Update: Brain-machine interface technology

Brain-machine interface (BMI) technology is an area of long-term personal interest. BMI tech links brains with machines. That is usually done by implanting electrodes into brains and then linking electrical brain signals to computers that analyze the signals and translate them into coherent speech or mind-controlled machine movement. In essence, the technology fuses aspects of consciousness or mind with machines. The point is to allow people who cannot speak or move to do so through machines. Progress in this area is slow and incremental.

Part of the interest in BMI tech is looking for hints about the nature and biological basis of consciousness and possible insights into the centuries old mind-body problem. Depending on the expert one listens to, the mind-body problem is either one of the hardest, most complex problems that humans have ever attempted to solve, or it is just a matter of figuring out how to read electrical signals in the brain. Incremental advances in BMI tech strike me as generally in the figuring out how to read signals category, but maybe we still don’t fully understand the problem. Despite several decades of research in this area, BMI tech is still in its infancy. There could still be major surprises along the way.

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine describes another incremental advance. In a person with anarthria (the loss of the ability to articulate speech), scientists implanted an electrode array into the sensorimotor cortex of his brain. The scientists used the electrode array to record 22 hours of the patient’s brain activity while he attempted to say individual words from a set of 50 words. Deep-learning algorithms created computational models for detecting and classifying words from electrical patterns in the recorded cortical activity. These computational models and a natural-language computer model were used to generate probabilities of a next word based on the preceding words in a sequence. That was used to decode full sentences as the patient tried to say them. The electrodes transmitted brain signals to a computer that analyzed them and displayed the intended words on a computer screen.

The researchers reported their results as follows: 

We decoded sentences from the participant’s cortical activity in real time at a median rate of 15.2 words per minute, with a median word error rate of 25.6%. In post hoc analyses, we detected 98% of the attempts by the participant to produce individual words, and we classified words with 47.1% accuracy using cortical signals that were stable throughout the 81-week study period.

 

The patient chatting through his BMI set-up

A New York Times article elaborates on what is going on here.

In nearly half of the 9,000 times Pancho [the patient] tried to say single words, the algorithm got it right. When he tried saying sentences written on the screen, it did even better.

By funneling algorithm results through a kind of autocorrect language-prediction system, the computer correctly recognized individual words in the sentences nearly three-quarters of the time and perfectly decoded entire sentences more than half the time.

“To prove that you can decipher speech from the electrical signals in the speech motor area of your brain is groundbreaking,” said Dr. Fried-Oken, whose own research involves trying to detect signals using electrodes in a cap placed on the head, not implanted.

After a recent session, observed by The New York Times, Pancho, wearing a black fedora over a white knit hat to cover the [electrode] port, smiled and tilted his head slightly with the limited movement he has. In bursts of gravelly sound, he demonstrated a sentence composed of words in the study: “No, I am not thirsty.”

In interviews over several weeks for this article, he communicated through email exchanges using a head-controlled mouse to painstakingly type key-by-key, the method he usually relies on.

The brain implant’s recognition of his spoken words is “a life-changing experience,” he said.

“I just want to, I don’t know, get something good, because I always was told by doctors that I had 0 chance to get better,” Pancho typed during a video chat from the Northern California nursing home where he lives.

Later, he emailed: “Not to be able to communicate with anyone, to have a normal conversation and express yourself in any way, it’s devastating, very hard to live with.”

Context

This is another example of machines being able to read and translate brain signals into some form of coherence that other minds can receive and understand. Past BMI tech accomplishments include mouse to mouse communication over the internet about how to navigate a maze to get to food. In that study one mouse was in Brazil and the other in the US. Their brains were linked by signals transmitted from one brain to the internet then from the internet to the other brain. 

Another BMI increment was getting a fully paralyzed person to successfully fly a modern jet fighter simulator (an F-35, I think) through BMI tech. A US military program attempted to use commands from a human brain to a rat brain with some success. It was an attempt to weaponize the rodents for use in armed conflicts. In another research project, limited human to human brain (mind?) communication was accomplished using recorded and decoded magnetic pulses that were converted to electrical signals and decoded by computers.

Clearly, this technology is still both complex and primitive. The computer algorithms have to be able to teach themselves how to read brain signals. That accomplishment appears to be beyond the ability of the human mind alone, maybe because the signal to noise ratio is too low for humans alone to work with. Progress just inches forward. 

Despite that, there are no limits on how far BMI tech can go that I am aware of. Decoding brain signals takes a lot of computer power and sophisticated programming, but there seems to be enough of that so far. Until some kind of a technological brick wall is hit, continued slow progress can be expected for the foreseeable future.

The fascinating question still remains unanswered. Is the brain the same thing as the mind (or consciousness, intelligence or sentience), or is there something more to it? So far, all the BMI data seems to be compatible with brain = mind, or maybe brain + CNS + PNS = mind.[1] Either one would be a possible solution to the old mind-body problem. As data slowly accumulates, it seems that room for something other than body being needed for mind gets smaller and smaller. Room for a God of the gaps seems to be decreasing as knowledge increases.

Footnote: 

1. CNS = central nervous system; PNS = peripheral nervous system

It is possible that brain + CNS + PNS + all or nearly all other cells and tissues = mind, maybe even brain + CNS + PNS + all or nearly all other cells and tissues + other people and the environment = mind.

For example, sometimes an amputee feels pain from a limb that has been amputated. The brain is heavily and intimately connected to almost the entire body and it can ‘remember’ something that just isn’t there. And, humans are inherently social creatures. Social structures or institutions can and do shape or control how we perceive and think about reality. What are the physical-biological-social limits of the mind, e.g., just the brain, or something(s) more than just that? Is the question even answerable?

And, also note that the brain isn’t just neurons. There are other cells there that can and do modulate neuron activity, and presumably that affects (is part of?) the mind too. 

The CNS is in yellow, the PNS is in blue 

humans are complicated little machines

In case of emergency, break glass… (or not)

It is no secret that we, here on DisPol, are not all that fond of the rank and file Republicans.  “We see” mentally “dead people” out there, raising political hell, and we are concerned.  We feel totally justified in our concern and can present case after case of what we (and the media) see as the systematic crumbling of American democracy.  Like the religious eat, drink and sleep their religions, we here do the same with our politics.  Let’s face it, we’re just as fanatical.  We’re here virtually every day, investigating and showcasing what we see as political trouble/shenanigans.  BUT…

Out there in the real world, I have to wonder if the rest of the people (you know, “the real people” as Jack Nicholson called them in Cuckoo’s Nest) are all that taken in by what we here see as the blatant and nefarious shenanigans of the Republican Party.  Are we really in as dire shape, politically, as we think we are?

Questions: What do you think?  Do we overreact around here?  Or, is democracy indeed on the verge of falling and Everyman’s hair should be on fire?  Make your for/against case.

Thanks for posting and recommending.

Is reality politically biased?

A quick reflex answer to the question is no, reality is not politically biased. It just is what it is without regard for human concerns or biases. But is that a complete or even correct answer right now in the context of American politics and human biology and behavior? It's arguably not. In politics, humans often perceive their realities according to the dictates of various factors such as personal identity, tribe loyalty, personal biases, self-interests, life experiences, cognitive ability, education, etc.

In that context, there is a significant difference between the perceived realities of the modern FRP (fascist Republican Party and its supporters) and non-FRP people and groups who are not so radical. Clearly, most of the FRP and the most of the rest of Americans see and believe in quite different realities. Which perceived reality is closer to real reality? Based on my politics and perception of reality, the FRP vision is significantly more distorted than most of the non-FRP perceptions. But is that true or just biased and/or flawed reasoning?

A few years ago, the question came up at Quora and some interesting thoughts were posted there:

There are basically two schools of Conservative thought throughout history. There are the Traditionalists, who work to preserve the status quo, preserving the ways of life, the social institutions of the day, and the stability and continuity that brings to a culture and a civilization. And then there are the Reactionaries, who actively fight against not only change but fight against the basic premises of the present day, and seek to return to some previous "golden age".

So immediately, we have a problem with Reactionaries: they are most often trying to return to a fictionalized, cleaned up version of that past era they view today as a golden age. That's one break with reality already.

Liberalism tends to value liberty and equality, so it was very much at odds with the status quo, when it came into its own as a movement in the 1700's Age of Reason. Liberals were people who opposed Monarchy and Oligarchy, who opposed state religion, etc. This philosophy and eventually politics was embraced by philosophers, such as John Locke, and generated all sorts of frightening new ideas that challenged the status quo: natural rights of mankind, a government based on a social contract with its people, the rule of law applies to leaders and citizens alike, a demand for representative democracy, tolerance of others and other ideas, etc. So basically Liberalism on its modern creation was set as a force to oppose the status quo of the day. In it's day, the American Revolution and the Constitution were radically liberal things ... godless representative democracy, rule by the consent of the people, not the divine right of kings, that was crazy stuff.

Following the traditions of Conservatism and Liberalism in the USA, it's been the Conservatives all along opposing change. In the slavery debate, the conservatives of the day (the Democrats) supported slavery, the way things were already. The Liberals (the Republicans) felt that slavery was wrong (1865) and that slaves should have the rights of citizens to vote (1870). Sure, it wasn't until 1920 that women won the same right... again, in it's day, a very liberal cause. Liberalism was a big reason for the USA's ascendancy in the world. When the US began, founded on some of the most liberal thinking to come out of the Age of Reason, we were established here without king, without aristocracy, and of course, without a status quo.  

If you follow American politics, you have absolutely heard that many, perhaps most, conservative leaders are not just conservatives, they're reactionaries. Sure, they're in opposition to social change ... I mean, look at the right wing hissy fit that erupted over the ACA (aka, Obamacare), the idea that healthcare should be affordably available to all US citizens (not claiming it's a perfect law, it's not, but it has pushed us just a little more in the direction of Locke's Egalitarianism). Look at the claim that LGBT folks should have the same rights to marry or adopt as anyone else. That's plain old conservatism.  

But you've heard all the "want my country back", "return to a Constitutional rule of Law", etc. That's all magical reactionary thinking, and it's rampant in today's Republican Party. They want to move us back to a 1955 that never happened -- of course, ignoring the 94% top tax bracket and the misogyny that allowed every wife to remain barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove. In order to actually believe these philosophies, you have ignore the realities of history.

That is one argument in favor of the FRP being reactionary and less tethered to reality. And, if one believes the kinds of things I have posted here about Christian nationalism (CN) (book review, chapter 6 review, chapter 7 review, etc.) and its agenda and influence on the FRP, it seems reasonable to categorize the FRP as "reactionary." The central lie that CN fights hard to establish as a fake reality is that the US was established as a Christian nation. That is historically false, but the lie is central to reactionary CN ideology and tribalism or social cohesion. And, as one expert on the CN political movement (Katherine Stewart) put it, to get people to believe a big lie, there needs to be lots of little lies to go along with the big lie narrative.

Arguably, the same thing is happening right now regarding the ex-president's and FRP's big lie about a stolen 2020 election. A hell of a lot of little lies litter the FRP political landscape in support of the overall whopper. The fascist media put great emphasis on spreading and reinforcing the stolen election lie.[1]

So, the question remains, is there in modern American politics a liberal bias in facts, true truths and sound reasoning, or is that just another illusion emanating from a self-deluded person?

Footnote: 

1. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote this opinion in December of 2017:

There are two central facts about 21st-century U.S. politics. First, we suffer from asymmetric polarization: the Republican Party has become an extremist institution with little respect for traditional norms of any kind. Second, mainstream media – still the source of most political information for the great majority of Americans – haven’t been able to come to grips with this reality. Even in the age of Trump, they try desperately to be “balanced”, which in practice means bending over backwards to say undeserved nice things about Republicans and take undeserved swipes at Democrats.

This dynamic played a crucial role in last year’s election; it’s one of the reasons major news organizations devoted more time to Hillary Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined. But it has been going on for years. It’s the whole story of Paul Ryan’s career: journalists trying to be centrists desperately wanted to show their neutrality by praising a Serious, Honest, Conservative, and promoted Ryan into that role even though it was obvious from the beginning that he was a con man.

And it’s still playing out, as we can see from what looks like a looming debacle in Facebook’s efforts to institute fact-checking.

Facebook wanted responsible fact-checking organizations to partner with, and several such organizations exist. But all of these organizations are constantly attacked by the right as having a left-wing bias – so it added The Weekly Standard, even though it clearly failed to meet internationally accepted standards for that role.  

So what’s the basis for claims that, say, PolitiFact is biased? Hey, The Weekly Standard itself has explained the criteria:

Surveys done by the University of Minnesota and George Mason University have shown that the supposedly impartial “fact checking” news organization rates Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims and twice as much, respectively.

Notice the implicit assumption here – namely, that impartial fact-checking would find an equal number of false claims from each party. But what if – bear with me a minute – Republicans actually make more false claims than Democrats? (emphasis added)  

Take a not at all arbitrary example: tax policy. The GOP is deeply committed to the proposition that tax cuts pay for themselves, a view that has no support whatsoever from professional economists. Can you find any comparable insistence on a view experts consider false on the Democratic side?

Similarly, the GOP is deeply committed to climate change denial, despite the overwhelming consensus of scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real and dangerous. Again, where’s the Democratic counterpart?

 

But the facade is so familiar and comfortable . . . .

Blog note

Notices of comments are coming in delayed. I am just now getting some comments that people made three days ago. I do not know why there is a slow down. This lag has been slowly increasing over the last few weeks. I hope it goes away in due course.

Regarding conflicts of interest in government: The Clintons & their legacy

Conflicts of interest have long been a plague in government, probably forever. In the previous presidency, the plague morphed into an aggressive cancer. Rules of ethics were simply blown off. They were shown to be toothless norms. The ex-president kept his businesses operating and money flowing in, including from foreign governments. That constitutes either an actual conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict. Either way, it is often or usually impossible for the public to know with confidence what government and politician actions associated with money are corrupt and what are honest.

In view of recent history, a question that comes to mind centers on what role, if any, did the Clintons play in normalizing acceptance of real or apparent conflicts in government? In hindsight, they may have been significantly more important than one might have thought before the 2016 elections. Some reporting from the past helps put this in context. In 2015, MotherJones wrote in an article entitled Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors: 

In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.

The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department. IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration. The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses.

An article in The Hill from 2015 reported:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton authorized arms sales to countries that had donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report.

State approved $165 billion worth of weapons sales to 20 foreign governments during Clinton's tenure, the International Business Times reports. Among the countries involved in the sales were Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The Clinton Foundation received between $54 million and $141 million in donations from the foreign governments and defense contractors involved in those sales, the report says.

Certain defense contractors also paid her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for speaking engagements during that time.

While the report does not allege a direct connection between the arms sales and the donations, the activities of the Clinton Foundation have become a growing headache for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

A new book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash, questions whether foreign governments sought to curry influence with the Clintons by making donations to the foundation.

The Clinton campaign has dismissed the book as a hit job by a conservative author, arguing it is filled with "sloppy research and attacks pulled out of thin air. 

A 2015 article by Vox, 4 experts make the case that the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising was troubling, also focused on this issue:

During and before the four years Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation run by her husband took tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and corporations.

Many of these donors had a lot riding on Clinton’s decisions. Saudi Arabia gave the foundation up to $25 million, and Clinton signed off on a controversial $29 billion sale of fighter jets to the country. Oil companies gave the foundation around $3 million, and Clinton approved a lucrative gas pipeline in the Canadian tar sands they’d long sought.

We've known the basics of this story for months now. But another media feeding frenzy over the foundation kicked off again on Monday, when the State Department was forced to release emails showing that the foundation’s leadership tried to land its top donors meetings with the secretary of state.  

How do we know foundation donors really did get better access to Clinton’s State Department? Well, it’s impossible to prove — no Clinton staffer was stupid enough to write, "Thanks for giving $10 million to Bill! Now we can get coffee!"

There’s no evidence that donors to the Clinton Foundation did anything like buy off Clinton, and there’s no definitive proof that they got access to the State Department because of their donations. But the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong.   

But the money in politics experts argued that these aren't the only standards of wrongdoing by which we can or should judge Clinton. To them, the fact that the Clintons allowed for an appearance of a conflict of interest — that the suspicion could be reasonably raised — is itself a major shortcoming worth criticizing.

"What's so troubling is that these revelations suggest that if you want to see the secretary of state, it helps to make a large donation — that’s the perception this gives," says Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center.  

[Quoting Noble:] "Politicians like to say things like, "I would have given the lobbyist for Exxon a meeting regardless of their donation," and that might be true. But the problem is that it’s impossible to know if the meeting would have happened anyway, if the meeting was given out of a favor, or what. 

So they don’t get the benefit of the doubt. It’s their job to make sure they avoid the appearance of a conflict in interest in the first place — because if a politician has made a decision that affects a major donor [whose money they want], then it becomes basically impossible to sort out why they did it. It calls into question the decision even if it’s totally legitimate and the best one they could make. 

That’s why the very idea that access to government depends on how wealthy you are — and how much you give — is so dangerous. What the Clintons did here helps create the impression that if you’re a small-business person who wants to talk to the secretary of state, then you’re out of luck. But if you donate a few million dollars to her husband’s charity, you can talk to her." 

In other words: Since it’s so difficult for anyone to ever prove a quid pro quo, it’s incumbent on politicians to recuse themselves so it can’t even look like they’re swapping favors for private donations — or to not take those donations in the first place. 

By that standard, Hillary Clinton clearly failed.

In hindsight

Consider the ex-president’s moral compass over his adult life. What was his level of concern about conflicts of interest, real or not? He could not have cared less about conflicts. From the moment he was sworn into office, he was awash in obvious major conflicts. What was the effect, if any, of the Clinton’s conflicts of interest, real or not? One can reasonably argue that in the ex-president’s mind, what the Clintons did constituted precedent and cover for him ignoring the issue. 

Would it have made any difference if what the Clintons did was irrelevant and the ex-president would have acted no differently? That is possible, probably likely, but it ignores the fact that corruption stemming from her real or perceived conflicts of interest was used to attack Clinton in the 2016 election. That probably cost her some votes. It was a legitimate attack on Clinton’s moral character[1] that drove some people away from supporting her.

Question: Is it reasonable to believe that the Clintons moral failings, including Bill’s sleazy antics while in office and money flowing to their charitable Foundation, played some non-trivial role in the rise and/or behavior of the ex-president?

Footnote: 

1. Yes, the ex-president had no moral character in 2015-2016 and thereafter. All he ever had as an adult was an immoral character. But in authoritarian radical right tribal politics that morphed into fascist cult politics on and after the 1/6 coup attempt, moral or immoral character made and still makes no difference to the tribe, then cult. Morals are beside the point when it comes to a sacred tribe or cult leader and their sacred cause.

On the right to repair

Broken stuff heading to the landfill -- it's a really big pile

One tactic companies use to boost profits is to discourage or bar people from repairing broken products. That is done by voiding warranties, by making repairs literally impossible, by sabotaging 'unauthorized' repairs and so forth. The tactic is used for all kinds of products including appliances, cell phones, TVs, computers, cars, medical equipment and farm equipment. In the case of people replacing broken iPhone screens with low cost third party touch screens, Apple changed its software to make the new screens inoperable. This tactic is worth tens of billions in annual product repair revenues, which tend to be quite profitable. The BBC comments:

There is growing pressure on manufacturers around the world to allow consumers the right to repair their own devices.

The UK has introduced right-to-repair rules that legally require manufacturers to make spare parts available to people buying electrical appliances.

The European Commission has announced plans for right-to-repair rules for smartphones, tablets and laptops.

And later this week, US President Joe Biden is expected to sign an executive order asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to draw up rules on the repair of farming equipment.

It would give farmers "the right to repair their own equipment how they like", the president's press secretary, Jen Psaki, said.

And some expect the rules to go further and take in consumer electronic devices such as phones or game consoles.

Not surprisingly, manufacturers strongly oppose this. Corporate excuses vary, but all are efforts to protect a lucrative aspect of their business. Farm equipment manufacturer John Deere opposes the right to repair as a safety risk. Amazon, Apple and Microsoft limits who can repair phones and game consoles allegedly because independent repairs could impair device safety and security. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, etc.), started a lawsuit to block a Massachusetts law requiring third party access to mechanical and electronic car repair data because it allegedly creates a major cyber-security risk. Some manufacturers claim that trade secret data would be lost if third parties have access to repair manuals and diagnostics. They also argue that putting car parts information at a centralized location provides a target for attackers.

A probable downside of right to repair laws would be that some products would become more expensive. Repairing products would extend their useful lifetime, maybe up to 10 years for some manufactured products. At present, manufacturers of products tend to make their products short-lived (planned obsolescence) so they need to be chucked into the landfill and replaced. Right to repair laws are intended to deal with "built-in obsolescence" of appliances to break down after a short time, forcing consumers to buy new replacements.

The fight between John Deere and farmers over the right to repair has been intense for years. NPR reported this in an interview:

URI BERLINER, BYLINE: Walter Schweitzer is a third-generation Montana farmer. He never expected to get political in the middle of haying season, but there he was last summer on his John Deere tractor, hustling to cut and bale his hay while the weather was still good. And then at the worst possible time, he says his tractor kept shutting down, randomly.

WALTER SCHWEITZER: Kind of did all the things that a farmer or rancher does to try to troubleshoot the problems.

BERLINER: But he couldn't do much because he didn't have access to the software that would help him diagnose what was wrong. Only a John Deere dealer could do that - not an independent mechanic or Schweitzer himself, the guy who owns the tractor.

SCHWEITZER: It's not like they didn't know that this was an issue. It just became personal. You know, when you're staring at a hay crop that needs to be in a bale and your tractor's not working, you get real nervous.

BERLINER: Schweitzer wound up sending his tractor to the dealer. He says it took about a month for the repair to get done. His bill to replace the fuel sensor? Nearly $5,000. He says a local independent mechanic would have charged only a small fraction of that. Schweitzer was fortunate he had an old backup tractor, so his crop didn't get ruined, but the experience made Schweitzer eager to fight for change. 

SCHWEITZER: Equipment manufacturers are not supposed to hold you hostage, and that's what's happening here. These equipment manufacturers are holding me hostage to them, forcing me to use their dealerships to repair my equipment - on their schedule, on their time and at their rates. That's wrong.  

TOM BRANDT: So let's say you've got a couple hundred thousand dollars and you buy a bright, shiny new tractor. You only own the hardware. Today that software is still controlled by the original equipment manufacturer.

BERLINER: Nebraska's bill would change that. It would unlock software and allow farmers and independent shops to make the same repairs as dealers. An industry group, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, tells NPR these kind of right-to-repair bills, they permit illegal tampering and create safety and environmental risks. And that's why states have rejected such bills in the past. But those right-to-repair bills, they keep coming. O'Reilly of U.S. PIRG says right-to-repair bills for agriculture have been introduced in 12 states. ....  But some farmers aren't waiting for bills to get passed. They're hacking their own equipment to get around repair restrictions. Others, they're going back in time. They're buying vintage tractors from the '70s and '80s that don't run on software.

This is just another garden-variety example of the business of business being profit. Concern for consumers is a lower priority. And, if there were no laws to protect consumers, it would be a lower priority. 

But maybe that is the way things should be. Business looks out for business, and government looks out for the people first and business second. But that vision of a reasonably well-functioning government and society assumes that the business community and the fascist Republican Party had not opposed and significantly neutered government's ability to protect consumers. But maybe for this issue at least, political will is on the consumer's side for a change.