6 ms·

This is bizarre. It's also bizarre how the reporting on it doesn't mention how out of left field this is. Why Google? why Missouri? How come a republican is doi

This is bizarre. It's also bizarre how the reporting on it doesn't mention how out of left field this is. Why Google? why Missouri? How come a republican is doing this? As for: The United States has lagged behind Europe in pursuing antitrust cases against tech giants This narrative is silly. The EU goes after "tech giants" partly because they are foreign, the US doesn't have that incentive.

Erik816 9y ago
The EU also has vastly different anti trust laws. There's no point pursuing some of the cases prosecuted in the EU in the US, because you would lose.
mpweiher 9y ago
Nah, the EU also goes after local champions, see for example the Vitamin case: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-01-1625_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-01-1625_en.htm It's just that the US has become extremely lax in its anti-trust stance.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bduerst 9y ago
  That's from 16 years ago. To give context, that's six years before the treaty of Lisbon which defines the EU Commission today.
Top19 9y ago
Europe has a bad history with records misused to later pursue political enemies. The records the Germans used come to mind, but also things like the Staszi secret police in East Germany. Interestingly, a lot of stuff that just “works” in America is dangerous when exported abroad. This is a strange sociological concept I only encountered recently, but one example is that the American conception of “fame”, dating back to PT Barnum‘s days, was an impetus for fascism in America. So something that’s “culturally safe” in the US due to our history and institutions can be dangerous when exported abroad. For more information, check out the book “The Frenzy of Renown”. The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679776303/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679776303/
bagacrap 9y ago
The article provides possible explanations. A politician running for office soon positions himself as fighting on behalf of the local little man and against big bad out of state corporation. It's pretty much the exact kind of populist protectionism that has lately proven to be politically effective.
- dontnotice 9y ago
  The guy looks relatively young, if I had to guess I'd go with the cultural warrior angle, I bet this guy is fully aware of the Jim Damore saga.
jerkstate 9y ago
> The EU goes after "tech giants" partly because they are foreign what's the other part?
nkw 9y ago
1) Why Google? Because media attention and it plays well with the current Missouri AG's base. e.g. pseudo-libertarian, anti-big brother, technology, coast-elites, etc. There are no statutes in Missouri that regulate in any meaningful way the use of consumer data by technology companies. Also, actual law enforcement or regulatory investigations are rarely proceeded with press releases to the effect of "we are going to investigate you", so I would imagine this doesn't go further than said press release and Google spending some money at one of Missouri's larger law firms. 2) Why Missouri? How come a republican is doing this? Current AG [1] is the likely republican nominee for the Senate seat currently held by Claire McCaskill. It will likely be an extraordinarily expensive and contested race with tons of money and resources flowing into the election from across the country. Despite winning statewide office in the Missouri Trump-landslide, current AG is relatively unknown. I imagine he will be using his office to make a name for himself in the coming months. (I'm not saying that is any different than his predecessors, both democrat and republican -- both have used the office as a political soapbox to propel them to their next office.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_McCaskill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_McCaskill
rdtsc 9y ago
> The EU goes after "tech giants" partly because they are foreign, the US doesn't have that incentive. Really? It went after AT&T before and split it up and it wasn't foreign. How do you see the "foreign" part being significant here? Though it would be interesting to think about Google pulling out of Missouri saying "Ok, you want to sue us? Fine no Google presence there" as soon as it detects an accounts or user connecting from there it returns an error and that's that. Wonder if that is possible?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Bring it on. That lawsuit would be open-and-shut. Also VPNs.
23443463453 9y ago
Google, along with other tech giants have become a direct threat to freedom, liberty, and even democracy in and of itself to a degree that is far far greater of a threat than even the Northern robber baron industrialists of the past. I suspect Google is just a first target because of it's vast reach and involvement in political and civic avenues. If they are not careful, they are going to have to be made an example of by essentially breaking Alphabet apart in separate legal entities not dissimilar to how AT&T was broken up into the "Baby Bells" It's really rather scary once you start looking into what Google has turned into and once you get an understanding for just how far their reach extends how it is starting to wield its power ever more blatantly and openly. And as it becomes ever increasingly more powerful and, as others have indicated, essentially clears more profit than Missouri's whole state budget, it is also directly ties and entanglements with foreign national interests that are at odds with American ones, let alone American citizens' interests. Google has effectively become an unaccountable dictatorial supra-state entity. There is really exponential risk to all of humanity in letting Google exist in it's current form, especially when becoming ever more influenced by values and mores and ideals leadership that may not respect democracy and self-determination. We see the evidence of that most blatantly on YouTube. Just alone that entity really needs to be declared a public utility that cannot discriminate based on anything but illegal activities. Sure there are "competitors" like there is, e.g., competition to other monopolies, but due to the unique network effect nature of the internet it is a kind of self-reinforcing monopoly.

Erik816 9y ago

The EU also has vastly different anti trust laws. There's no point pursuing some of the cases prosecuted in the EU in the US, because you would lose.

mpweiher 9y ago

Nah, the EU also goes after local champions, see for example the Vitamin case: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-01-1625_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-01-1625_en.htm It's just that the US has become extremely lax in its anti-trust stance.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bduerst 9y ago
That's from 16 years ago. To give context, that's six years before the treaty of Lisbon which defines the EU Commission today.

Top19 9y ago

Europe has a bad history with records misused to later pursue political enemies. The records the Germans used come to mind, but also things like the Staszi secret police in East Germany. Interestingly, a lot of stuff that just “works” in America is dangerous when exported abroad. This is a strange sociological concept I only encountered recently, but one example is that the American conception of “fame”, dating back to PT Barnum‘s days, was an impetus for fascism in America. So something that’s “culturally safe” in the US due to our history and institutions can be dangerous when exported abroad. For more information, check out the book “The Frenzy of Renown”. The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679776303/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679776303/

bagacrap 9y ago

The article provides possible explanations. A politician running for office soon positions himself as fighting on behalf of the local little man and against big bad out of state corporation. It's pretty much the exact kind of populist protectionism that has lately proven to be politically effective.

dontnotice 9y ago
The guy looks relatively young, if I had to guess I'd go with the cultural warrior angle, I bet this guy is fully aware of the Jim Damore saga.

jerkstate 9y ago

> The EU goes after "tech giants" partly because they are foreign what's the other part?

nkw 9y ago

1) Why Google? Because media attention and it plays well with the current Missouri AG's base. e.g. pseudo-libertarian, anti-big brother, technology, coast-elites, etc. There are no statutes in Missouri that regulate in any meaningful way the use of consumer data by technology companies. Also, actual law enforcement or regulatory investigations are rarely proceeded with press releases to the effect of "we are going to investigate you", so I would imagine this doesn't go further than said press release and Google spending some money at one of Missouri's larger law firms. 2) Why Missouri? How come a republican is doing this? Current AG [1] is the likely republican nominee for the Senate seat currently held by Claire McCaskill. It will likely be an extraordinarily expensive and contested race with tons of money and resources flowing into the election from across the country. Despite winning statewide office in the Missouri Trump-landslide, current AG is relatively unknown. I imagine he will be using his office to make a name for himself in the coming months. (I'm not saying that is any different than his predecessors, both democrat and republican -- both have used the office as a political soapbox to propel them to their next office.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_McCaskill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_McCaskill

rdtsc 9y ago

> The EU goes after "tech giants" partly because they are foreign, the US doesn't have that incentive. Really? It went after AT&T before and split it up and it wasn't foreign. How do you see the "foreign" part being significant here? Though it would be interesting to think about Google pulling out of Missouri saying "Ok, you want to sue us? Fine no Google presence there" as soon as it detects an accounts or user connecting from there it returns an error and that's that. Wonder if that is possible?

jessaustin 9y ago
Bring it on. That lawsuit would be open-and-shut. Also VPNs.

23443463453 9y ago

Google, along with other tech giants have become a direct threat to freedom, liberty, and even democracy in and of itself to a degree that is far far greater of a threat than even the Northern robber baron industrialists of the past. I suspect Google is just a first target because of it's vast reach and involvement in political and civic avenues. If they are not careful, they are going to have to be made an example of by essentially breaking Alphabet apart in separate legal entities not dissimilar to how AT&T was broken up into the "Baby Bells" It's really rather scary once you start looking into what Google has turned into and once you get an understanding for just how far their reach extends how it is starting to wield its power ever more blatantly and openly. And as it becomes ever increasingly more powerful and, as others have indicated, essentially clears more profit than Missouri's whole state budget, it is also directly ties and entanglements with foreign national interests that are at odds with American ones, let alone American citizens' interests. Google has effectively become an unaccountable dictatorial supra-state entity. There is really exponential risk to all of humanity in letting Google exist in it's current form, especially when becoming ever more influenced by values and mores and ideals leadership that may not respect democracy and self-determination. We see the evidence of that most blatantly on YouTube. Just alone that entity really needs to be declared a public utility that cannot discriminate based on anything but illegal activities. Sure there are "competitors" like there is, e.g., competition to other monopolies, but due to the unique network effect nature of the internet it is a kind of self-reinforcing monopoly.