5 ms·
That symmetrical registration/cancellation is being slow-walked like this is absurd (but under this admin, certainly not surprising).
by RankingMember 1y ago
That symmetrical registration/cancellation is being slow-walked like this is absurd (but under this admin, certainly not surprising).
- lenerdenator 1y agoIt's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoThen explain why the rule was created in the first place?
- mjcl 1y agoDemocrats see government differently than Republicans.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoWell yes, I agree. But GP was saying "government" writ large behaves XYZ.
- collingreen 1y agoWhich absolutely does not imply a monolith of people all working in perfect lock step. It seems like you're looking to fight on the internet - would you consider a different activity instead?
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago> It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. > If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense. No I actually think it's important for people to square views like "government is a way to enrich the owner class" with actual reality, such as the fact that the government when administered by a different party did the exact opposite.
- rapind 1y agoI would be even more specific and say that Lina Khan sees government differently than most Republicans and Democrats.
- coldpie 1y agoI agree, though I think it is worth giving some credit to the people who chose her & appointed her. They didn't have to do that. It was one of the more impressive moves by the previous admin, and won them a lot of points from me.
- ryandrake 1y agoThis administration is making a pattern out of 1. Creating a rule or executive order to score easy political points with their base, and then 2. Immediately walking it back or “postponing” it once those points were scored and their base are not paying attention. Trolling-As-Governance.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- airstrike 1y ago"owner class" is too outdated and myopic. It's also incorrect, as plenty of people born into low income households go on to become elected representatives. It's better to think about it in terms of "people who choose to pursue positions of power to benefit themselves financially while cosplaying as wanting to help the average person".
- flatline 1y agoJust because they weren’t born into the owner class (or “capital class”) doesn’t mean they didn’t work their way into it. That’s kind of the American dream.
- Retric 1y agoYou can only become wealthy later in life at which point you can’t advantage your past self. Thus new money receives fewer benefits than old money from the exact same policies. Further having 100m at 40 doesn’t suddenly bring the kind of social connections that going to the right schools and the right parties would. At the extremes, the average lottery winner is surrounded by people asking for help, the average Fortune 500 CEO’s social circle aren’t. So if they suddenly fall on hard times the lottery winner is stuck but that CEO may very well claw their way back. It’s still possible for poor people to succeed and 3rd+ generation wealth to fail, but the odds are wildly different.
- buran77 1y agoWith any other disadvantaged/discriminated class (skin color, sexual orientation, gender, etc.), getting elected in power doesn't change the disadvantage. So the incentive is still there to fight for that equality. This is not so when it comes to the poor. Once in power they are no longer poor so the incentive to fix any issue related to this almost entirely evaporates.
- MadcapJake 1y agoElected officials should make the average salary from the year prior. If it's not enough to survive then they'll need to do something about it!
- oblio 1y agoNihilism is useless. We've made enormous progress since the first human stepped on this planet so I would say we've disproven nihilism for good. Modern governments are definitely not purely tools for the owner class to enrich themselves.
- fooblaster 1y agoHe's talking about the trump administration, not making a general point about all governments.
- squigz 1y agoGP made no indication it was about this specific administration and not about government in principle.
- tobr 1y agoIt’s abundantly clear from context.
- andrewflnr 1y agoI don't think it was. Certainly that's a position that people have held since long before Trump.
- fuzzer371 1y ago[flagged]
- andrewflnr 1y agoI might just be arguing to argue, but it did read to me like "nothing has really changed"-style cynicism. (I don't personally agree, but that's a different question.)
- rixed 1y ago
- Angostura 1y agoIt’s almost as if the previous administration was focussed more on the former, and the current administration more on the latter. I guess you get the government you vote for.
- NewJazz 1y agoWell, you being collective.
- dylan604 1y ago[flagged]
- garciasn 1y agoI think your comment is pedantic; while I appreciate pedantry, it's a bit absurd. It's a democracy; 'we' get what 'we' voted to have.
- iAMkenough 1y agoAs an appreciator of pedantry, what do you say to those who claim it's more of an "oligarchy" than a "democracy" in the United States these days?
- garciasn 1y ago'We' voted for what 'we' got. The Democrats did not message well enough to win over the majority of the popular vote nor the electoral vote; full stop. So; if we are indeed an oligarchy and not a democracy, the majority want to live in an oligarchy, find other messaging that the GOP puts out as more important in their individual day-to-day lives, or the messaging that the Democrats put out isn't resonating enough to overpower the GOP's. That said, I don't believe in focusing on class-based politics in this day and age; the Supreme Court has made it clear that money is permissible to influence election outcomes and that can and does drive these sorts of structural shifts in politics to allow for the ultra-wealthy to massively influence political outcomes in our country. TL;DR: I would tell someone that being under an oligarchy may be true (I cannot be certain as I'm not a political scientist), but there are other far more important issues TO THE GENERAL ELECTORATE that resonate better and should be the focus of future candidate messaging in order to win the election.
- inquirerGeneral 1y ago[dead]
- shlomo_z 1y ago> but under this admin, certainly not surprising Services have been making it hard to cancel subscriptions for many years, under many parties and administrations. Many things are Trump's fault, this is not one of them.
- arunabha 1y agoChoosing not to enforce the click to cancel rule is not Trump's fault? How so?
- shlomo_z 1y agoLaws get pushed off for all kinds of reasons. It seems like this was pushed off to give businesses more time to comply. Many kinds of businesses have subscriptions, each with a different situation. Some small businesses don't even have a programmer. Requiring a phone call is not always (although often is) to make it difficult to cancel. Often it's because a company doesn't have the proper infrastructure for the frontend. So I think it's reasonable that they are giving companies some time. In the end, I hope that on July 14th this goes through, it will be a big win for consumers. EDIT: My answer didn't fully address the question, so let me add: I don't think is the result of Trump trying to be friends with billionaires for their money. I understand why it seems that way - because he literally does that. But this doesn't seem special or extraordinary. Enforcement of laws gets pushed off all the time.
- arp242 1y agoEverything you're saying makes sense if you assume you're dealing with good faith governance. But we're not. So maybe you're right. I don't know. But I sure as hell wouldn't assume as much based on the words of these people. We'll see in July I guess.
- prasadjoglekar 1y agoIt would be good if folks actually read the FTC letter rather than having a visceral negative reaction. The Biden admin had put the May 14 deadline for certain things even though the rule as a whole went into effect in Jan 2025. Trump's commish is defending that by another 60 days. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/negative-option-rule-delay-commission-statement.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/negative-option...