But what does Donald want?

It doesn't matter at all what Matt Gaetz wants.

Maybe we should also cling to hope because JD said some nice things about her too but let's be real: the billionaires want her gone. Elon has already tweeted that she will be fired. There's no way she will be able to stay on.

She will be gone for symbolism if nothing else. Some of the policies attacking big tech (read: Google) may remain, but hardline acquisition ban will get relaxed for sure.

[flagged]

Bankruptcy is a part of law for a reason. They can choose to restructure or to sell off. This is healthy turnover.

And how you are disadvantaged by two robot vacuum cleaner manufacturers not merging? Would you feel differently if you worked for one of them?

You've cherry picked two examples. This is mud slinging and not genuine analysis.

Being completely lax against shady companies from China for unknown reasons:

https://nbcmontana.com/amp/news/nation-world/calls-federal-i...

FCC great work including what results?

Spam via SMS and calls hasn’t been conquered at all and it’s 18 years since the “donotcall” registry went live.

There was a fighting chance with Kamala though as the progressive wing of the party (AOC, Bernie etc.) were gearing up to raise holy hell to protect Kahn.

Maybe she’s a real obstacle and we should aim to put her back there at some point in the future.

> final days of this presidency

She started the job in the middle of 2021 and in 2022 the FTC blocked Nvidia/ARM merger and sued Facebook, Twitter, and Frontier Communications. This information isn't hard to find.

These emails will be flagged and likely auto-deleted before they hit the inbox. Many people, myself included, set up a filter to flag or delete anything that’s not from an @microsoft email. It’s easy to grant an @microsot address to any vendors you’re working with so there’s almost no reason to talk to outsiders that haven’t been vetted, and there’s a constant stream of phishing as well.

That sounds counterproductive towards creating the better world you are hoping to create. If you're going to use channels of communication that will be shut down after only a few uses that are contrary to the recipients' interests, they should be saved for issues of real rather than symbolic substance.

It does matter whether or not corporations let people easily delete their profiles and accounts, but that won't be solved by a small number of savvy people getting exceptions without actually convincing anyone that the greater principle is important. It will be solved either through regulations, or through convincing the vast majority of users that failing to fulfill this duty irrevocably damages that company's reputation. Regulators this year are just barely on the side of protecting consumers, and next year they will likely begin dismantling many of these requirements. When it comes to actual consumers, I bet barely 10% of people think it is important, and if they do they are convinced it is an inevitability, rather than the type of product defect that justifies them not using a service or product.

In the case of Microsoft, becoming an absurd squeaky wheel seems like a personally risky thing to do. Certainly such messages could be interpreted as violating some portion of LinkedIn's professional community policies. The parent organization of LinkedIn, which is of course Microsoft, could decide when those policies need to be more strictly enforced.

Now that you have embraced the surveillance capitalism business model

There's some research showing that even failed attempts by regulators act as a cooling factor for misbehavior, which makes some intuitive sense.

> there were fees of $X

What kind of fees?