3 ms·
I didn't say "what's good for Google is good for the internet", I said, in effect, "what's good for the internet is good for Google". And please do refrain fro
by mseebach 10y ago
I didn't say "what's good for Google is good for the internet", I said, in effect, "what's good for the internet is good for Google".
And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.
- cat199 10y ago> what's good for the internet is good for Google This presumes complete congruence between these two sets, which is precisely what is being criticized above. How exactly is: " The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. " If true, good for 'the internet' in general, rather than being good for Google primarily with some related good and harm for 'the internet' ?
- greenshackle2 10y agoOr that 'what is good for the internet' is a subset of 'what is good for Google'. Language is murky but that's a more reasonable interpretation.
- sdflkd 10y agoIt's the only interpretation after the initial clarification.