I may be lambasted for saying this, but I do not believe that Fox (or any large media company, really) should be permitted to purchase direct access to the TV hardware of roughly 30-50% of american households.
Much in the same way that the company selling tickets and taking a percentage of all ticket resales shouldn't also own the venues which can then force artists to use a specific ticketing provider, thus creating a monopoly.
We have antitrust laws in the US but they do us absolutely no good when the government refuses to even consider enforcing them, which seems to be the case in the past few decades.
Biden passed some of the toughest anti-trust laws in the past 20 years, but Trump repealed them quite literally in the first month he returned to office, calling anti-trust legislation as "bad for business".
No, quite the opposite. Laws can kneecap efforts to make executive orders (in contradiction with those laws). That's why he's lost in court so many times about so many of his orders.
This is ... charitable. Enforcing laws relies on courts which are only reacting slowly to a non-cooperarive administration, which gleefully ignores orders or practices malicious compliance after the damage has been done (and done as fast as possible). Judiciary enforcement is barely existant.
The whole dance is really effective at keeping the administration one or two steps ahead of the judiciary and legislative branch.
Your language more accurately reflects how the US government is supposed to operate, and that's important, we'd all be better off if people remembered that the government has a number of branches with different responsibilities, actually kept track of who controls each, and otherwise understood the system.
It's also more or less true that the Biden administration took more responsibility and initiative in antitrust enforcement:
There's a huge difference between making your own streaming box that people have to buy in order to use, and buying the company that makes the streaming box built into basically every new TV.
"Built into" - are you talking about them shipping with the app? What's the difference between that and the Apple TV, Prime Video, Netflix apps built into those TVs?
As if the will of the people is what matters... Only if those people are backed by money does matter. I don't agree with that, but that's the world we live in.
Your reasoning does not stand at all. There are plenty of things that the majority of people agree upon in this country but it does not get done for a variety of reasons. For example, it's not as important as other issues so they can't prioritize it for voting, gerrymandering, etc...
It literally does? Things that people care strongly about get prioritized. I said others don't feel like the OP. Maybe they agree with the point if presented with the choice, but again, they don't feel the same way, so they don't think, protest, comment, demand it in the way the OP does.
Not at all. I can feel very strongly about that, but if I feel more strongly about health care so tens of thousands of people don't die needlessly and countless millions more don't go bankrupt or get maimed from lack treatment, one is going to win over the other. That doesn't mean I don't feel strongly about it. Also, the 600,000 in Wyoming get the same two senators as the 40,000,000 people in California so it's not like there is equal representation by any means.
> not enough people care about it enough to push for legislation.
This is a just-so-story. No matter how much people care you can always say they don’t care enough when the law doesn’t match what people want - and when the law does match it’s because they cared enough, no matter how much they actually cared.
In practice, the laws don’t match what people want.
But all that aside - the laws already exist to block this acquisition, the only thing that’s missing is enforcement.
The Constitution simply states that representation shall be based on population but doesn't specify a fixed cap.
The number of Reps in the House was frozen by the Congressional apportionment Act of 1929.
How is that proportional, a century of pop growth later?
More accurately, they adwquately don't give politicians the money and exercise the power of wealth.
An extensive study [0], showed "Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it"
They studied actual attitudes about issues, moneyed attitudes, and tracked what got implemented as laws. NONE of the 'thinking, protesting, commenting, of demanding' was effective. MONEY was.
