Mitch McConnell Using Section 230 Repeal As A Poison Pill To Avoid $2k Stimulus Checks

from the everything-is-stupid dept

As you likely know by now, President Trump is trying to use his last few weeks in office to use various levers of power remaining to him to make sure he fucks up the open internet. However, he also threw a wrench in the works of the long-overdue and way too small COVID relief package by saying that the checks to individuals should be $2,000 rather than $600. He's not wrong, but it was bizarre that his own White House was part of the negotiations that made sure the checks were smaller. It's almost as if the President and his own administration don't communicate very much.

House Democrats took up the cause, and pushed for the $2,000, and many House Republicans went along with it, recognizing how popular an idea this was. The problem, of course, is that Mitch McConnell has absolutely no interest in this at all. Earlier today, Mitch McConnell blocked the motion to vote on increasing the checks to $2,000. Afterwards, he announced, in the most awkward language possible, that he wants to link the raised stimulus to... Section 230 repeal and the made-up issue of "election fraud."

McConnell on CHECKS, SECT. 230, ELECTION FRAUD: "Those are the three important subjects the President has linked together. This week the Senate will begin a process to bring these three priorities into focus."

It's not difficult to figure out what's actually happening here. McConnell does not want the larger checks going out. He's spent months trying to limit the size of any stimulus plan. So, his plan now is to "link" the issue to things that he knows will not pass in an actual vote. Basically, Section 230 (and the made up issue of election fraud) are poison pills to kill the stimulus plan.

This is horrific on both sides of the equation: using Section 230 and the open internet as a pawn in this game, and his resistance to actually putting together a stimulus plan that helps Americans who have suffered from their own government's total mismanagement of the pandemic. It's difficult not to be cynical about politics when you have people like Mitch McConnell pulling the strings.

Filed Under: covid, donald trump, election fraud, mitch mcconnell, poison pill, section 230, stimulus

Craigslist Responds To eBay: I Know You Are, But What Am I?

from the time-to-find-a-lawyer,-guys dept

After eBay released its side of the story in the eBay-Craigslist lawsuit, we noted that it looked pretty damning against Craigslist, but we wanted to hear Craig and Jim's side of the story. Well, their initial response isn't all that convincing. At best, it highlights a few points in the lawsuit and claims "but eBay did the same thing!" But, that's not at all accurate, unfortunately. eBay isn't suing Craigslist because it has a poison pill, or because it wants a staggered board or the right of first refusal agreement -- as Craigslist implies. It's suing because Craig and Jim put those provisions in place by themselves, without the wider consent of the board or eBay as a significant shareholder. In other words, Craigslist's response isn't on the meat of the lawsuit, and appears to be missing the point entirely. One would hope that their response in court has more substance.

Filed Under: competition, dillution, poison pill
Companies: craigslist, ebay

Details Come Out On eBay/Craigslist Fight

from the not-so-surprising dept

Some details have come out on the eBay-Craigslist lawsuit that was in the news last week. Ebay has released its filings in the lawsuit, suggesting pretty much exactly what you'd expect, with a few exceptions. There was a clause in the original agreement between the two companies if one started competing with each other -- allowing the other to resell shares without a right of first refusal. When eBay brought Kijiji to the US, Craigslist began the process of exercising that provision. However, eBay quickly tried to separate anyone dealing with Kijiji from anyone dealing with Craigslist, pulling its representative off of Craigslist's board since he was tangentially working with Kijiji. It then tried to put a different board member in place -- choosing a recent eBay hire who had no knowledge or experience with Kijiji. eBay presented this idea to Craigslist, stating that it was keeping Kijiji completely separate from its work with Craigslist, while also hinting at the idea that eBay really, really, really would just prefer to buy Craigslist entirely. Craigslist does not appear to have responded (even to the newly proposed board member) and then held a few board meetings without an eBay member present, added in a poison pill to dilute shares and then exercised the poison pill, pushing eBay below the 25% threshold, which it needed to put in place a board member.

The filings clearly only show eBay's side of things, so as such it's not surprising that, based on the facts presented, it does look like Craigslist took some questionable actions to get eBay off its board. Craigslist claims it will respond soon, which should be interesting. You can certainly understand where Craigslist is coming from (no one wants a competitor on its board) -- but the question is whether it went about shaking off eBay in a legitimate manner. From the facts presented so far, that's far from clear. The ability to dilute the shares was not a part of the original agreement (even if such competition happened). Behind closed doors issuing of additional shares raises a lot of questions -- no matter how well intentioned.

Filed Under: competition, dillution, poison pill
Companies: craigslist, ebay