5 ms·

Here we go again. A group of smaller companies that can't compete on their own merits point the hapless FTC in the direction of the most successful company, pai

Here we go again. A group of smaller companies that can't compete on their own merits point the hapless FTC in the direction of the most successful company, paint them as a monopolist, and sit back and watch the fun. Sales of popcorn must be soaring. The notion that "bundling" is anti-competitive is so 1995. No one in the real world minds bundling, no one is hurt by it, and everyone would be inconvenienced by some kind of unbundling solution to satisfy the 10 people in the world who oppose Google's right to package its services together. There are real and egregious abusers of the system--bribing federal judges, giving kickbacks to food inspectors, paying off legislators and Congressional staffers to slant the laws and regulations in favor of a particular supplier--and these do hurt honest competitors and cause us all to pay more for goods and services. But to go after a large company merely because it's large and influential and highly successful... These regulators are simply out of control.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
You mean like how Google is a big time donor to quite a few Congresspeople, who write letters and vote on behalf of Google in our Congress? See Anna Eshoo: Her biggest donor is a Google employee, and she's literally written a letter defending Google to the EU Parliament on Congressional letterhead, signed by a bunch of other Congresspeople, many of whom also had their campaigns at least partially supported by Googlers.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Any evidence of wrongdoing here? Many interest groups donate and lobby. You want to ban all donations and lobbying by private for-profit organizations?
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Unfortunately, buying off Congresspeople is currently legal. It doesn't make it any less horrifically immoral. And anyways, your comment is irrelevant, as I was responding to the parent comment. The parent commenter suggested that Google was not one of those "egregious abusers of the system" that exploits the system by buying off legislators. Unfortunately, that isn't true, as I've demonstrated here, by proving Google has certainly heavily paid legislators (via "donations"), who have in turn advocated DIRECTLY for Google.
    - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
      Rep. Anna Eshoo represents the 18th District in California, home of Google and many other major technology companies. I would think it's reasonable and logical that she would advocate for technology companies, considering that probably tens of thousands of voters in her district work for them. As for financial support by Google, Rep. Eshoo received a total of $6,400 from Google (individuals + PAC)[1], out of some $160,000+ in donations in the most recent election cycle. It seems unlikely that this level of support could be termed "buying off". [1]https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00007335 https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000...
      - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
        This cycle is just starting, check 2014 for a mpre accurate accounting, blisterpeanuts. Opensecrets.org is where I pull my data too. She took in four times that last term, and Google was her biggest sponsor.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

You mean like how Google is a big time donor to quite a few Congresspeople, who write letters and vote on behalf of Google in our Congress? See Anna Eshoo: Her biggest donor is a Google employee, and she's literally written a letter defending Google to the EU Parliament on Congressional letterhead, signed by a bunch of other Congresspeople, many of whom also had their campaigns at least partially supported by Googlers.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Any evidence of wrongdoing here? Many interest groups donate and lobby. You want to ban all donations and lobbying by private for-profit organizations?
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Unfortunately, buying off Congresspeople is currently legal. It doesn't make it any less horrifically immoral. And anyways, your comment is irrelevant, as I was responding to the parent comment. The parent commenter suggested that Google was not one of those "egregious abusers of the system" that exploits the system by buying off legislators. Unfortunately, that isn't true, as I've demonstrated here, by proving Google has certainly heavily paid legislators (via "donations"), who have in turn advocated DIRECTLY for Google.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Rep. Anna Eshoo represents the 18th District in California, home of Google and many other major technology companies. I would think it's reasonable and logical that she would advocate for technology companies, considering that probably tens of thousands of voters in her district work for them. As for financial support by Google, Rep. Eshoo received a total of $6,400 from Google (individuals + PAC)[1], out of some $160,000+ in donations in the most recent election cycle. It seems unlikely that this level of support could be termed "buying off". [1]https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00007335 https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000...
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      This cycle is just starting, check 2014 for a mpre accurate accounting, blisterpeanuts. Opensecrets.org is where I pull my data too. She took in four times that last term, and Google was her biggest sponsor.