Biden Executive Order Urges Greater Scrutiny of Big Tech M&A, Restoring Net Neutrality Rules (variety.com) 64
President Biden is signing an executive order Friday urging federal agencies to more aggressively police conduct by Big Tech -- including to more closely review acquisitions that thwart competition. The action comes amid a growing backlash by lawmakers and regulators against massive Silicon Valley firms. From a report: Biden's order doesn't name the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon or Apple but the White House says it addresses "areas in which dominant tech firms are undermining competition and reducing innovation," including M&A, data collection and the "right to repair" devices. The order, "Promoting Competition in the American Economy," isn't just aimed at Big Tech. The sweeping set of recommendations also includes provisions targeted at internet service providers -- including an official call to restore net neutrality rules repealed under Trump -- as well as healthcare, agriculture, transportation, and banking and consumer finance. All told, Biden's executive order includes 72 initiatives directed at more than a dozen federal agencies to "promptly tackle some of the most pressing competition problems across our economy," according to a White House press release.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool! Congress is great at acting. King Lear, Macbeth, they know all the tragedies by heart.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Cool! Congress is great at acting. King Lear, Macbeth, they know all the tragedies by heart.
Yeah, long ago I decided that the politicians are just actors. They chose a part to play (whether Demican or Republicrat), and pretend they care about those lofty goals. They are only there for the money.
Re: (Score:1)
Politics is just showbusiness for ugly people.
Re: (Score:2)
In response to an AC's comment:
Politics is just showbusiness for ugly people.
VertosCay confessed:
Great quote! I'll be stealing that one.
Just make sure you attribute it to Bill Maher, who delivered that line in 1990, in a monologue on his program "Politically Incorrect" ...
Re: (Score:2)
It's nothing more than a wish list if it has no teeth.
Lets see the details. (Score:3)
In terms of general ideology, I like the idea idea of having competition and an after market economy. Where I can buy a used phone, or get my phone fixed without having to travel 30 miles. Being able to get an ISP without wondering if my promised speed is being applied, or if that site I am using is slower just because their service is being throttled because the ISP doesn't like them. Also we need to have some value in our licensed to use products (digital movies, and songs) we should be able to sell them or give them to others.
However this is just a first step where the direction is given, the details is going to see how well the ideology is implemented. Which could lead to success or failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Merger & Acquisition. It's how companies instantly become industry behemoths with enough metaphorical mass to have their own measurable gravity.
Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand why anyone still puts up with them. The Executive does not have the power to pass laws, but these Executive Orders often have the force of law, in the sense that they dictate the government's policies and actions outside of military or foreign policy (Executive responsibilities). Having a single person dictate what others should do is called a Dictator. We find it normal with mayors and governors, but the highest office in the land should not have a single person giving random edicts that don't have to be ratified by anybody.
True. (Score:4, Informative)
"Power" is just influence over other people. Money, as it turns out, is a very effective motivator. So those who have a lot of it, have a lot of power.
We put a lot of effort into building a democratic system where power is granted by majority agreement. And there IS an amount of power that one attains that way. But this does not eliminate the power that the wealthy have, and that is because no amount of voting and agreement will reduce the motivational power that money has.
Maybe in some future day when robots provide us with food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment for free, maybe then money will lose some of its motivational power. Until that day, all efforts at taking the money out of politics are just pipe dreams.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Executive orders are very convenient for politicking and campaigns. They can be easily revoked by the next guy. Actual legislation takes real work to change. I wish the voters would see through this charade and stop reelecting these people. But, I afraid we're stuck
Re:Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:5, Insightful)
Executive orders flow from two places; either powers directly conferred to the Executive Branch by the Constitution, or acts of Congress which confer powers upon the Executive. Executive Orders are instruments by which the President can either make policy based upon the powers he has as per the constitution or per laws passed by Congress. Anything outside of that, if challenged, would almost certainly not pass legal muster.
But your complaint about them being revoked equally applies to acts of Congress. In either case, the very ancient Parliamentary constitutional fact applies; no future Congress or Administration is bound by the decisions of previous Congresses or Administration, within their spheres of authority.
Furthermore, Executive orders are within the sphere that is known as administrative law. Administrative law, again, flows either from powers directly conferred on to the Executive by the Constitution, or where Congress has passed laws that empower the Executive to make administrative policies. The essential theory here is that legislation should be painted in broad strokes, and the actual fleshing out of how any legislation is executed is, well, the job of the Executive branch. This is how English, and by extension, American law has worked for centuries, simply because as governance becomes more complex, it would not only become far more difficult to write legislation that could foresee all possible contingencies, but would actually be counterproductive in some cases (think about any legislation that empowers the Executive to deliver emergency services in the event of natural disaster).
Re:Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:4, Interesting)
Which don't exist. Nowhere in the Constitution does any president have the authority to create an Executive Order. The only reason EOs exist is because George Washington did it and no one wanted to challenge the first president of the new country. No one, to my knowledge, has challenged Executive Orders as a whole, only individual ones when the president is from an opposing party.
or acts of Congress which confer powers upon the Executive.
Which also don't exist. Congress makes the laws. By having a president nullify, override, change or enact what amounts to a law, that is a violation of the separation of powers. But again, this is only challenged when the president is from the opposing party.
Re:Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:5, Insightful)
They have become a spectacle, which the media loves, and then people assume that because the media loves it and there is a ceremony then it must be a big deal, when really, they are not.
Re:Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:5, Insightful)
Executive orders do not create laws, they are just really dramatic over glorified memos from a higher up to underlings on how they should execute the existing laws.
However, as GP points out, while some of these are indeed "glorified memos" (like Trump's executive order on healthcare which did nothing), other executive orders can have a major impact (e.g., de-prioritizing enforcement of existing laws and effectively cancelling them out).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason EOs exist is because George Washington did it and no one wanted to challenge the first president of the new country.
The president is the head of the executive branch. How do you think he can lead that branch without giving orders? That's literally all an executive order is. It is the president telling his underlings what to do. To think that is undemocratic or unconstitutional is silly Fox News crap.
Re: (Score:2)
either powers directly conferred to the Executive Branch by the Constitution Which don't exist. Nowhere in the Constitution does any president have the authority to create an Executive Order.
So how do you suggest the Executive Branch execute the laws passed by Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Executing a law passed is a hell of a lot different then passing a law.
It's like giving the police the power to create new laws without any political body voting on those laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:5, Informative)
An executive order is nothing more or less than a formalization of the power of the office of the President. That office is the executive branch and the President is the leader of that branch. His orders (AKA executive orders) are nothing more or less than the President carrying out his duties. They are his orders to the various parts of the executive branch.
On a smaller scale, imagine the big boss at a construction site says we need the slab ready for framing by tuesday. So the foreman decides who does what and orders the guys to get that ground leveled and compacted today. Those are executive orders.
If Congress doesn't like the orders, they should be more specific when they pass laws.
We have an executive branch because way back when the country was founded they knew that there would be situations calling for immediate action and that a legislature could be counted on to dither over it for years arguing minutia of procedure while the whole thing burned down around them.
Re: (Score:2)
Which also don't exist. Congress makes the laws. By having a president nullify, override, change or enact what amounts to a law, that is a violation of the separation of powers. But again, this is only challenged when the president is from the opposing party.
You do realize there are three equal branches right, with various checks and balances. Why doesn't the executive branch have any discretion at all in your world? And man are you going to be in shock when you figure out what that other branch does.
Your mental model of the government where one branch makes laws and the others take marching orders from them is just looney. Each branch has a considerable amount of discretion.
Prepare to have your mind BLOWN, the Supreme Court CHOOSES which cases it wants to h
Re: (Score:2)
either powers directly conferred to the Executive Branch by the Constitution, or acts of Congress which confer powers upon the Executive.
The problem is supposed "acts of Congress which confer powers upon the Executive." --- There is a huge problem with that, because the powers of the Executive and the Legislative branches are set in the constitution, And the required process to amend the constitution is spelled out in that document.
The constitution says Congress is to have the duty of regulating commerce
Re: (Score:2)
Executive orders do not have any authority outside of the Executive Branch. They are very different from laws.
This is Government 101 stuff. Be more informed before opining.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not true. Obama signed the DACA EO that contravened established federal immigration law after Congress failed to pass an immigration package with DACA components.
Re: Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:3)
The enforcement of immigration law falls squarely within the authority of the Executive Branch. The law remained on the books, it was simply not fully enforced.
Re:Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't creating laws, but deciding on how to enforce or not enforce existing laws.
With a large and complex legal code where many aspects may be in conflict with each other. The executive branch of choosing how laws are enforced creates a more simplified system.
Lets bring it down to a local level.
Next to my house is a road at is posted speed is 45 MPH, within a quarter mile it goes up to 55 MPH. What currently is happening are cars going 55 mph in the 45 MPH zone, and going 60+ in the 55 MPH zone. Now if I were the Town/County Executive leader, I could make sure that the 45MPH speed is strictly enforced, so people wouldn't be going 55MPH but 45 or less. Or I could reduce the restrictions further, by just having police monitor speed in that area and so people will just take that road at the 60+mph because they can without any repercussions.
While presidents with executive orders get a lot of power they are still restricted by the law (using my example, I couldn't demand people to dive 35 mph, because the law does allow up to 45 mph). However the reason why Presidents just don't sign All their terms executive orders in one day, is because there is a lot of work behind them, to find the limit of such laws, and if they are other laws already on the book that can cover the legality. So for example if my town had a 20 MPH speed limit on that road for any vehicle over 1 ton, which may be a hundred years old, when that use to be dirt road. and it was mostly for carriages, but was never overturned, then I can take advantage of that to get my 35mph speed limit.
Re: (Score:2)
deciding on how to enforce or not enforce existing laws.
I think the "not enforce" part is very significant. Perhaps executive orders should be limited to specifying how to resolve conflicting issues only. Having the power to direct not enforcing the law is an ability to cancel laws you don't like.
In your speed limit example, maybe I couldn't demand that people slow down to 35 mph (vs 45 mph sign), but I can effectively remove any and all limits on speeding, no matter what the sign and the law says.
Re:Executive orders are undemocratic (Score:4, Insightful)
So what happens when congress demands 5 things be done but only allocates enough money to accomplish 2 of them?
The entire structure of U.S. law and government depends on failure to enforce as a check and balance. From the sheriff who is ordered to evict the widow and her kids who says "yeah, I'll get right on that" as he sees what's on TV to judges not having the power to reverse a not guilty verdict from the jury.
Such nullification can be and is abused, but it is also used as a final check on clueless power.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah can't understand why... https://washingtonmonthly.com/... [washingtonmonthly.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I agree (Executive orders are going too far). This exists b/c it's very difficult to pass anything anymore (The filibuster doesn't require a Senator to talk anymore).
There are a number of parallels between now and the end of the Roman Republic (and beginning of the Roman Empire). They had many ways to veto and filibuster legislation that it was nearly impossible to pass anything. ... it's easy to come to the conclusion that if elected officials aren't doing anything - get rid of them.
Hopefully we come up
Re: (Score:2)
As much as we have good cause to hate them, the fact is that we still need executive orders.
Legislative branches are slow to act. From concept to enforcement, legislation frequently takes years. In extreme situations (e.g. declarations of war in response to a direct, attributable attack), you may be able to get a same-week turnaround, but the best you can typically hope for is a turnaround that takes months. In contrast, an executive order can come into effect in less than a day. That's a good thing when we
Re: (Score:2)
>P.S. Not saying you're doing this, but it's easy in these conversations to vilify the $opposing_party as abusing executive orders or to suggest that the use of them is a newfound abuse,
I think it is rather the content of the EO's that is contentious, and deservedly vilified in many cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Executive Orders are only capable of mandating what the Congress has given the Executive the power to do. So while they are not explicitly democratic, the democratic process of sending Representatives into Congress, that then democratically passed legislation enabling the Executive to order things is. And if an EO oversteps it's authority, the Judiciary can (and has) tossed them out as being outside the bounds of what the Executive has been granted power to do.
Don't like it? Talk to your representation i
Re: (Score:2)
Sleeping on "Sleepy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no...
I mean, what I've observed is a whole lot of the predictable "R vs. D" drama going on here. Just as Trump rushed to push through all the legislation he could think of that contradicted what Obama put in place? Now we have this administration trying to put as much out there as possible to reverse anything Trump did.
And judging by what I've seen with Biden? I doubt much of this even comes directly from him at all? This is all his administration doing these things on his behalf -- saying, "Sign he
Re: (Score:3)
Hate to break it to you but every president has policy developed by their "administration", that's their job as an executive. The most they will come up with is the big picture ideas and the then work of the Chief of staff and the army of aides and advisors puts together the details. The most important decisions a President generally makes are Cabinet and staff picks because they are ones who put together policy to sign. You think Trump or Obama or Bush assembled every EO they signed personally? That is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine to still prefer Biden to his predecessor based on policy, if that's your jam. Just please do us the favor or not feigning surprise if he can't finish the full four years, or if eventually it is let out that, like Reagan, he was objectively mentally impaired while serving in office.
That's fine. If you have to have an f*-head as president, better it's a figurehead than the other f word.
Re:The political machine in action (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like any other corrupt politician (D) or (R), this is obvious "presenting" to lobbyists, showing that you're ready for campaign donations. It does two things. 1> It has the superficial appearance of solving a problem that the public wants solved. 2> Depending on the campaign contributions, the specifics will be added after donations are made. Any teeth to the bill can be removed with money to the appropriate campaign fund or amateur crack-head painter.
What bill? Do you even know what an executive order is? This is *exactly* how the executive administration should operate - by making it transparent (through these executive orders) how they are interpreting the laws that Congress has passed when they are "executing" them. This makes it obvious to Congress how their laws are being executed, and immediately opens up review in the judiciary if there are questions concerning this interpretation.
You can question this interpretation all you want, but it's absolutely mind-boggling that you would throw a fit over simply the presentation of an executive order. If you want an EO to throw a fit about, look at Trump's orders from last summer over reducing the price of insulin. They were absolutely moronic and the administration's press releases about them were lies. This particular EO says what it's going to do, and the releases say it's going to do what it's going to do (rather than things it's obviously not going to do), and you can immediately argue over the actual merits of the EO rather than what the administration is "saying" about the EO. It's fucking beautiful, regardless of the actual merits. Future presidential candidates should take note - this is an example of a wonderfully *functioning* administration, whether or not you agree with their goals. Kind of like how Teslas can be fantastic to drive, whether or not you agree that the government should be subsidizing EVs.
Re: (Score:1)
It sux that you currently have a "troll" mod because what you say is true. US politicians represent their donors, not their constituents. Turns out that Power seeks its own kind, whether through corrupt business practices, or corrupt political practices. It has been this way for most if not all of my life, and I'm old enough to remember Vietnam.
Same game plan (Score:1)
Only executed faster.
Lenin held up the revolutionaries (Big Tech today) as heros for helping him into office. Stalin turned around and had those heros killed or sent off to work camps. This is the beginning of our Stalin era.
US set to add more Chinese companies to blacklist (Score:2)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/0... [cnbc.com]
The Biden administration is set as early as Friday to add more than 10 Chinese companies to its economic blacklist over alleged human rights abuses and high-tech surveillance in Xinjiang, two sources told Reuters.
The identities of the companies being added were not immediately known. Some companies from other countries are also set to be added to the department’s blacklist as soon as Friday.
Antitrust laws (Score:4, Insightful)
I have quite recently read an article on surveillance capitalism where the author argues that root of the problem is monopolization caused by effective abandonment of antitrust laws in the 80s:
https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59 [medium.com]
I am not sure if restoring economic competition is big enough tpic right now in the US to overcome political-economical ties, but I am quite sure Biden is not another Roosevelt.
No, the cat does not "got my tongue." (Score:2)
See, when you wanna step on private enterprise with respect to them using their own property and resources to broadcast speech, one first decides if it benefits you or your opponent, before you decide if it's constitutional to override that.
Do you want to stop ISPs from favoring, via increased speed, their own streaming over others?
Do you want to ban political opponents's speech?
Or, for both cases, vice versa?
The correct answer is no in all cases.
You are the problem, dear reader, and your automaton-like adh
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing this is exactly the carrot they will use to help get the red team on board.
Which of the following matters? (Score:1)
For conservatives (Score:2)
Conservatives should keep in mind, many of Biden's executive orders are nothing more or less than striking some of Trump's executive orders. Keep that in mind before condemning executive orders in general.
Yay! That will fix it! (Score:2)
So, Biden signed an executive order identifying 72 Top Priorities ("most pressing competitive problems") across 12 departments? WTF? Have Democrats lost the ability to prioritize?
All told, Biden's executive order includes 72 initiatives directed at more than a dozen federal agencies to "promptly tackle some of the most pressing competition problems across our economy," according to a White House press release.
It was joke during the campaign when Biden would identify multiple "Top Priorities" in one speech, then a different set of multiple "Top Priorities" in the next speech, but this is just stupid.
I don't care about the merits or flaws in any particular "initiative" - he didn't care enough to break them out, so who cares?
Re: (Score:1)