

The Wall Street regulation overhaul gives FTC authority over the Internet - Calamitous
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/01/why-does-the-wall-street-regulation-overhaul-give-ftc-authority-over-the-internet/

======
anigbrowl
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...](http://thebalanceact.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/today-at-the-aba-
expanding-the-ftc%E2%80%99s-role-through-financial-reform/)

You can read the text of the house bill here:
[http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regu...](http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/FinancialRegulatoryReform/hr4173eh.pdf)

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.

~~~
hga
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...](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22his+achievements+include+having+predicted+the+financial+panic+of+2008.+It+was+a%22+site%3Awsj.com)

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

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

~~~
hga
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/>

------
j_baker
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.

~~~
anamax
> 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?

