If the news were that it was being amended to make carve outs for businesses who pay an amount of money, then I would be more inclined to agree.
But the news is that it would be repealed entirely.
This means you could not bribe the government once to protect you from all lawsuits - you would have to bribe each and every judge involved in each and every lawsuit, and/or each and every juror.
1 Billion people sue your company. I don’t think any megacorp would be happy about suddenly having to pay out 1 billion bribes and to do so as a regular ongoing expense.
The least expensive option for the corporations is to not have this repealed. As a result, that is what they would prefer to put that money into instead. Way cheaper to bribe this into not passing than it is to have to do it continuously or multiple times and/or losing those income streams.
Sure, but my point is that it does not mean they want to. They will take the cheapest option possible - if there isn’t one, they usually try to invent a new cheaper option for themselves. In the realm of bribery, if you are going to bribe people anyway, why wouldn’t you pay a couple bribes to avoid paying indefinite bribes?
It’s complicated. Only a few companies can afford to pay out bribes to avoid lawsuits, which means they’d effectively be destroying all of their competition in exchange. Bluesky and Lemmy can’t afford to pay their way out of lawsuits, after all. This would be a handy win for total monopolization of the internet under only a few companies, even if it might also be expensive.
On top of that they were starting down the barrel of FTC for monopoly practices, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some kind of backroom deal with the government here. Maybe if the tech companies allow Section 230 to be repealed and for age-verification laws to pass, the government doesn’t force their companies to be broken up in antitrust actions.
If the news were that it was being amended to make carve outs for businesses who pay an amount of money, then I would be more inclined to agree.
But the news is that it would be repealed entirely.
This means you could not bribe the government once to protect you from all lawsuits - you would have to bribe each and every judge involved in each and every lawsuit, and/or each and every juror.
1 Billion people sue your company. I don’t think any megacorp would be happy about suddenly having to pay out 1 billion bribes and to do so as a regular ongoing expense.
The least expensive option for the corporations is to not have this repealed. As a result, that is what they would prefer to put that money into instead. Way cheaper to bribe this into not passing than it is to have to do it continuously or multiple times and/or losing those income streams.
Functionally every law has a carve out for businesses who pay an amount of money.
Sure, but my point is that it does not mean they want to. They will take the cheapest option possible - if there isn’t one, they usually try to invent a new cheaper option for themselves. In the realm of bribery, if you are going to bribe people anyway, why wouldn’t you pay a couple bribes to avoid paying indefinite bribes?
It’s complicated. Only a few companies can afford to pay out bribes to avoid lawsuits, which means they’d effectively be destroying all of their competition in exchange. Bluesky and Lemmy can’t afford to pay their way out of lawsuits, after all. This would be a handy win for total monopolization of the internet under only a few companies, even if it might also be expensive.
On top of that they were starting down the barrel of FTC for monopoly practices, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some kind of backroom deal with the government here. Maybe if the tech companies allow Section 230 to be repealed and for age-verification laws to pass, the government doesn’t force their companies to be broken up in antitrust actions.
I have no idea what is going to happen.