593
TikTok Ban Bill Becomes Law, Gives TikTok 9 Months To Sell
(www.entrepreneur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
593 points (98.2% liked)
News
23296 readers
2307 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
For real. You know Pelosi is already investing.
If she’s investing at the same time you’re getting the information, she missed the best time to buy. She might have hedged her bets and bought early
Fun fact: Congresspeople can legally inside trade, but the rest of us cannot.
Politicians should be banned from stock market. Total conflict of interest.
Eight Democrat Senators agree with you, and cosponsored a bill in September that died at introduction.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2773/all-actions-without-amendments
if we keep electing people trying to maintain the status quo, then it'll never happen
It’s a catch-22. To get elected, you need to learn to manipulate within the system. Once elected, you know how to leverage the system, so why would you change it?
The best chance we’ll have for systemic change will come when boomers die off. That shouldn’t discourage efforts today, but impart some hope for the future.
I want to believe that the most change will happens when boomers are gone, but I don’t trust that the new era of politicians won’t get caught up in the game.
What does that mean?
It wasn’t put to a vote after being read aloud on two separate introductions. It was then forwarded to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where it went to die.
They don’t review it and then hand it back to congress?
If they see value in the bill they can mandate a vote. That was over six months ago, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.
they're probably all sucking the teat one way or another, even at the lowest levels.
Good Work just recently put out a video on this very topic. Informative and hilarious as usual!
https://youtu.be/vT-u-SPj4_c
Thanks! I never heard of this show.
I'd be fine if they were allowed to invest in things like mutual funds so that they could take advantage of the market without being able to do insider trading of a specific stock.
that would be better, but they could still invest in specific sectors or industries.
Yep, and maybe that's somewhat acceptable, but we could also confine it to diversified mutual funds meeting specific criteria.
Edit: confine, not congratulations
Congratulations!
But yeah you gotta limit it
That’s not true. It’s still illegal even though they get away with it. You’re thinking of ~~bribery~~ lobbying.
According to the STOCK Act of 2012, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock, prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.
What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.
Just to clarify. Insider trading is illegal but it is not illegal for politicians in Congress to use the information they obtain from their jobs (such as through classified meetings) to engage in stock market trades.
It’s not a failure of the law. It’s a failure of the SEC for not enforcing it.
https://perry.house.gov/how-can-scott-help/myths-about-congress.htm#:~:text=FACT%3A%20Both%20a%20Congressional%20Research
That’s simply not true. They have no exemption to insider trading laws. It simply comes down to trade timing.
The way the law is written, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.
What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.
If everyone doing it gets away with it, then is it actually illegal?
Yes. It is. They just need to be arrested and prosecuted. I agree that it should be taken more seriously, considering that it’s against the law.
No one has ever been prosecuted in the decade and change that it has been illegal, despite frequent violations.
That doesn’t change the law. It’s simply evidence that Congress lives above it. Seven Democrat Senators cosponsored a bill in September to ban the practice entirely. It died at introduction.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2773/all-actions-without-amendments
Oh you sweet summer child.
Now you’re wrong, and condescending. Lol
You have a philosophy around what laws are and what they mean that is incongruent with reality.
What is the word we use when people have believes that don't match up with the previous or future state of things?
Laws on paper are only one aspect of what a law is. How those laws are interpreted and how they are enforced matter far, far more. Law is what is applied and enforced. If something is a 'law' but is not enforced, then its not really law.
And its fine that you have a different philosophy around what the law means. I just don't find it particularly useful because it doesn't predict the past, present, or future states of the world.
In other words:
spoiler
People who don’t understand the problem typically have little success in fixing it. You should consider reading more.
While I’m flattered that you’d take the time to make a meme for me, it probably would’ve taken you far less time to research insider trading law as it applies to members of Congress.
I’ll give you a little head start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/
You make it easy considering you are making my points for me. If you are trying to make a point about hubris by just being more arrogant, what exactly is the argument you are making?
And on that, you haven't outlined anything that's worth even discussing. I made the argument that laws are only as meaningful as they've are applied. Its likely you don't even recognize the assumptions of your argument being an extension of legal positivism, theoretically described by legal philosophers like Austin and Hart. But the problem with Austin and Hart? Their philosophy (legal positivism) doesn't predict the past, the future, or even the present. Legal positivism isn't how the world works. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."
This is called legal realism for those in the cheap seats, and its an effort to understand the law as its applied: which is to say, to understand the law as it actually works.
Whats on the books is irrelevant. What matters is what happens. It doesn't matter if there is a law preventing anything if it doesn't get applied.
Edit response to your edit response: Please, keep showing me that you don't understand what you are talking while you make my points for me.
Martha. Stewart.
Fun fact: Everyone with hundreds of millions+ in holdings either trades with insider information or pays others to do it, because our metrics and enforcement for insider trading are a gallows joke.
For sure they’re already in way before general public
Pathetic watching ancient, feeble rich people about to return to the dust from whence they came still frantically positioning to boost their ego scores.
It's as if they believe their preferred invisible sky mommy/daddy will accept a bribe of earthly currency.
I would rather chill in my basement.
it's an addiction
Don't worry everyone, it's just pelosi's 3rd cousin doing the investing so that makes everything totally cool and totally legal.
Congressional Representatives and Senators are shielded from most insider trading laws. She could literately buy in, flip the SEC the bird, and go on her merry way.
Well, as it is what her husband did for a living his entire very successful life, but sure the Lady you don't like is wrong for him doing his job well.
A. Her husband is not a lawmaker. B. I’m sure her position helps C. Don’t simp for politicians. They DGAF about you.
A: which is why him having a ton of money he made more with isn't a relevant condemnation of the woman.
B: his having a shit ton of money already helps a hell of a lot more so fuck off with your unsubstantiated claim.
C: at no point did I remotely suggest she did so fuck off with your attempt to imagine things to argue about since you've not a leg to stand upon.
I’m pretty sure I could be incredibly successful at trading stocks as well if I was married to a Senator who could give me inside information, lmao.
As she didn't join Politics until '87, guess they invented communicating to with their past selves, lmao. If you've got any proof, kindly advise the FBI. Where as you've none, head on back to peddle that shit to fux nooz.
Christ, am I supposed to memory hole that Pelosi’s husband making a shit ton of money off stocks THREE YEARS AGO is what led to a round of antitrust bills getting introduced? Is there literally any criticism of these rich fucks you can hear without immediately shrieking about conservatives?
Well, you are shit holing that he made a shit ton of money before her first Campaign. So perhaps instead of doubling down upon your unsubstantiated right wing bull shit propaganda, actually check what happened. But you won't Instead you'll go on pretending you didn't know that folks with a shit ton of money go on to make more shit tons of money so you can maintain your delusional belief in fux newbs' distraction.