(arstechnica.com)

572 points gausswho | 1 comments | 08 Jul 25 22:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.212s | source

Show context

John23832 ◴[09 Jul 25 13:14 UTC] No.44509670[source]▶

What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all?

This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

replies(10): >>44509742 #>>44509759 #>>44510095 #>>44510337 #>>44510719 #>>44510834 #>>44511178 #>>44511684 #>>44511936 #>>44516884 #

thrance ◴[09 Jul 25 13:22 UTC] No.44509742[source]▶

>>44509670 #

It serves the current administration's in-group: the ultra-wealthy.

replies(3): >>44509775 #>>44510082 #>>44512499 #

whamlastxmas ◴[09 Jul 25 13:55 UTC] No.44510082[source]▶

>>44509742 #

Got a surprise for you if you think any admins in group isn’t the ultra wealthy

replies(2): >>44510222 #>>44510740 #

1. XorNot ◴[09 Jul 25 14:06 UTC] No.44510222[source]▶

>>44510082 #

"this paper cut is exactly the same as sticking my arm in a wood chipper, which is why I chose the latter..."

↑

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel