thwythwy

"If the Court follows the 10th Circuit, then the public has a chance to determine whether it wants to accept that result." The public already has that chance. This isn't helping. It's based on a flawed theory of change that court decisions provoke successful political backlashes that overturn the decisions. Being able to express yourself in a patrician cadence and couch your arguments in terms Courts understand does not make you a net-sum-positive political actor at the highest level of democratic power. This isn't the right time to bring this.

Got it, will make sure to wait until one comment that expressly does all of the things I mentioned, in an impolite and critical way, to make my point.

And Waymo got a deal from Arizona that waived all sales tax and provided for unlimited free gas?! That's outrageous!!

Alex needs to work way harder on this if he wants 130 bucks, LOL

The only way to please HN is to regulate every company in every industry the exact same way at the exact same time, and to ensure the press reports it all happening at the same time, in the same article, with a neutral headline, and without demonizing anyone. "Regulators Regulate Every Company Equally, Irrespective of Varying Justifications. Companies All Reportedly Good Faith Actors, Say Companies," reports Ars Technica.

who are you quoting and what is going on in your life that this is annoying you

this is sometimes referred to as "overcommunicating" and it's good to give yourself permission to do it. Thanks for sharing.

You get that the government is controlled by politics right? The FCC Chair is quite obviously a political appointment based on politics. ISPs get to dig in the public right of way. They have access to what is a natural monopoly of plugging into peoples' homes. Unprofitable infrastructure? How about the fact that these companies take all their cap-ex and throw it into CONTENT then beg the federal government to allow them to throttle their customers so they can charge for the content. Force indeed.

Long live Delaware! You otherins shant try to come on err land and regalate err corporate forms.

The system has a turnkey solution to this sort of thing. Say I'm sorry. Then reassure us in conclusory fashion you didn't do anything really bad (ignore his prior conviction). Formulaic apology that uses phrases like "allowed him to invest" and "funds were received with my permission" to distance from the problem. "Equivalent" future-facing commitment to fund-raise. Return exactly the amount of money that led to your personal benefit, don't mention any gains on the money. Use the word "again" to reiterate empty message. Ok, everyone, ready to move on?

There's no way you're paying attn to the news and believe she doesn't have plans specific to other industries.

Most people here will seize on Better Markets' phrasing rather than addressing the merits of this part of what Warren proposes: (1) "Right from the start . . . Amazon would have to separate its 'Basics' business, which sells products under a house brand, from the rest of Amazon," (2) Google’s advertising business and its search business would have to be split apart. (3) regulators can "undo many of the tech-industry mergers that have already happened, such as Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods and Zappos; Facebook’s takeover of Whatsapp and Instagram; and Google’s purchase of Waze, Nest, and DoubleClick."

Friendly reminder that (1) through (3) are the actual stakes of the policy, not what Vaheesan says to the reporter about forcing companies to "behave in more socially responsible ways." That editorializing will never, ever become law, and it is entirely secondary to the actual debate here.