I have yet to be given a good reason for banning this sort of pricing model.
To me it feels like a win/win for all parties involved. Faster, more accurate price discovery means fewer instances of an item being out of stock, and it allows a merchant to unload less popular stock at a discount to a lucky (or clever) customer.
The arguments against this seem mostly feelings based.
This unidimensional analysis is so funny to me. When your lens forces you to group together Alex Jones, Bill Gates, and George Soros as part of the same “rich and influential” clique, maybe it’s time to reconsider your dimension.
Alex Jones is nothing. At best he can be described as a small business owner.
What is your threshold for rich and influential? You don't have to have Musk money to have sufficient pull to escape the consequences most people would face for action X. I don't think this is a difficult or controversial observation.
If you're net worth is above $15 million or so in the US, your in the 99th percentile. There are many orders of magnitude between you and Bezos, but you're rich. And if you have a media empire that is watched by millions, you're influential.
The implication for me is that they are aligned with the US system. That is why, for example, when Orban challenges EU sanctions against Russia, there are ponderous articles published about "authoritarianism" in Hungary, but when, say, Romania cancels an entire Presidential election to prevent a pro-Russian candidate from winning, then there are no such ponderous articles.
You have to be aware that Western funded NGOs are important geostrategic players in overthrowing rival regimes and installing pro-US regimes. I am not seeing many articles about human rights in Saudi Arabia, for example, as that is an American ally. They can even dismember a WAPO journalist and the NGOs wont wring their hands.
So what the article means by "Global Freedom" (I actually cringe at the term) is really "pro-Western regime". That is why Putin and Xi are on the cover graphic of the article. In other words, this is just an expression of US soft power. Once you learn to see this stuff, you see it everywhere.
> I am not seeing many articles about human rights in Saudi Arabia, for example, as that is an American ally. They can even dismember a WAPO journalist and the NGOs wont wring their hands.
>>US Should Continue to Pursue Accountability for the Murder of Jamal Khashoggi[1].
[2]:
>>Internet users continued to receive lengthy prison sentences in reprisal for their social media activity.2 A British national was sentenced to 10 years in prison for a deleted post in August 2024, and in October it was reported that Mohammed al-Ghamdi, a cartoonist for the Qatar-based newspaper Lusail, had been tried in secret and sentenced to 23 years in prison for cartoons that were deemed insulting to Saudi authorities (C3).3
>>In June 2025, after the coverage period, online journalist Turki al-Jasser was executed after being convicted of terrorism and treason due to online publications in which he discussed politically sensitive issues such as Palestine and women’s rights (C3).4
>>Jailed online journalists and activists faced torture and mistreatment while in prison.5 Prior to his release in February 2025, Assad al-Ghamdi, who was jailed for social media posts in 2022, was subjected to various forms of psychological and physical torture, causing injuries that in some cases required surgical treatment (C7).6
>>An online IGF panel that was hosted in Saudi Arabia in December 2024 was hacked by unidentified attackers immediately after participants mentioned the 2018 state-sponsored killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi (C8).7
A lot of stuff does have interstate implications. Especially now that most corporations operate in an interstate fashion.
That said, I agree that it's overused. I personally think that the 9th amendment should be used in a lot of cases, like civil rights, instead of the interstate commerce law.
The supreme court, however, has basically decided that the 9th amendment doesn't really exist.
You could just as easily stuff most of those things under the "general welfare" clause if you do the same rigamarole of years and years of precedent hand-waving. We live in a post constitutional state. The constitution is just something worked to backwards so the guys who function as our priests/gods point to the document because that's the only way to feign some sort of legitimacy to our government.
Ultimately none of us signed the constitution and all of those people that did are dead. It is a religious artifact used by the whig
-god people to argue they are right. Not something followed with faith to the historical context nor literal contract.
(edit: to below trying to compare bad-faith ICC to good-faith general welfare, you must apply similar levels of creativity and bad faith. Ban things through high or impossible to pay taxation. "Tax" behavior to force people to do something in a certain way, make very heavy penalties for not paying the tax, and also make it extremely difficult to buy the tax stamps (this is how they did drug control until they decided to use the new fraud of "interstate" commerce).
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars … But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
I agree, from the other side of the aisle. The Constitution is merely a well-guarded piece of toilet paper now. Culture matters way more than legal documents in preserving a nation, and our culture has waned too significantly. I believe we've entered the "Byzantine" phase of America.
States don't have "rights", people do. I don't support any state's power to take away any human's rights. And bootlickers who do shouldn't have the chance to act out their fascistic fantasies
It's reasonable to believe that a blanket ban on data centers constitutes a regulatory taking, and therefore run afoul of people's property rights. A data center doesn't pose some unreasonable risk to the public interest to justify this degree of action.
It’s a ban on any DC over 20 megawatts, regardless of site or situation - that’s a blanket ban because there’s no exceptions or justifications for the ban to apply to every large DC, regardless of location.
From what I can tell, case law on takings via this kind of regulation is “case by case”, without a clear test for when it crosses over the line into an unreasonable imposition on property rights.
It's a pause. And not a particularly long one either.
Maine is saying "we don't have the legal infrastructure to make sure we can build these out in a way that protects the environment and our residents so let's put a pause on building while we build up that framework"
Maine is saying "hey give us until 2027 to research this and provide a good regulatory framework for massive data centers that don't impede on human rights to clean water and air". The moratorium expires after 2027.
What human right is being violated here?
Would you also say the requirement to get a driver's license is a violation of a human right?
Some people are addicted to the taste of boots. In most of the US, small cities are being bullied around by huge tech firms that have taken over their political infrastructure and bought out their politicians. The people of Maine are sticking up to bid-rigging, bribery, and political collusion. More power to them
They're not even the first. Kentucky is facing fallout from uncovered collusion between local officials and developers (Western Hospitality Partners) to advance a data center project and they've also had to place a moratorium.
> In most of the US, small cities are being bullied around by huge tech firms that have taken over their political infrastructure and bought out their politicians.
That’s like saying “Mainers should be allowed to ban speech they don’t like, and private sex acts they find offensive”. Your view of what constitutes freedom is nonsensical.
Your examples are both unconstitutional (see Lawrence v. Texas for the second), so no, there are limits. Also the majority of sane individuals would not bother to vote on that kind of stuff to meet a qualified majority, not in a democracy and not without a massive brainwashing campaign (which should be banned btw).
Also, as others have pointed out, this is not a ban but a moratorium. AI bros just have to wait until the hype cools down to build data centers in Maine, or build them elsewhere.
Both sides are government bullying with slightly different paths to abstract/obfuscate it away. Sure, hairs can be split over the exact nature and amount if desired.
To me it feels like a win/win for all parties involved. Faster, more accurate price discovery means fewer instances of an item being out of stock, and it allows a merchant to unload less popular stock at a discount to a lucky (or clever) customer.
The arguments against this seem mostly feelings based.
reply