The Wall Street regulation overhaul gives FTC authority over the Internet | Hacker News Reader

The Wall Street regulation overhaul gives FTC authority over the Internet

hotair.com

12 pointsCalamitous6 comments

This is a somewhat misleading presentation (unsurprisingly, given the source). The Washington Post article it links to is somewhat more informative:

The version of regulatory overhaul legislation passed by the House would allow the FTC to issue rules on a fast track and permit the agency to impose civil penalties on companies that hurt consumers.

[...]

Advertisers and retailers, for example, are wary of new rules from the FTC, which acts as their primary enforcement agency. The House financial overhaul bill would make it easier for the FTC to issue rules on privacy that would curtail an advertiser's ability to collect personal data on consumers' Web habits.

A much more detailed analysis of the FTC changes here: http://thebalanceact.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/today-at-the-a...

You can read the text of the house bill here: http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regu...

The Wall street Journal rather likes the House bill, or at least significant parts of it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125729617077326787.html ..and yes, those things are still in there.

The liberal front page of the WSJ might like it, but the conservative editorial board doesn't; here's the most recent house editorial on the subject: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22his+achievements+include+h...

Here's Wikipedia on the Journal's split personalities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSJ#News_and_opinion

That editorial doesn't even mention the house bill, but confines its opinions to the Senate one. I take your point, but I hope we can do better than just competing links or editorial opinions. I tried to include a fair amount of other substantive information about this legislation.

Well, I'm not interested in debating this bill now or in this thread (I'm waiting until it's in a more final form and we e.g. see how much Dodd has changed the heinous angel provisions or they get amended by others); my link was just for illustrating my point that you can't say "the Wall Street Journal supports X" without qualifying which part, the front page or editorial board.

ADDED: However for most other papers you can say e.g. You can generally say "The New York Times says" without worrying about which part. E.g. look here where the New York Times deep sixed language critical of the Obama Administration's response to the Gulf oil leak in less than a day: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/98559/

Wow. This article has it all:

Hypocracy - They accuse democrats of fear-mongering, then proceed to do it themselves.

Red herrings - He opposes the democrats' use of attaching riders to bills. Of course he doen't mention that this tactic is hardly unique to them, nor is it really relevant.

Blatant disregard of the real issues - He doesn't mention that this amendment is really about leaving the Internet alone, not making things worse. Not one mention of net neutrality.

All in all, I'd say that this is partisan crap that doesn't belong on the front page.

> Red herrings - He opposes the democrats' use of attaching riders to bills. Of course he doen't mention that this tactic is hardly unique to them, nor is it really relevant.

Unless you're not arguing that "everyone does it" makes it right ....

However, it is nice to know that you won't complain when Repubs do it in the future. Right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com