5 ms·

I suppose favoring "state's rights" over federal regulation is only a concern for the GOP when they're not getting big tech lobbyist money.

by ndiddy 1y ago

notfromhere 1y ago
its most about where they have and don't have power. the goal is acquisition of power, not some kind of principled stand.
- 9283409232 1y ago
  The point they are making is that for decades GOP would cry states' rights whenever Democrats did something at the federal level but whenever they are in power, states' rights suddenly don't matter.
  - spencerflem 1y ago
    And we should ignore those cries and not discuss them like there is anything deeper.
    - vrosas 1y ago
      People who love dunking on conservatives on twitter don’t realize that saying absurd stuff and then watching liberals wind themselves into a tizzy is like 95% of the GOP’s media strategy.
      - 9283409232 1y ago
        You're being downvoted but you're right and if people spent any time in conservative spaces they would know this. "Owning the libs" has become a meme but this is the point to a lot of what Republicans do.
    - 9283409232 1y ago
      That's not possible. The Republican propaganda machine is very effective and there are many supporters who will vote with the GOP because "states' rights" but will simultaneously vote for all these policies. I don't think the fiercely logical part of HN understands politics and thinks you can just out debate someone into changing their mind but if it was that simple, the GOP would've died out decades ago.
Auracle 1y ago
This is far too sweeping, but when you have California seemingly intent on smothering our AI industry in its crib it makes sense that they’re scared. That said, I think it’d be smarter of the GOP to let California do just that. It’s a chance to move that tech money out of California and into another more regulation friendly state.
- th0ma5 1y ago
  Or California could trailblaze proper regulation! Thanks for posting about the efforts! I'm going to see if I can support them in any way.
  - Auracle 1y ago
    If you could get the whole world on board, sure. However, many other countries aren't going to play ball. When there's a chance (even if it's tiny) that AGI is coming that becomes a huge matter of national security, nevermind economic dominance.
  - xp84 1y ago
    California is not a reliable entity to entrust with such lofty ambitions. This is the same state that banned plastic bags to "save the environment" - did they mandate paper bags then? Renewable, compostable, organic paper? No! They allowed plastic bags to be replaced with... Super thick plastic bags! Which I assure you, stores go through at least 80% as many as before because people usually don't bring bags, but now they're 4-5x the plastic. And they added a ton of regulation on straws based on that literal child's insane napkin math that went viral, that claimed that America uses 7 or 8 straws per man, woman, and child, per day. Now we get to use multiple paper straws that dissolve in your cup immediately. California is awash in best-intentions, but utterly useless and counterproductive, regulation. Just another downside to one-party rule. Neither party does a good job with zero counterbalance to their power and ideas.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > This is the same state that banned plastic bags to "save the environment" - did they mandate paper bags then? Renewable, compostable, organic paper? No! https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4460 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4460 "When the UK Environment Agency did a life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags (PDF) they found that non-woven polypropylene bags needed to be re-used at least 11 times to have lower global warming potential than single-use HDPE, or High-Density Poly-Ethylene, bags. Cotton shopping bags need to be used at least 131 times. Paper bags were the big losers. They aren't likely to survive the 4 uses needed to reach the same global warming potential, but are much more toxic to produce than plastic." 11 uses out of a reusable bag is not a tough threshold to hit. I've got one I know is from 2018 in daily use still and has crossed the Pacific several times.
arrozconcosas 1y ago
States rights don't include control over federal spending, even for someone in the GOP
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  I mean, obviously. But the provision says: > no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act States never got to control Federal spending, AI or otherwise. But the Tenth Amendment pretty strictly limits how much the Feds can control state spending and legislation, too.
  - twoodfin 1y ago
    This doesn’t have anything to do with the 10th Amendment (little does). This is a straightforward declaration of Commerce Clause authority. This SCOTUS has made it clear the “Dormant Commerce Clause” is not stirring awake, so if Congress wants to preempt state regulation of interstate commerce they have to do so explicitly.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > This doesn’t have anything to do with the 10th Amendment (little does). Sure it does. It's basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole again. The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states. They can apply "reasonable conditions" along the lines of "if you do x we will take away related funding y" but the entire point of the Tenth Amendment is that states have more rights than the Feds unless otherwise stated. Federalism as protected by the Tenth means California can require things like "may contain lead" on labels, even though some of those products may be sold outside of California.
      - twoodfin 1y ago
        The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states. They absolutely can when it comes to interstate commerce, which by precedent has a rather broad definition under which this kind of regulation easily fits. Dole was about using spending power to constrain vaguely related state legislative powers. Not the same thing at all. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross is much more relevant: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf If Congress had spoken on pork labeling requirements, California would have been out of luck under the Commerce Clause. But because they hadn’t, California was free to regulate.
tdb7893 1y ago
I think it's good to realize that many people's commitment to "American" values is weak at best. Things like state's rights, equal representation in government, and even "freedom of speech" are often political tools rather than actual values. Reading basic history shows it's always been this way. As a simple historical example the soon to be Confederate states complained about "state's rights" for slavery but when they seceded they enshrined slavery in their constitution and notably didn't leave it up to their states (so clearly that institution was more important to them than state autonomy). It's always been a convenient veneer over policy.
- lesuorac 1y ago
  One things consistent though, a bunch of rich guys banding together to lower their taxes.
- drewbug 1y ago
  Very interesting, but are you sure about that example? Const. of C.S.A. art. I, § 9, ¶ 4 restricted their federal legislature's power: > No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. The next section similarly restricted the states' power to "pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law" but did not reference slavery.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - tdb7893 1y ago
    Maybe I'm wrong but I always interpreted that line as they couldn't pass any laws denying slavery, which would include the states. Lots of the clauses in that article are fairly broad rights that wouldn't make sense if it just restricted the federal government (e.g. the ability to bear arms, the right to not quarter soldiers, the right to reasonable bail) so viewing it as a fundamental restriction, and not just a restriction for Congress, isn't a crazy interpretation (though I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't know). Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority: Article IV Section 3(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
intermerda 1y ago
"States's rights" has always been coded language. Lee Atwater's post Nixon interview gave away the playbook. The hypocrisy is easy to see in that lens. First it started with racial slurs, then welfare queens, racial slurs, big government, states rights, occasional "liberty and freedom" thrown in for good measure. Currently it's DEI and trans. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...
- vrosas 1y ago
  It’s not coded, it’s just bs. Watching democrats cry hypocrite while also resharing the article/tweet/news clip is literally their media strategy.
- hermannj314 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Sure, states have rights. But the political slogan "states' rights" has historically significant usage and connotations that go far beyond that simple fact.

I suppose favoring "state's rights" over federal regulation is only a concern for the GOP when they're not getting big tech lobbyist money.

by ndiddy 1y ago

I suppose favoring "state's rights" over federal regulation is only a concern for the GOP when they're not getting big tech lobbyist money.

notfromhere 1y ago

its most about where they have and don't have power. the goal is acquisition of power, not some kind of principled stand.

9283409232 1y ago
The point they are making is that for decades GOP would cry states' rights whenever Democrats did something at the federal level but whenever they are in power, states' rights suddenly don't matter.
- spencerflem 1y ago
  And we should ignore those cries and not discuss them like there is anything deeper.
  - vrosas 1y ago
    People who love dunking on conservatives on twitter don’t realize that saying absurd stuff and then watching liberals wind themselves into a tizzy is like 95% of the GOP’s media strategy.
    - 9283409232 1y ago
      You're being downvoted but you're right and if people spent any time in conservative spaces they would know this. "Owning the libs" has become a meme but this is the point to a lot of what Republicans do.
  - 9283409232 1y ago
    That's not possible. The Republican propaganda machine is very effective and there are many supporters who will vote with the GOP because "states' rights" but will simultaneously vote for all these policies. I don't think the fiercely logical part of HN understands politics and thinks you can just out debate someone into changing their mind but if it was that simple, the GOP would've died out decades ago.

Auracle 1y ago

This is far too sweeping, but when you have California seemingly intent on smothering our AI industry in its crib it makes sense that they’re scared. That said, I think it’d be smarter of the GOP to let California do just that. It’s a chance to move that tech money out of California and into another more regulation friendly state.

th0ma5 1y ago
Or California could trailblaze proper regulation! Thanks for posting about the efforts! I'm going to see if I can support them in any way.
- Auracle 1y ago
  If you could get the whole world on board, sure. However, many other countries aren't going to play ball. When there's a chance (even if it's tiny) that AGI is coming that becomes a huge matter of national security, nevermind economic dominance.
- xp84 1y ago
  California is not a reliable entity to entrust with such lofty ambitions. This is the same state that banned plastic bags to "save the environment" - did they mandate paper bags then? Renewable, compostable, organic paper? No! They allowed plastic bags to be replaced with... Super thick plastic bags! Which I assure you, stores go through at least 80% as many as before because people usually don't bring bags, but now they're 4-5x the plastic. And they added a ton of regulation on straws based on that literal child's insane napkin math that went viral, that claimed that America uses 7 or 8 straws per man, woman, and child, per day. Now we get to use multiple paper straws that dissolve in your cup immediately. California is awash in best-intentions, but utterly useless and counterproductive, regulation. Just another downside to one-party rule. Neither party does a good job with zero counterbalance to their power and ideas.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > This is the same state that banned plastic bags to "save the environment" - did they mandate paper bags then? Renewable, compostable, organic paper? No! https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4460 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4460 "When the UK Environment Agency did a life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags (PDF) they found that non-woven polypropylene bags needed to be re-used at least 11 times to have lower global warming potential than single-use HDPE, or High-Density Poly-Ethylene, bags. Cotton shopping bags need to be used at least 131 times. Paper bags were the big losers. They aren't likely to survive the 4 uses needed to reach the same global warming potential, but are much more toxic to produce than plastic." 11 uses out of a reusable bag is not a tough threshold to hit. I've got one I know is from 2018 in daily use still and has crossed the Pacific several times.

arrozconcosas 1y ago

States rights don't include control over federal spending, even for someone in the GOP

ceejayoz 1y ago
I mean, obviously. But the provision says: > no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act States never got to control Federal spending, AI or otherwise. But the Tenth Amendment pretty strictly limits how much the Feds can control state spending and legislation, too.
- twoodfin 1y ago
  This doesn’t have anything to do with the 10th Amendment (little does). This is a straightforward declaration of Commerce Clause authority. This SCOTUS has made it clear the “Dormant Commerce Clause” is not stirring awake, so if Congress wants to preempt state regulation of interstate commerce they have to do so explicitly.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > This doesn’t have anything to do with the 10th Amendment (little does). Sure it does. It's basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole again. The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states. They can apply "reasonable conditions" along the lines of "if you do x we will take away related funding y" but the entire point of the Tenth Amendment is that states have more rights than the Feds unless otherwise stated. Federalism as protected by the Tenth means California can require things like "may contain lead" on labels, even though some of those products may be sold outside of California.
    - twoodfin 1y ago
      The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states. They absolutely can when it comes to interstate commerce, which by precedent has a rather broad definition under which this kind of regulation easily fits. Dole was about using spending power to constrain vaguely related state legislative powers. Not the same thing at all. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross is much more relevant: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf If Congress had spoken on pork labeling requirements, California would have been out of luck under the Commerce Clause. But because they hadn’t, California was free to regulate.

tdb7893 1y ago

I think it's good to realize that many people's commitment to "American" values is weak at best. Things like state's rights, equal representation in government, and even "freedom of speech" are often political tools rather than actual values. Reading basic history shows it's always been this way. As a simple historical example the soon to be Confederate states complained about "state's rights" for slavery but when they seceded they enshrined slavery in their constitution and notably didn't leave it up to their states (so clearly that institution was more important to them than state autonomy). It's always been a convenient veneer over policy.

lesuorac 1y ago
One things consistent though, a bunch of rich guys banding together to lower their taxes.
drewbug 1y ago
Very interesting, but are you sure about that example? Const. of C.S.A. art. I, § 9, ¶ 4 restricted their federal legislature's power: > No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. The next section similarly restricted the states' power to "pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law" but did not reference slavery.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tdb7893 1y ago
  Maybe I'm wrong but I always interpreted that line as they couldn't pass any laws denying slavery, which would include the states. Lots of the clauses in that article are fairly broad rights that wouldn't make sense if it just restricted the federal government (e.g. the ability to bear arms, the right to not quarter soldiers, the right to reasonable bail) so viewing it as a fundamental restriction, and not just a restriction for Congress, isn't a crazy interpretation (though I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't know). Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority: Article IV Section 3(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

intermerda 1y ago

"States's rights" has always been coded language. Lee Atwater's post Nixon interview gave away the playbook. The hypocrisy is easy to see in that lens. First it started with racial slurs, then welfare queens, racial slurs, big government, states rights, occasional "liberty and freedom" thrown in for good measure. Currently it's DEI and trans. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...

vrosas 1y ago
It’s not coded, it’s just bs. Watching democrats cry hypocrite while also resharing the article/tweet/news clip is literally their media strategy.
hermannj314 1y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Sure, states have rights. But the political slogan "states' rights" has historically significant usage and connotations that go far beyond that simple fact.