←back to thread

572 points gausswho | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
John23832 ◴[] 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 #
caesil ◴[] No.44510834[source]
If you actually bother to click through and read the article, you'd find the court expressed sympathies with the intent of the rule, but the FTC "is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more", and they did not do that.

The blame here belongs to the FTC for its rushed and sloppy process that put the rule on shaky ground legally.

replies(11): >>44510991 #>>44511010 #>>44511221 #>>44511297 #>>44511415 #>>44512154 #>>44512286 #>>44512289 #>>44514076 #>>44514547 #>>44518196 #
AndrewKemendo ◴[] No.44512286[source]
Why are you carrying water for this?

The FTC didn’t make that rule.

Who do you think created that rule that anything that lost money for advertisers? I’ll give you one guess

The fact that you’re indignant that someone doesn’t agree with the argument is absolutely absurd.

The law/rule constraint was corrupt from the outset in order to provide multiple avenues for capital to ensure they don’t lose their profits.

replies(2): >>44512377 #>>44513181 #
1. wahnfrieden ◴[] No.44512377[source]
Tidy logical explanations of rule systems that click for people are very powerful when they come from authority. There’s a comfort in this sort of bureaucracy that appears to have taken broad considerations to protect us from complex dangers and second order effects.