I... What? Newsmax filing an antitrust suit has to be one of the most hypocritical things I've read in the past month. Being allowed to "maintain market dominance through intimidation and...
I... What?
Newsmax filing an antitrust suit has to be one of the most hypocritical things I've read in the past month.
Being allowed to "maintain market dominance through intimidation and exclusionary business practices" are the thing both networks foam at the mouths to advocate for every single day. I don't even know what conservatives even believe in anymore.
The ends justify the means. Bringing about the Apocalypse is a good thing because that's when Jesus comes back dontcha know. I think you hit a real solid chord. Most other things I could think of...
The ends justify the means. Bringing about the Apocalypse is a good thing because that's when Jesus comes back dontcha know.
I think you hit a real solid chord. Most other things I could think of distills down to one of those at it's core if you ask Why enough.
Antitrust is one of the few good things both parties agree on. The FTC, even under Trump, has reviewed mergers and gone after Google for being an illegal monopoly, even if in some cases it's...
Antitrust is one of the few good things both parties agree on. The FTC, even under Trump, has reviewed mergers and gone after Google for being an illegal monopoly, even if in some cases it's cleared multi-million mergers:
The recent Google decision certainly breaks with this trend, though. It's hard to say exactly why the judge decided to do nothing at all, but I have to suspect it's due to influence from Trump and co.
The recent Google decision certainly breaks with this trend, though. It's hard to say exactly why the judge decided to do nothing at all, but I have to suspect it's due to influence from Trump and co.
What do you mean? Judge Mehta prohibited Google from making smartphones exclusively run searches through their search engine or exclusively use Gemini, and made them start sharing some search data...
What do you mean? Judge Mehta prohibited Google from making smartphones exclusively run searches through their search engine or exclusively use Gemini, and made them start sharing some search data with competitors. He didn't make them spin off or sell Chrome, which was the strongest action he could have taken, but nothing at all is a severe understatement.
Cory Doctorow has summed up a lot of the thoughts I'd had. Dropping a few choice quotes. Much how Microsoft was found in horrific vilolation of antitrust, and now 20+ years later it's even worse....
Cory Doctorow has summed up a lot of the thoughts I'd had. Dropping a few choice quotes.
Let’s start with what’s not in this remedy. Google will not be forced to sell off any of its divisions — not Chrome, not Android. Despite the fact that the judge found that Google’s vertical integration with the world’s dominant mobile operating system and browser were a key factor in its monopolization, Mehta decided to leave the Google octopus with all its limbs intact
Much how Microsoft was found in horrific vilolation of antitrust, and now 20+ years later it's even worse.
Google has one of the most detailed collections about everything we do. And rather than being forced to delete it, they have to share it. WTF kind of ruling is that?
They can still bribe Apple to not create a search engine for iPhones.
And they still get to continue building everything up as they have, building the walls around the garden many of us chose because Android wasn't walled off.
The Economic Liberties project calls it “judicial cowardice” and compared the ruling to “finding someone guilty for bank robbery and then sentencing him to write a thank you note”
People will point to the Microsoft antitrust trial, but that one went pretty well the same - limited penalties, further weakened on appeal. What people seem to want to point to, or at least seem...
People will point to the Microsoft antitrust trial, but that one went pretty well the same - limited penalties, further weakened on appeal.
What people seem to want to point to, or at least seem like they want to reference, is the Microsoft Vs. Europeon Union case, where Microsoft was pushed much more for interoperability.
Antitrust hasn't really been America's strong suit for quite some time now, and an imperfect ruling like we see here is historically in line with what we really ought to expect.
Cory is Canadian after all. But Microsoft not getting split up was the end of antitrust. The last major breakup was Ma Bell in the 1980s, which had a vertical monopoly on telecom infrastructure in...
Cory is Canadian after all. But Microsoft not getting split up was the end of antitrust.
The last major breakup was Ma Bell in the 1980s, which had a vertical monopoly on telecom infrastructure in the USA. They have, in the wake, re-algamated significantly, like cockroaches. And it's why Microsoft should have then...and by all accounts should have been and was in final talks, but was then shot down at the last second despite massive support for some reason.
Now vertical monopolies are everywhere. Basically every large teh company, Apple inclusive, needs to be smashed to tiny pieces and strict rules about company mergers and acquisitions put in place.
I agree with pretty well everything you've said. I only wantd to say that it's a little odd to be surprised about anticlimactic or toothless antitrust rulings in the states. If one wants...
I agree with pretty well everything you've said. I only wantd to say that it's a little odd to be surprised about anticlimactic or toothless antitrust rulings in the states.
If one wants regulators that are willing to regulate, one would be wise to look elsewhere.
(Though I suppose Doctorow could be read as disappointed more than surprised)
Is that because conservatives support antitrust though? Or because conservatives don't like Google? I somehow doubt that the Google antitrust case would have gotten as far as it did under the...
Is that because conservatives support antitrust though? Or because conservatives don't like Google?
I somehow doubt that the Google antitrust case would have gotten as far as it did under the current administration if the defendant was Walmart, for instance.
I think there's some merit to the rather famous quotation often referred to as Wilhoit's law: Or, to put it another popular way: "Rules for thee but not for me." In this case, "Monopolies are good...
I think there's some merit to the rather famous quotation often referred to as Wilhoit's law:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
Or, to put it another popular way: "Rules for thee but not for me."
In this case, "Monopolies are good unless they harm me."
Honestly I kinda doubt anything meaningful will come out of this. This kind of seems to be the case with any lawsuit brought against big corporations, unfortunately. ...other than the lawyers...
Honestly I kinda doubt anything meaningful will come out of this. This kind of seems to be the case with any lawsuit brought against big corporations, unfortunately.
...other than the lawyers being paid. Good for them, I guess?
I... What?
Newsmax filing an antitrust suit has to be one of the most hypocritical things I've read in the past month.
Being allowed to "maintain market dominance through intimidation and exclusionary business practices" are the thing both networks foam at the mouths to advocate for every single day. I don't even know what conservatives even believe in anymore.
Grabbing money and power by any means necessary.
The ends justify the means. Bringing about the Apocalypse is a good thing because that's when Jesus comes back dontcha know.
I think you hit a real solid chord. Most other things I could think of distills down to one of those at it's core if you ask Why enough.
It makes perfect sense if you think of them as 5 year old siblings.
Antitrust is one of the few good things both parties agree on. The FTC, even under Trump, has reviewed mergers and gone after Google for being an illegal monopoly, even if in some cases it's cleared multi-million mergers:
The recent Google decision certainly breaks with this trend, though. It's hard to say exactly why the judge decided to do nothing at all, but I have to suspect it's due to influence from Trump and co.
What do you mean? Judge Mehta prohibited Google from making smartphones exclusively run searches through their search engine or exclusively use Gemini, and made them start sharing some search data with competitors. He didn't make them spin off or sell Chrome, which was the strongest action he could have taken, but nothing at all is a severe understatement.
Cory Doctorow has summed up a lot of the thoughts I'd had. Dropping a few choice quotes.
Much how Microsoft was found in horrific vilolation of antitrust, and now 20+ years later it's even worse.
Google has one of the most detailed collections about everything we do. And rather than being forced to delete it, they have to share it. WTF kind of ruling is that?
They can still bribe Apple to not create a search engine for iPhones.
And they still get to continue building everything up as they have, building the walls around the garden many of us chose because Android wasn't walled off.
People will point to the Microsoft antitrust trial, but that one went pretty well the same - limited penalties, further weakened on appeal.
What people seem to want to point to, or at least seem like they want to reference, is the Microsoft Vs. Europeon Union case, where Microsoft was pushed much more for interoperability.
Antitrust hasn't really been America's strong suit for quite some time now, and an imperfect ruling like we see here is historically in line with what we really ought to expect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v_European_Commission
Cory is Canadian after all. But Microsoft not getting split up was the end of antitrust.
The last major breakup was Ma Bell in the 1980s, which had a vertical monopoly on telecom infrastructure in the USA. They have, in the wake, re-algamated significantly, like cockroaches. And it's why Microsoft should have then...and by all accounts should have been and was in final talks, but was then shot down at the last second despite massive support for some reason.
Now vertical monopolies are everywhere. Basically every large teh company, Apple inclusive, needs to be smashed to tiny pieces and strict rules about company mergers and acquisitions put in place.
I agree with pretty well everything you've said. I only wantd to say that it's a little odd to be surprised about anticlimactic or toothless antitrust rulings in the states.
If one wants regulators that are willing to regulate, one would be wise to look elsewhere.
(Though I suppose Doctorow could be read as disappointed more than surprised)
Is that because conservatives support antitrust though? Or because conservatives don't like Google?
I somehow doubt that the Google antitrust case would have gotten as far as it did under the current administration if the defendant was Walmart, for instance.
I think there's some merit to the rather famous quotation often referred to as Wilhoit's law:
Or, to put it another popular way: "Rules for thee but not for me."
In this case, "Monopolies are good unless they harm me."
Two scumbag organizations fighting each other. Sounds like the world wins no matter what.
Honestly I kinda doubt anything meaningful will come out of this. This kind of seems to be the case with any lawsuit brought against big corporations, unfortunately.
...other than the lawyers being paid. Good for them, I guess?
Also, at least one of these organizations is going to be throwing money at their lawyers for this, which means less money for other things?
Dominion had a massive win in court against Fox News.
True, but that was two big companies going at it.
Fox News and Newsmax are two big companies.
That's almost never the case. It seems like they just infight and cannibalize themselves to success.
They aren't making any friends.