401
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

The FTC’s three Democratic members were in favor of adopting the regulation, while its two Republican members were against it.

...

“The FTC estimated that the ban would boost wages by between $400 billion and $488 billion over 10 years.”

Employers are required to tell people that existing noncompetes are void:

The new rule makes it illegal for employers to include the agreements in employment contracts and requires companies with active noncompete agreements to inform workers that they are void. The agency received more than 26,000 comments about the rule after it was proposed some 16 months ago. The rule will take effect after 120 days, although business groups have promised to challenge it in court, which could delay implementation.

New York Times coverage for comparison

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

Wait, the entirety of the FTC is 5 fucking people?

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

The FTC has about 1000 employees, including five commissioners.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Is that similar to our Supreme Court? Could conservatives stack that court and just destroy everything?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 6 months ago

FTC commissioners have a limited term of office, and no more than 3 are allowed to be members of one party.

A future Republican President could in fact change this by appointing a Republican majority. This makes it incredibly important to not allow that. That means not just planning to vote, but checking your registration to make sure it hasn't been purged or in need of an update because you moved or changed names, volunteering and donating

[-] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Government ran entities are the bane of my existence but the FTC has always been a seemingly efficient and unbiased regulatory commission. They're fucked when it comes to regulating the tech industry but still less fucked than anyother boomer politician who vote on its laws.

I am a kid with the popcorn bucket entranced by the current and looming topic of intellectual property arguments. People rarely appreciate how fucking wild wild west the internet (even now) really is. Fuckin crawlers, scrapers, AI training all this shit is the smoke and tremors before Mt. St. Helen's.

You cant but a pack of gum anymore without agreeing to terms and conditions while at the same time its all but common knowledge none of them hold a lick of value in a court room.

The best part is normally in life you can have a decent gut feeling the way something will play out. But with this I have no fuckkng clue.

I mean aren't half the regulations around spamming emails covered by the FCC while the other half is FTC. Like think about this for a second. We live in 2024 where the internet is connected to implanted medical devices, it's tracking your driving habits, listening to you jerk off, storing every text message you ever sent, then backing up that plus every picture you ever took but surprisingly do not actually own all because it never leaves the apple servers...etc the point being how in the flying fuck is the there not a single regulatory committee over seeing the internet? IDK maybe it's because they would have to have open discussion about the very real very terrifying backdoor policy to software. Can't drop terabytes if child porn on you nemises' hard drive with out that little loophole in the system.

[-] Sinthesis@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

/edit I realized that what I was saying before didnt make sense

Supreme Court appointments are for life (or you quit) and it is generally very hard to replace you. The effect that a replacement on the court has, is upwards of 20 years so the impact is lasting. FTC Chair can be replaced by the President as long as Senate approves. Usually FTC picks are closely tied to the same industry the FTC governs. Its the so called "revolving door" where the CEO of say, Verizon becomes FTC Head or vice versa.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

The controlling board, yes. How many does it take to sign off on final rules?

FYI the FTC has tens of thousands of employees.

this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
401 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
1974 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS