[capital_guy]

Amazing all the newfound lawyers in the HN section here pointing out "loopholes" in the rule and then getting corrected by the next commenter.

The FTC continues to do the good, thankless work of making good public policy. I appreciate it.

[m463]

> The FTC

It seems to me the FTC under Lina Khan. Before that I just don't remember it having so much pro-consumer impact.

[archon810]

Lina Khan is a national treasure.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

But did the FTC think about this loophole that I just thought of in three seconds? I am so smart!

[tqi]

Do you expect that a year from now (or two, or however long you think is a fair amount of time to pass), online reviews will be noticeably better/more useful than they are today? I think the underlying thread here is that most people don't expect this to be any more effective than anti-spam or anti-robocalling calling rules.

[behringer]

Probably, yes.

And by the by, I get significantly less spam and phone calls than I used to. Vastly fewer and they're all clearly scams now, which makes it easy to ignore.

[someothherguyy]

I'd be surprised if the next administration doesn't remove the rule.

[friendzis]

> Amazing all the newfound lawyers in the HN section here pointing out "loopholes" in the rule and then getting corrected by the next commenter.

Semi-quoting n-gate (RIP in peace): "Hackernews take turns incorrecting one another"

[whoitwas]

I'm all for consumer protection, but I don't think this is in any way good policy or a good use of time. It's too granular and companies acting in bad faith will obviously continue. That's IF it's enforced and not challenged and thrown out by the fifth circuit or something.

[barryrandall]

It's almost like they expect the law to be dysfunctional or unevenly applied.