4 ms·

FTC can't afford to fight Amazon's allegedly deceptive sign-ups after DOGE cuts

tenuousemphasis 2y ago
That is the point of Doge. All of the first agencies they went after were investigating Elon's companies. Time for Bezoa to get his turn sucking on the Trump teat.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
alphabettsy 2y ago
The oligarchs will get exactly what they paid for (seemingly even more than usual) with this admin.
tomohelix 2y ago
When the legal system is setup to rely so heavily on money that even the government can't go against it, you know shit is bad, yo. Also, say what you will, but the US situation right now, this matter included, is definitely "novel and thought provoking" so if this thread is flagged, I am not convinced the people flagging it are doing it just because of HN rules.
- freitasm 2y ago
  Add to this the government destroying the institutions that exist to prevent exactly that from happening. It is part of a plan. Tech bros allied to corrupt officials.
  - tkel 2y ago
    Capitalists in a capitalist country controlling the country? Color me shocked
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      Attacks on the rule of law are explicitly anti-capitalist, because they're attacks on property rights and contracts. Big business always wants deregulation on the margins, but at some point the law is required to allow business at all.
- spwa4 2y ago
  But this problem, that money determines effective outcome of legal proceedings is a global problem. And for the same reason as here: governments not protecting people because they refuse to spend the money (and, really, it's not so much about money, it's about effort). Read about child protection in court, "pre-trial" incarceration in New York (which I guess is in the US, yes), what happened to lawyers in the Netherlands, what's happening to social service court claims in France (ie. the government, who are defendants here, just walked out of the courtroom ... and the judge refuses to convict them), ... there's an endless list here.
ggm 2y ago
I'd say most people who work on this kind of zero-sum winner takes all approach to life would call that a win. The rest of us who want regulators who can regulate and believe in a mutuality? less winning. If I put a certain pair of billionaire's names in here, it just annoys people. I guess if they read and can intuit, I don't have to resort to calling anyone "Winnie the Pooh" to get around the noise filters but I am interested what nominative determinism could apply. Elongated names are better. Ones with a suitably fragrant, anal scent gland, Musky kind of smell.
xnx 2y ago
A billionaire's "onerous regulations" are out consumer protections
JohnTHaller 2y ago
After this, the FTC reversed position saying it was "fully prepared" after pressure from the Trump administration.

That is the point of Doge. All of the first agencies they went after were investigating Elon's companies. Time for Bezoa to get his turn sucking on the Trump teat.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

alphabettsy 2y ago

The oligarchs will get exactly what they paid for (seemingly even more than usual) with this admin.

tomohelix 2y ago

When the legal system is setup to rely so heavily on money that even the government can't go against it, you know shit is bad, yo. Also, say what you will, but the US situation right now, this matter included, is definitely "novel and thought provoking" so if this thread is flagged, I am not convinced the people flagging it are doing it just because of HN rules.

freitasm 2y ago
Add to this the government destroying the institutions that exist to prevent exactly that from happening. It is part of a plan. Tech bros allied to corrupt officials.
- tkel 2y ago
  Capitalists in a capitalist country controlling the country? Color me shocked
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    Attacks on the rule of law are explicitly anti-capitalist, because they're attacks on property rights and contracts. Big business always wants deregulation on the margins, but at some point the law is required to allow business at all.
spwa4 2y ago
But this problem, that money determines effective outcome of legal proceedings is a global problem. And for the same reason as here: governments not protecting people because they refuse to spend the money (and, really, it's not so much about money, it's about effort). Read about child protection in court, "pre-trial" incarceration in New York (which I guess is in the US, yes), what happened to lawyers in the Netherlands, what's happening to social service court claims in France (ie. the government, who are defendants here, just walked out of the courtroom ... and the judge refuses to convict them), ... there's an endless list here.

ggm 2y ago

I'd say most people who work on this kind of zero-sum winner takes all approach to life would call that a win. The rest of us who want regulators who can regulate and believe in a mutuality? less winning. If I put a certain pair of billionaire's names in here, it just annoys people. I guess if they read and can intuit, I don't have to resort to calling anyone "Winnie the Pooh" to get around the noise filters but I am interested what nominative determinism could apply. Elongated names are better. Ones with a suitably fragrant, anal scent gland, Musky kind of smell.

xnx 2y ago

A billionaire's "onerous regulations" are out consumer protections

JohnTHaller 2y ago

After this, the FTC reversed position saying it was "fully prepared" after pressure from the Trump administration.