3 ms·

> confluence of divisive political headwinds and an outrage-driven news > I doubt Google will find itself in a hot seat You're suggesting Hollywood will aband

> confluence of divisive political headwinds and an outrage-driven news > I doubt Google will find itself in a hot seat You're suggesting Hollywood will abandon a decade-plus long effort to beat down the influence of big tech, and increase regulation of the Internet, now, when it's going so well?[1] Or that some integrity of governance, quality of public policy, or competence of journalism, will hold them in check? > Maybe such a controversy is waiting for Google. I hope so, Controversies against Google will continue to be nurtured, year after year. And one of them, instead of incremental erosion, may well end up being a similar political-media event. Whether you think this process is a good thing or not, depends in part on what kind of Internet you would like to have. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180226/01415539302/mistakes-strategic-failures-killing-open-internet.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180226/01415539302/mista...

oflannabhra 9y ago
Well, no, that’s not what I’m suggesting at all. It sounds like you set up a straw man to be able to assert your own narrative for “Why Google is next.” It’s all well and fine to offer up an alternative explanation or additional information, but you don’t have to do it by putting words into people’s mouths. As for the content of your message, I fail to see how Facebook’s current scrutiny is connected to Hollywood in any way whatsoever.
- mncharity 9y ago
  > you don’t have to do it by putting words into people’s mouths A fair criticism. I'd intended "You're suggesting [...] ?" as a "are you suggesting <implausible thing not-X>?" form of "what about X?" question, rather than as a "you said X" claim. I'd not noticed the second reading. :/ But a less personal phrasing would have avoided the potential for misunderstanding - and consequences. Sorry about that. > how Facebook’s current scrutiny is connected to Hollywood Regards "current", tactical politics, perhaps someone else can comment. But the strategic context, part of those "political headwinds", is a long-term lobbying and press campaign to "correct" the "excessive approval" of Facebook et al, and to establish "rules of the road" for the "Wild West" Internet. One can of course agree with part of that, and disagree with the other. But... given a political bandwagon, it seems worth noting the principal conductors, and their intended playlists.

oflannabhra 9y ago

Well, no, that’s not what I’m suggesting at all. It sounds like you set up a straw man to be able to assert your own narrative for “Why Google is next.” It’s all well and fine to offer up an alternative explanation or additional information, but you don’t have to do it by putting words into people’s mouths. As for the content of your message, I fail to see how Facebook’s current scrutiny is connected to Hollywood in any way whatsoever.

mncharity 9y ago
> you don’t have to do it by putting words into people’s mouths A fair criticism. I'd intended "You're suggesting [...] ?" as a "are you suggesting <implausible thing not-X>?" form of "what about X?" question, rather than as a "you said X" claim. I'd not noticed the second reading. :/ But a less personal phrasing would have avoided the potential for misunderstanding - and consequences. Sorry about that. > how Facebook’s current scrutiny is connected to Hollywood Regards "current", tactical politics, perhaps someone else can comment. But the strategic context, part of those "political headwinds", is a long-term lobbying and press campaign to "correct" the "excessive approval" of Facebook et al, and to establish "rules of the road" for the "Wild West" Internet. One can of course agree with part of that, and disagree with the other. But... given a political bandwagon, it seems worth noting the principal conductors, and their intended playlists.