No-one argues that the US has an unregulated free market and no-one respectable argues that it should.
Keeping spyware-collected data of private citizens out of the hands of antagonistic authoritarian regimes seems like an appropriate use of regulation, no? Hard to argue its less appropriate than trust-busting or consumer protection regulations.
> Keeping spyware-collected data of private citizens out of the hands of antagonistic authoritarian regimes seems like an appropriate use of regulation, no?
Possibly, yes. And if your goal was actually to fight authoritarianism, you’d be sure to pass these regulations in some sort of democratic process. You’d send it through Congress and give the people’s elected representatives a chance to weigh in. You wouldn’t use an executive order outside of very extreme, time-sensitive circumstances, if you actually gave a shit about fighting authoritarianism.
>give the people’s elected representatives a chance to weigh in
Is POTUS not an elected representative? Congress can overrule the president if they want to, there's nothing stopping them.
Also, who said the goal was "fighting authoritarianism"? I'm pretty sure the goal is to let americans use TikTok without MSS having all their personal data.
> No-one argues that the US has an unregulated free market and no-one respectable argues that it should.
No, but plenty of people vacuously and consistently argue that regulations should be eliminated because "free-market". And have no issue with most companies eliminating competition through any means other than producing a better product.
Taking an example people agree with. Apple should open up it's phone platform to other stores. If they're concerned about security, they can still be the final arbiters of what apps can ship. Ie they approve apps for all stores. However, each store can have it's own experience and crucially it's own cut of apps sold. Let's see how many consumers feel there is enough value in apple store to pay a 30% premium on apps they buy. More rent seeking.
But that's one of the few cases HN actually agrees with. the 1000s of others out there, people don't blink an eye.
Keeping spyware-collected data of private citizens out of the hands of antagonistic authoritarian regimes seems like an appropriate use of regulation, no? Hard to argue its less appropriate than trust-busting or consumer protection regulations.