[erentz]

There was a campaign by the Maine Chamber of Commerce running against it on the grounds that the privacy protections didn't go far enough. They only applied to ISPs (carriers) not to companies higher in the stack (Facebook, etc.). [1]

I couldn't quite work out of this campaign was done out of legitimate concern or was a cynical attempt to derail it? I mean, I agree with them that privacy legislation should apply broadly, but then I'm happy to at least start somewhere.

[1] https://privacy.mainechamber.org/

[ncallaway]

I feel like industry groups often use the "perfect as the enemy of the good" tactic to try and sabotage any starting point on progress.

[rhizome]

Industry groups in favorable contexts would say this is fine, then for the "didn't go far enough" part they just lobby some changes in definitions next year, another change in scope the year after that, etc. Pretty soon it's exactly what they wanted and nobody's the wiser.

[thedaveoflife]

and of course they never propose any "perfect" solution that they'd actually support.

[khawkins]

This isn't "progress", it's the silicon valley oligopoly on traffic data trying to maintain its position through legislation. If we're going to hold as a societal standard that it's okay for companies to sell traffic data, then more competition is better. The more centralized the control, the easier it is for the companies in power to exploit the general public.

[JohnFen]

> I couldn't quite work out of this campaign was done out of legitimate concern or was a cynical attempt to derail it?

I would bet on "cynical attempt to derail it", since it conflates two things that are not remotely comparable: providing internet service itself and providing a service that uses the internet.