4 ms·

I see you found a way to call them a "shill" without saying it directly.

close04 8y ago
Perhaps not a shill but definitely providing a distorted interpretation of what the article says as clearly as possible: Official filings > Google’s attorneys wrote that the 2014 standard “should be overruled” and a [...] precedent [...] should be reinstated. Google spokesperson > We're not lobbying for changes to any rules Reconciling this information into an opinion that only gives credit to PR words, while completely ignoring lawyers' actions is strange.
- wang_li 8y ago
  Lobbying is talking to legislatures and regulators in an attempt to change laws/policy. Arguing in court is trying to do an end run around the legislatures and regulators. Big difference.
  - close04 8y ago
    > Arguing in court Lobbying is not limited to specific venues if that's what you mean. It's "attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials in their daily life, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies". Isn't the NLRB exactly such an agency, given its power to undo a precedent? Whether you do it by "urging" them in a justice court or "influencing" them on a tennis court it's still the same even when arguing semantics. Arguing in court that this specific case doesn't fall under the regulation is just arguing in court. Arguing to undo the regulation is literally lobbying. They are asking people with the power to regulate to undo regulation. Read this as you wish. Unless the Bloomberg article is misleading in the way it words the story then I believe my comment is pretty accurate.
resters 8y ago
The grandparent comment is noteworthy among HN comments for being so eagerly apologetic for the kind of corporate/branding hypocrisy that Google used to position itself against. It makes me wonder if someone posted it in an attempt to make Google look bad even though the comment purports to defend Google.

Perhaps not a shill but definitely providing a distorted interpretation of what the article says as clearly as possible: Official filings > Google’s attorneys wrote that the 2014 standard “should be overruled” and a [...] precedent [...] should be reinstated. Google spokesperson > We're not lobbying for changes to any rules Reconciling this information into an opinion that only gives credit to PR words, while completely ignoring lawyers' actions is strange.

wang_li 8y ago
Lobbying is talking to legislatures and regulators in an attempt to change laws/policy. Arguing in court is trying to do an end run around the legislatures and regulators. Big difference.
- close04 8y ago
  > Arguing in court Lobbying is not limited to specific venues if that's what you mean. It's "attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials in their daily life, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies". Isn't the NLRB exactly such an agency, given its power to undo a precedent? Whether you do it by "urging" them in a justice court or "influencing" them on a tennis court it's still the same even when arguing semantics. Arguing in court that this specific case doesn't fall under the regulation is just arguing in court. Arguing to undo the regulation is literally lobbying. They are asking people with the power to regulate to undo regulation. Read this as you wish. Unless the Bloomberg article is misleading in the way it words the story then I believe my comment is pretty accurate.

resters 8y ago

The grandparent comment is noteworthy among HN comments for being so eagerly apologetic for the kind of corporate/branding hypocrisy that Google used to position itself against. It makes me wonder if someone posted it in an attempt to make Google look bad even though the comment purports to defend Google.