←back to thread

374 points indus | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.809s | source | bottom
1. capital_guy ◴[] No.41917486[source]
Amazing all the newfound lawyers in the HN section here pointing out "loopholes" in the rule and then getting corrected by the next commenter.

The FTC continues to do the good, thankless work of making good public policy. I appreciate it.

replies(4): >>41917507 #>>41917956 #>>41919306 #>>41920027 #
2. 2OEH8eoCRo0 ◴[] No.41917507[source]
But did the FTC think about this loophole that I just thought of in three seconds? I am so smart!
3. barryrandall ◴[] No.41917956[source]
It's almost like they expect the law to be dysfunctional or unevenly applied.
4. tqi ◴[] No.41919306[source]
Do you expect that a year from now (or two, or however long you think is a fair amount of time to pass), online reviews will be noticeably better/more useful than they are today? I think the underlying thread here is that most people don't expect this to be any more effective than anti-spam or anti-robocalling calling rules.
replies(1): >>41919646 #
5. behringer ◴[] No.41919646[source]
Probably, yes.

And by the by, I get significantly less spam and phone calls than I used to. Vastly fewer and they're all clearly scams now, which makes it easy to ignore.

6. m463 ◴[] No.41920027[source]
> The FTC

It seems to me the FTC under Lina Khan. Before that I just don't remember it having so much pro-consumer impact.