> This is really unfortunate. If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?
I see the point, but this business council isn't going to meaningfully influence policy. The policymaking apparatus is huge and this is a tiny, tiny piece of it. However, it does send a signal to Republicans in Congress that the tech $ they want will not play along with Trump. That's a quite important signal.
It's not going to happen unless legislated. That's the whole point. Currently there is no legislation forcing it to happen, but in the future there might be. That might be a good idea, even if the various companies involved don't want to do it.
> and if Indiegogo will even be able to get this past the SEC
If the President gets his SEC Commissioner confirmations, everything should be able to get past the SEC if it simply promotes transactions between people.
>And you don't think the veto translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of tech companies'? Just because you don't like the proposed solution doesn't make it double speak for something you think.
How precisely is not forcing an industry into an inefficient[0] mode of operation 'corrupt regulatory capture'? It's pretty literally the opposite of regulatory capture.
(hence when removing the not the above sentence becomes regulatory capture, regardless of how double-speakily it is described).
> I don't understand why this is surprising. The shareholders already voted to do this once, and it was revoked by a judge in Delaware for obvious political reasons
> This proposal would effectively make the federal government the Executive Chairman of a board.
How? There is nothing in the proposal that puts a government entity on the board. Corporations are already subject to the law and regulations, of course, so changing rules doesn't effectively change the role of government.
>[If only the FTC was bigger and expressed more power, all of our problems would be solved]
I am skeptical. The big players are happy without Section 230 reforms (business as usual), and they’re happier with it (regulatory capture they can afford).
> What would be the precedent if regulatory approvals could be challenged with a change in administration?
That's like someone is approved for a license to own a gun, then that person uses the gun to commit a crime, and then their license is revoked. Then someone points the finger at whoever it was that approved that person for a gun license.
What would be the precedent if a merger approval gave you a free pass to be anti-competitive?
> AT&T has reached an agreement to buy TWC. The deal has been neither reviewed nor approved by regulators (yet).
Then let me ask something else.
What is going on with the boards of these two companies? Do they think this will fly? I believe they certainly must.
I assume that the people in charge of these companies are rational and experienced, and that they considered the regulatory hurdles before moving forward with this deal. They must think they can get away with this plan, otherwise why bother with the trouble and expense of setting it up in the first place?
The SEC is the only financial regulatory body that is a real public institution. Isn't everything else just private corporations who only give the impression that they're public regulatory bodies?
Given Wall Street's lobbying power, the regulatory bodies for Wall Street has always been weak. I don't foresee this changing for the same reason.
> Anyone that thinks the Trump administration is going to lead the charge on reforming these agencies is foolhardy.
I think they were saying that the public (and tech community especially) will demand the reforms because they view Trump as nefarious; not that Trump & co will freely relinquish them.
> I'm afraid this is the same scenario no matter which regulator is in power.
Yes, we trust regulators to regulate effectively and not to single out companies when they do things the president doesn’t like.
> The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race.
How is the prior administration’s policy to towards race and gender in any way relevant to this administration’s policy towards one tech company?
> What's stopping the next administration from doing the same?
Well, if this action results in a drop in public approval of the administration, the next administration is probably not going to be incentivized to do it. Further, this line of questioning provides zero substance as you could ask that question of any scenario. “It’s OK now because no one will be stopped from doing it in the future” is not a valid argument.
> They may not be raising specifically 230 concerns. But democrats are absolutely bringing up anti-trust concerns regarding major tech company.
My comment that you replied to says that democrats in the house have been bringing up anti-trust concerns. Anti-trust and 230 regulation are two separate things done for different reasons. They are not equivalent actions nor do are they being pursued out of the same concerns. Trying to conflate them is wrong.
What makes you think the guy who describes his preferred business model as being to establish a monopoly would do that?
reply