Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Quizzical · April 2021

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Utinni said:
I wouldn't call giving the state election board the power to invalidate ballots at their own discretion a "minor thing" when it comes to democracy.

Here's the text of the bill in question:

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498

Either the offending provision that you're referring to exists somewhere in particular in that bill, or else it doesn't exist at all. The bill is marked with line numbers for easy reference.

The reason no one has pointed out this is exactly the offending provision to you is that it doesn't exist. As I said, it's a lunatic conspiracy theory. But feel free to try to find it yourself if you want.

Sections 6 and 7 (starting on line 267) is probably what you're referring to, but it doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Feel free to read it yourself, or anything else in the bill, for that matter. If there actually is something egregiously bad in the bill, I'd like to know about it. But while lots of people assert that it must be there somewhere, no one seems to be able to actually find it.

Section 5. Lines 184-191 are a good start. Perhaps you think having a majority legislature circumvent the chain and push the Secretary of State aside when he doesn't fall in line is appropriate though?

That's all you've got?

Under prior Georgia law, the state had an election board with five members:
1) the secretary of state
2) one chosen by the state senate
3) one chosen by the state house
4) one Republican
5) one Democrat

The bill modified the state election board to replace seat (1) on it by a nonpartisan person chosen by the state legislature instead of the secretary of state. The idea was that the entire board should consist of people not personally running in elections, as opposed to the secretary of state, who is elected. The goal is to avoid conflict of interests, where a secretary of state could make decisions that would affect his own race for re-election.

The only way that this change could affect which party has a majority on the state election board is if the state senate is held by one party and the state house by the other. (If both houses are held by the same party, they'd have seats (2), (3), and either (4) or (5).) Under the new law, the two chambers controlled by different parties have to agree on a chairperson. Under the old law, the party of the secretary of state would have a majority.

You might think that that change is a good idea or a bad idea. But it's not even a big change.

Vrika · April 2021

Imho banning people who are convicted for certain crimes is ok. But as long as it's happened offline, it should be based only on conviction.

Companies do not set the laws, governments do it. Or that was the case until now. This Amazon's policy is one step towards situation where if big tech companies all set the same ban rule on something, they have the power to ruin just about anyone's lives by preventing access to all their products and services, and de facto same power to set law as actual governments do.

Ungood · April 2021

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Slapshot1188 said:
Suppose I'm a Twitch Streamer who is accused of being a drug dealer. Twitch shuts me down. I lose my livelihood. 6 months later I am exonerated and it turns out I was not involved in any way. Too bad for me? Is that the world we want to live in? Where mere accusations can be treated as findings of truth?

I just want to get back to that. People are saying that this is OK? I'm not even talking about whether Twitch can legally do so. I am asking if we really want to live in a world where we do not wait for the legal process to play out, assume guilt based on accusation, and can take someone's livelihood away based on that mere accusation.

And it's not just Twitch. Twitch is part of Amazon. Perhaps I am a seller on the Amazon marketplace accused of the same... and lose my business because of a mere accusation.
Amazon is a behemoth. They are not your mom and pop store. They truly are growing closer to a utility (not quite there yet IMHO but they will get there). Should the private electric company turn off your power because they don't like something you are rumored to have said to your neighbor?

The number of people working for MLB who genuinely believe that a random bill that does a bunch of minor things to clean up election procedures is worse than the Uighur genocide is surely zero. But trolls pressured them about the former and not the latter, so they caved to the trolls on the former and tried to make money on the latter.

I wouldn't call giving the state election board the power to invalidate ballots at their own discretion a "minor thing" when it comes to democracy.

Here's the text of the bill in question:

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498

Either the offending provision that you're referring to exists somewhere in particular in that bill, or else it doesn't exist at all. The bill is marked with line numbers for easy reference.

The reason no one has pointed out this is exactly the offending provision to you is that it doesn't exist. As I said, it's a lunatic conspiracy theory. But feel free to try to find it yourself if you want.

Sections 6 and 7 (starting on line 267) is probably what you're referring to, but it doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Feel free to read it yourself, or anything else in the bill, for that matter. If there actually is something egregiously bad in the bill, I'd like to know about it. But while lots of people assert that it must be there somewhere, no one seems to be able to actually find it.

Section 5. Lines 184-191 are a good start. Perhaps you think having a majority legislature circumvent the chain and push the Secretary of State aside when he doesn't fall in line is appropriate though?

Just for clarity as to why this is being done.
Here's a phone call of the georgia Sec of State refusing to commit election fraud at the behest of his parties leader

Here is also the same Sec of State confirming no evidence of voter fraud.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/11/georgia-secretary-of-state-brad-raffensperger-recount-no-widespread-fraud-sot-tsr-vpx.cnn

Now why would you take away power over elections from someone who refuses to commit fraud unless your goal was to commit fraud and he got in the way.

Would you like it if you were terminated for presenting this view on Social Media?

No one cares if you think this is true or not, just in case you want to try and make some grand stand about it being True, truth means less than nothing in this case. Amazon feels that this falls under the potential of "Terrorism" as it Undermines the Sitting President and might cause unrest, and thus removes you from their platform, they also cancel your Amazon account from the main company, this involves any and all their products or services, including any games of theirs that you might play. On top of that they terminate any and every family member, close friend, or follower you have on your twitter account, to prevent any future problems, and well as fire/terminate any close friends or relatives that work for them directly, again simply as a precautionary measure.

You would be fine with that?

BeansnBread · April 2021

Ungood said:

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Slapshot1188 said:
Suppose I'm a Twitch Streamer who is accused of being a drug dealer. Twitch shuts me down. I lose my livelihood. 6 months later I am exonerated and it turns out I was not involved in any way. Too bad for me? Is that the world we want to live in? Where mere accusations can be treated as findings of truth?

I just want to get back to that. People are saying that this is OK? I'm not even talking about whether Twitch can legally do so. I am asking if we really want to live in a world where we do not wait for the legal process to play out, assume guilt based on accusation, and can take someone's livelihood away based on that mere accusation.

And it's not just Twitch. Twitch is part of Amazon. Perhaps I am a seller on the Amazon marketplace accused of the same... and lose my business because of a mere accusation.
Amazon is a behemoth. They are not your mom and pop store. They truly are growing closer to a utility (not quite there yet IMHO but they will get there). Should the private electric company turn off your power because they don't like something you are rumored to have said to your neighbor?

The number of people working for MLB who genuinely believe that a random bill that does a bunch of minor things to clean up election procedures is worse than the Uighur genocide is surely zero. But trolls pressured them about the former and not the latter, so they caved to the trolls on the former and tried to make money on the latter.

I wouldn't call giving the state election board the power to invalidate ballots at their own discretion a "minor thing" when it comes to democracy.

Here's the text of the bill in question:

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498

Either the offending provision that you're referring to exists somewhere in particular in that bill, or else it doesn't exist at all. The bill is marked with line numbers for easy reference.

The reason no one has pointed out this is exactly the offending provision to you is that it doesn't exist. As I said, it's a lunatic conspiracy theory. But feel free to try to find it yourself if you want.

Sections 6 and 7 (starting on line 267) is probably what you're referring to, but it doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Feel free to read it yourself, or anything else in the bill, for that matter. If there actually is something egregiously bad in the bill, I'd like to know about it. But while lots of people assert that it must be there somewhere, no one seems to be able to actually find it.

Section 5. Lines 184-191 are a good start. Perhaps you think having a majority legislature circumvent the chain and push the Secretary of State aside when he doesn't fall in line is appropriate though?

Just for clarity as to why this is being done.
Here's a phone call of the georgia Sec of State refusing to commit election fraud at the behest of his parties leader

Here is also the same Sec of State confirming no evidence of voter fraud.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/11/georgia-secretary-of-state-brad-raffensperger-recount-no-widespread-fraud-sot-tsr-vpx.cnn

Now why would you take away power over elections from someone who refuses to commit fraud unless your goal was to commit fraud and he got in the way.

Would you like it if you were terminated for presenting this view on Social Media?

No one cares if you think this is true or not, just in case you want to try and make some grand stand about it being True, truth means less than nothing in this case. Amazon feels that this falls under the potential of "Terrorism" as it Undermines the Sitting President and might cause unrest, and thus removes you from their platform, they also cancel your Amazon account from the main company, this involves any and all their products or services, including any games of theirs that you might play. On top of that they terminate any and every family member, close friend, or follower you have on your twitter account, to prevent any future problems, and well as fire/terminate any close friends or relatives that work for them directly, again simply as a precautionary measure.

You would be fine with that?

Who cares if you're fine with it? There aren't laws that preserve your right to post on Twitter or buy stuff on Amazon (unless you are a protected class and they are discriminating based on that).

Quizzical · April 2021

Utinni said:
Here is also the same Sec of State confirming no evidence of voter fraud.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/11/georgia-secretary-of-state-brad-raffensperger-recount-no-widespread-fraud-sot-tsr-vpx.cnn

Now why would you take away power over elections from someone who refuses to commit fraud unless your goal was to commit fraud and he got in the way.

If you believe that the bill is aimed at sidelining Raffensperger, then why did he defend it?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kemp-raffensperger-respond-to-criticism-of-new-voting-law/ar-BB1f0uiB

Ungood · April 2021

BeansnBread said:

Ungood said:

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Slapshot1188 said:
Suppose I'm a Twitch Streamer who is accused of being a drug dealer. Twitch shuts me down. I lose my livelihood. 6 months later I am exonerated and it turns out I was not involved in any way. Too bad for me? Is that the world we want to live in? Where mere accusations can be treated as findings of truth?

I just want to get back to that. People are saying that this is OK? I'm not even talking about whether Twitch can legally do so. I am asking if we really want to live in a world where we do not wait for the legal process to play out, assume guilt based on accusation, and can take someone's livelihood away based on that mere accusation.

And it's not just Twitch. Twitch is part of Amazon. Perhaps I am a seller on the Amazon marketplace accused of the same... and lose my business because of a mere accusation.
Amazon is a behemoth. They are not your mom and pop store. They truly are growing closer to a utility (not quite there yet IMHO but they will get there). Should the private electric company turn off your power because they don't like something you are rumored to have said to your neighbor?

The number of people working for MLB who genuinely believe that a random bill that does a bunch of minor things to clean up election procedures is worse than the Uighur genocide is surely zero. But trolls pressured them about the former and not the latter, so they caved to the trolls on the former and tried to make money on the latter.

I wouldn't call giving the state election board the power to invalidate ballots at their own discretion a "minor thing" when it comes to democracy.

Here's the text of the bill in question:

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498

Either the offending provision that you're referring to exists somewhere in particular in that bill, or else it doesn't exist at all. The bill is marked with line numbers for easy reference.

The reason no one has pointed out this is exactly the offending provision to you is that it doesn't exist. As I said, it's a lunatic conspiracy theory. But feel free to try to find it yourself if you want.

Sections 6 and 7 (starting on line 267) is probably what you're referring to, but it doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Feel free to read it yourself, or anything else in the bill, for that matter. If there actually is something egregiously bad in the bill, I'd like to know about it. But while lots of people assert that it must be there somewhere, no one seems to be able to actually find it.

Section 5. Lines 184-191 are a good start. Perhaps you think having a majority legislature circumvent the chain and push the Secretary of State aside when he doesn't fall in line is appropriate though?

Just for clarity as to why this is being done.
Here's a phone call of the georgia Sec of State refusing to commit election fraud at the behest of his parties leader

Here is also the same Sec of State confirming no evidence of voter fraud.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/11/georgia-secretary-of-state-brad-raffensperger-recount-no-widespread-fraud-sot-tsr-vpx.cnn

Now why would you take away power over elections from someone who refuses to commit fraud unless your goal was to commit fraud and he got in the way.

Would you like it if you were terminated for presenting this view on Social Media?

No one cares if you think this is true or not, just in case you want to try and make some grand stand about it being True, truth means less than nothing in this case. Amazon feels that this falls under the potential of "Terrorism" as it Undermines the Sitting President and might cause unrest, and thus removes you from their platform, they also cancel your Amazon account from the main company, this involves any and all their products or services, including any games of theirs that you might play. On top of that they terminate any and every family member, close friend, or follower you have on your twitter account, to prevent any future problems, and well as fire/terminate any close friends or relatives that work for them directly, again simply as a precautionary measure.

You would be fine with that?

Who cares if you're fine with it? There aren't laws that preserve your right to post on Twitter or buy stuff on Amazon (unless you are a protected class and they are discriminating based on that).

So you are fine with that.. good to know.

BeansnBread · April 2021

I think the strange thing about this is how expensive this sounds to implement. Are they going to create an investigations department to investigate whether people are being investigated?

I think it's either a hollow promise to make woke people happy or it's a terrible idea. I want to see what happens when the first case comes up where someone doesn't do anything wrong on stream, but gets banned for, say, getting a DUI.

What happened with Dr. Disrespect by the way? Was he banned for something off stream?

Iselin · April 2021

BeansnBread said:

What happened with Dr. Disrespect by the way? Was he banned for something off stream?

No one who knows has talked although that hasn't stopped many from speculating all kinds of shit.

He's on YT now and has been there for months. So whatever it was, it doesn't seem to bother Google.

FrodoFragins · April 2021

Ungood said:

FrodoFragins said:

Sandmanjw said:

Huge lawsuit incoming...............

About time too...these companies thinking to be the moral/thought police need to be reined in...soon.

You have a choice not to work for them. companies generally have clauses that they can fire you for conduct detrimental to the image of the company. Including your off hours. No lawsuit would get far as there are no laws protecting you for what you do outside of work.

The last thing companies want to deal with is BS related to employees behavior or social media statements. You're free to say and do what you want and they are free to fire your ass.

Should they be free to terminate you because they don't like your political views?

It's a question, because ideally that is where this all will end, you will have a world view, or a belief, they they will find unacceptable, and currently, while religious views are protected by the EOE, political ones, are not.

Too many people are extending political views to mean pushing lies about massive voter fraud. You can be conservative and not regurgitate the clear lies of the politicians.

Just stop outright lying and claiming it as truth.

FrodoFragins · April 2021

olepi said:

Let's say I have been convicted of bank robbery. I want to go on a platform and post a recipe for tuna casserole.

Is it fair for them to prevent me from posting the recipe?

I'm certainly not violating any TOS, and obviously tuna casserole isn't dangerous to anybody. Under what grounds are they banning it?

It depends if part of your application specified revealing all past felonies. If you hid it then yep they sure can.

Ungood · April 2021

Also, just to clear something up, there is no such thing as a "Protected Class" person in the United States. In case anyone was wondering, Just because someone might think they are a "Protected Class", perhaps due EOE's rules that a business cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, or sexual orientation, this does not mean that a compony cannot refuse them service for other non-discriminatory reasons.

Just in case people had some illusion that there were some kind of "Protected Class" people that are entitled to receive a service no matter what. This simply does not exist in America.

Ungood · April 2021

FrodoFragins said:

Ungood said:

FrodoFragins said:

Sandmanjw said:

Huge lawsuit incoming...............

About time too...these companies thinking to be the moral/thought police need to be reined in...soon.

You have a choice not to work for them. companies generally have clauses that they can fire you for conduct detrimental to the image of the company. Including your off hours. No lawsuit would get far as there are no laws protecting you for what you do outside of work.

The last thing companies want to deal with is BS related to employees behavior or social media statements. You're free to say and do what you want and they are free to fire your ass.

Should they be free to terminate you because they don't like your political views?

It's a question, because ideally that is where this all will end, you will have a world view, or a belief, they they will find unacceptable, and currently, while religious views are protected by the EOE, political ones, are not.

Too many people are extending political views to mean pushing lies about massive voter fraud. You can be conservative and not regurgitate the clear lies of the politicians.

Just stop outright lying and claiming it as truth.

You are under the illusion that what you think is Truth matters in politics. It doesn't, never has really, hard reality is, unless you are some top operative in the CIA, or other intel organization, you really have no idea what is TRUE about what is going on, and that is because all media is controlled by organizations with a political agenda, and Amazon will not be any different.

See, "Truth" and 2 dollars almost might get you a coffee at Starbucks.. that is how little it's worth.

katzklaw · April 2021

lol nah. 2 bucks will get you a truck stop coffee. fancy Starbux gonna set you back some bux

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

People keep talking about the corner bakery. This is Amazon. They are bigger than 80% of the COUNTRIES in the world... and growing.

They have a reach and impact that is closer to that of a government. And it's not just them. Imagine that Microsoft decided that you couldn't use Windows because they didn't like who you voted for. So you lose your job... Hey... private company so that's cool right?

That is utterly chilling to me.

Again... these are MEGACORPORATIONS larger than most governments in the world.

Are you saying they need to be regulated?

I think there is a fundamental difference between a local store and a megacorp larger than 80% of the worlds countries. If you look at my old posts I am consistent about this. I do not believe these should exist. I mean, facebook and Twitter and the like... those are big (or massive) companies but they are fairly narrow in scope. The Apples and Alphabets of the world are the next level as they are multi-channel. Amazon to me is the most dangerous company on the planet because they are into EVERYTHING:  Movies, TV, sports, gaming, clothing, electronics, shipping, medicine/prescriptions, webservers, broadband internet, WholeFoods...

Just wait until all their warehouses are fully automated and their cost of labor becomes a tiny fraction of what it is now. They simply will not have any legitimate competition. It's coming... and not too far in the future. They already have stores that have no checkout.

I have no problem if the local baker wants to ban you from the store because their cousin Bobby said you were an "American terrorist". The impact of a local baker isn't a blip on the power that Amazon wields and that is just going to grow. History has had instances where companies grew to hold too much power. This isn't really a new phenomenon. Where that line is... I don't know but I DO know that it's been crossed when you are bigger (revenue) than 4 out of 5 countries on the planet.

Welcome to left of center

Far from it my friend. But I don't slot in neatly with any particular group. Unfortunately all political groups today just get more and more polarized where "their" guy is always the greatest and the "other" guy is a demon/devil. This is the fundamental problem with the 2 party system we have here in the US. Compromise is a dirty word.

To be clear... if Amazon did not own Twitch I would have a much less visceral reaction. There are other streaming services. But Amazon is a beast unto itself and honestly they are at the point where they are too big. One can't simply divest themselves of dealing with them and it's only starting. Each year they grow and each year they take more market share, in more diverse channels. Imagine not being able to watch a movie, a TV show, your favorite sports team, play video games with your kids or friends, purchase something online, get medicine delivered in the fastest/most cost effective way, host your business on the web, have your packages delivered, or even buy food... because Amazon thought that you MIGHT (not even proven) did something they thought did not align with their vision. Much of that could happen right now and the rest of that is coming over the next few years. They will take more and more market share in spaces like online pharmacies... heck maybe even end up being the provider you HAVE to use according to your insurance plan.

And I think as someone else pointed out, even if there are other potential avenues... they are useless if they act in concert with Amazon.

So I don't want any regulations on Mom and Pop stores that dictate how they interact with their customers. Not even really big ones that have competition. But when its a multi-channel company that is in the top 20% size-wise of all COUNTRIES in the world... they need to be treated differently. Honestly I think they need to spin off all their side companies. Then they can feel free to ban whoever they want, with the then REAL possibility that the market can respond and choose alternatives.

They literally have 7 times the market share in the US Ecommerce space than their closest competitor (Walmart). And that's just a sliver of their power. When you add in their other companies... the power they wield is sickening.

Quizzical · April 2021

Torval said:

Quizzical said:

Utinni said:
Here is also the same Sec of State confirming no evidence of voter fraud.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/11/georgia-secretary-of-state-brad-raffensperger-recount-no-widespread-fraud-sot-tsr-vpx.cnn

Now why would you take away power over elections from someone who refuses to commit fraud unless your goal was to commit fraud and he got in the way.

If you believe that the bill is aimed at sidelining Raffensperger, then why did he defend it?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kemp-raffensperger-respond-to-criticism-of-new-voting-law/ar-BB1f0uiB

Why does McConnell filibuster his own bills? Why does he threaten corporations for political opinions while taking in $50M in corporate "donations" annually?

What does this have to do with Amazon Twitch banning users for crossing social contract lines?

How is the procedure likely to be implemented in the real world? Is Twitch going to put a bunch of effort into tracking down and gratuitously banning people who weren't causing any trouble for them? Of course not. It's going to be a bunch of trolls accusing someone of something, and then Twitch will decide that it's easier to just ban one person to appease the trolls. Just like MLB moving the all-star game. Or Amazon dropping Parler. Or plenty of other things.

Horusra · April 2021

Youtube has beening banning creators for offline behavior for a long time.

Iselin · April 2021

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

People keep talking about the corner bakery. This is Amazon. They are bigger than 80% of the COUNTRIES in the world... and growing.

They have a reach and impact that is closer to that of a government. And it's not just them. Imagine that Microsoft decided that you couldn't use Windows because they didn't like who you voted for. So you lose your job... Hey... private company so that's cool right?

That is utterly chilling to me.

Again... these are MEGACORPORATIONS larger than most governments in the world.

Are you saying they need to be regulated?

I think there is a fundamental difference between a local store and a megacorp larger than 80% of the worlds countries. If you look at my old posts I am consistent about this. I do not believe these should exist. I mean, facebook and Twitter and the like... those are big (or massive) companies but they are fairly narrow in scope. The Apples and Alphabets of the world are the next level as they are multi-channel. Amazon to me is the most dangerous company on the planet because they are into EVERYTHING:  Movies, TV, sports, gaming, clothing, electronics, shipping, medicine/prescriptions, webservers, broadband internet, WholeFoods...

Just wait until all their warehouses are fully automated and their cost of labor becomes a tiny fraction of what it is now. They simply will not have any legitimate competition. It's coming... and not too far in the future. They already have stores that have no checkout.

I have no problem if the local baker wants to ban you from the store because their cousin Bobby said you were an "American terrorist". The impact of a local baker isn't a blip on the power that Amazon wields and that is just going to grow. History has had instances where companies grew to hold too much power. This isn't really a new phenomenon. Where that line is... I don't know but I DO know that it's been crossed when you are bigger (revenue) than 4 out of 5 countries on the planet.

Welcome to left of center

Far from it my friend. But I don't slot in neatly with any particular group. Unfortunately all political groups today just get more and more polarized where "their" guy is always the greatest and the "other" guy is a demon/devil. This is the fundamental problem with the 2 party system we have here in the US. Compromise is a dirty word.

To be clear... if Amazon did not own Twitch I would have a much less visceral reaction. There are other streaming services. But Amazon is a beast unto itself and honestly they are at the point where they are too big. One can't simply divest themselves of dealing with them and it's only starting. Each year they grow and each year they take more market share, in more diverse channels. Imagine not being able to watch a movie, a TV show, your favorite sports team, play video games with your kids or friends, purchase something online, get medicine delivered in the fastest/most cost effective way, host your business on the web, have your packages delivered, or even buy food... because Amazon thought that you MIGHT (not even proven) did something they thought did not align with their vision. Much of that could happen right now and the rest of that is coming over the next few years. They will take more and more market share in spaces line online pharmacies... heck maybe even end up being the provider you HAVE to use according to your insurance plan.

And I think as someone else pointed out, even if there are other potential avenues... they are useless if they act in concert with Amazon.

So I don't want any regulations on Mom and Pop stores that dictate how they interact with their customers. Not even really big ones that have competition. But when its a multi-channel company that is in the top 20% size-wise of all COUNTRIES in the world... they need to be treated differently. Honestly I think they need to spin off all their side companies. Then they can feel free to ban whoever they want, with the then REAL possibility that the market can respond and choose alternatives.

They literally have 7 times the market share in the US Ecommerce space than their closest competitor (Walmart). And that's just a sliver of their power. When you add in their other companies... the power they wield is sickening.

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. Regulations are needed to regulate those who need to be regulated not successful Mom and Pop convenience stores.

The problem however is who does the regulating and how partisan or non partisan they are. Theoretically the government is us, the people, but that's a laugh and they have become an entity unto themselves that does not act in the best interest of the people other than in token or inescapable situations.

I honestly think it might be too late because you need megabucks to be elected to anything more influential than dog catcher and those megabucks go to them with a lot of strings attached. At best you'll see them going after one megacorp for political reasons while ignoring others.

Big tech is actually a favorite target of the right because they are perceived to be woke liberals. I have no idea if that's true or not but I have heard the rhetoric. How about going equally after Amazon, Apple but also big pharma or CVS Health or Shell or any of the other megacorps that may not be so liberal?

Like I said, I'm a long time pro-regulator of those too big and those who can't regulate themselves. I don't play favorites with who to do it to. A lot more megacorps than Amazon need oversight.

Horusra · April 2021

Big Pharma and oil companies are heavily regulated.

Iselin · April 2021

Horusra said:

Big Pharma and oil companies are heavily regulated.

Yes. That's what they want you to think.

Horusra · April 2021

Iselin said:

Horusra said:

Big Pharma and oil companies are heavily regulated.

Yes. That's what they want you to think.

Right.....

Iselin · April 2021

Horusra said:

Iselin said:

Horusra said:

Big Pharma and oil companies are heavily regulated.

Yes. That's what they want you to think.

Right.....

https://law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-5/issue-2/essays/thieves-pharma-power-help-government-regulation.html

It's a long read though.

Horusra · April 2021

Iselin said:

Horusra said:

Iselin said:

Horusra said:

Big Pharma and oil companies are heavily regulated.

Yes. That's what they want you to think.

Right.....

https://law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-5/issue-2/essays/thieves-pharma-power-help-government-regulation.html

It's a long read though.

Just reading the first sentence under Government Regulation I do not by the premise that regulations are to ensure business serve the public good. They are to ensure safety and standards. Seems...and I have not read it all...this is an article pushing price controls.

YashaX · April 2021

Horusra said:

Iselin said:

Horusra said:

Iselin said:

Horusra said:

Big Pharma and oil companies are heavily regulated.

Yes. That's what they want you to think.

Right.....

https://law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-5/issue-2/essays/thieves-pharma-power-help-government-regulation.html

It's a long read though.

Just reading the first sentence under Government Regulation I do not by the premise that regulations are to ensure business serve the public good. They are to ensure safety and standards. Seems...and I have not read it all...this is an article pushing price controls.

If only you had read the second sentence

Iselin · April 2021

Horusra said:
...this is an article pushing price controls.

Not just that, It's an article about what is and isn't regulated.

Besides, speaking as a consumer, an article in favor of regulating the prices of drugs sick people need to survive is so bad you would think of it as "pushing"?

Interesting.

Horusra · April 2021

YashaX said:

Horusra said:

Iselin said:

Horusra said:

Iselin said:

Horusra said:

Big Pharma and oil companies are heavily regulated.

Yes. That's what they want you to think.

Right.....

https://law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-5/issue-2/essays/thieves-pharma-power-help-government-regulation.html

It's a long read though.

Just reading the first sentence under Government Regulation I do not by the premise that regulations are to ensure business serve the public good. They are to ensure safety and standards. Seems...and I have not read it all...this is an article pushing price controls.

If only you had read the second sentence

Second sentence is just that it is not know (to the write) the effectiveness to the public. If you want to use an unquatifiable quality like "public good" it would be unknown. If you are looking at safety and standards you can quantify the numbers depending on the business.

Howdy, Stranger!

Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Comments