broadly into "the government as the people's tool for constraining powerful actors." However, a company changing its policies or plans specifically because it is concerned about the whims and wills of the president - in other words, companies specifically attempting to curry personal favor with the president to get better treatment - is not that. If Paramount was worried that recent changes to the law or changes to how the FCC or FTC interpreted regulations affected their chances of winning the lawsuit or getting the merger through in the same way that, say, NBC would be worried about it, that's normal. Paramount is worried that the president is angry at them and they are going to be specifically targeted, and so they're going to give the president a large cash settlement so he'll instruct the FTC to let them complete their merger. That's not normal - or at least, it's not good.

gruez 2y ago

There's a pretty wide gulf between "abortion should be legal in at least most or all cases" and "ads for abortion pills on facebook". The company's spokesperson specifically mentioned it was taken down due to regulations relating to advertising drugs.

ceejayoz 2y ago
The very next sentence is: > The company also described some of the incidents as “over-enforcement.”
roughly 2y ago
If the reason for the takedown was "we don't allow ads for drugs of any variety on the platform" or "regulations prevent us from allowing ads for medicines on our platform" then sure, I have no problem with that. I can complain about the quality or consistency of that enforcement, but sure, if that's the reason, that's fine. If the reason for the takedown is that the popular will of the people, as manifest in the preferences of the current President, deems this thing bad, and therefore we're taking it down, then that's a) inaccurate and b) deeply out of step with American tradition, principle, and governing philosophy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 2y ago
  >If the reason for the takedown is that the popular will of the people, as manifest in the preferences of the current President, deems this thing bad, and therefore we're taking it down, then that's a) inaccurate and b) deeply out of step with American tradition, principle, and governing philosophy. Is the implication here that any sort of proactive action by companies to dodge enforcement actions a bad thing? For instance, if after Biden appointed Lina Khan to the FTC, and M&A firms suddenly stopped doing deals out of anti-trust concerns, is that bad? Or is it somehow only limited to advertising?
  - intermerda 2y ago
    Did Biden openly threaten and target the said M&A companies?
  - roughly 2y ago
    So I'd started writing a response to this, but it got a bit long and abstract and it was a work day, so I kind of left it, but an article dropped into my lap today which was almost too perfect as a demonstration of what I was trying to get to: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/business/media/paramount-trump-cbs-news-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/business/media/paramount-... FTA: > Now Mr. Trump is back in the White House, and many executives at CBS’s parent company, Paramount, believe that settling the lawsuit would increase the odds that the Trump administration does not block or delay their planned multibillion-dollar merger with another company, according to several people with knowledge of the matter. In general, if an incoming administration signals a change in regulatory priorities or interpretation, and that causes businesses broadly to adjust their business plans, I think that's a reasonable reflection, after a relatively long chain and with all the caveats of the US electoral system, of the "people's will" as expressed in governance after an election. Lina Khan indicated that the FTC was going to take a much closer look at mergers with a renewed eye towards competition, not just consumer wellbeing, and that broadly changed the math on whether companies expected their mergers to go through. That's what I would expect - that's the point of government and regulation here, and the change in those priorities following an election fits broadly into "the government as the people's tool for constraining powerful actors." However, a company changing its policies or plans specifically because it is concerned about the whims and wills of the president - in other words, companies specifically attempting to curry personal favor with the president to get better treatment - is not that. If Paramount was worried that recent changes to the law or changes to how the FCC or FTC interpreted regulations affected their chances of winning the lawsuit or getting the merger through in the same way that, say, NBC would be worried about it, that's normal. Paramount is worried that the president is angry at them and they are going to be specifically targeted, and so they're going to give the president a large cash settlement so he'll instruct the FTC to let them complete their merger. That's not normal - or at least, it's not good.