6 ms·

That's one interpretation by interested parties another would be that enforcement lawyers are always aggressive and those who make the decision in the end would

That's one interpretation by interested parties another would be that enforcement lawyers are always aggressive and those who make the decision in the end would have to weigh the odds of winning in court and unanimously they decides not. Regardless, the FTC would have had a much better chance than the DOJ as they have specific broad powers more suitable to this case.

monocasa 7y ago
Google was also very positively connected to the Obama administration. It was some googlers that stepped in and turned around healthcare.gov for instance. I've heard a lot of rumors that they gave a lot of data access to the campaigns too.
- fyoving 7y ago
  I don't know about data accesse rumors but the fact that a bunch of Googlers did government work during the Obama years is well documented, that said the FTC is an independent agency with commissioners from both parties and they unanimously voted against going to court.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Not only is the amount of revolving door between Google and the Obama administration well documented, but Eric Schmidt was literally part of Hillary's campaign staff and personally funded a company to provide her campaign's development and infrastructure. Suffice to say, they have a lot less allies in DC this year, and even Democrats are starting to look negatively on them now.
  - ajxs 7y ago
    Although this is a minor digression, I always felt that it was very interesting to contrast the overwhelming amount of airtime on the legacy media devoted to throwing fuel on the fire of "Russian interference in the 2016 election" with the scant concern for Alphabet's working relationship with the Clinton Campaign. I know I'm not the only person concerned with the disproportionate influence that companies like Google, Twitter, etc have on modern political discourse. Isn't it frightening that the assistance of such companies can be bought with the promise of regulatory lenience? Even if someone didn't agree with the previous statement, isn't it still of significant concern that the companies controlling the flow of information are participants in partisan politics?
- User23 7y ago
  Google engineers also built Obama's campaign software. The relationship was far tighter than most people realize.
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    They built his campaign software while working for Google? Are you sure about that?
    - mjevans 7y ago
      I think you're jumping to a conclusion with that phrasing. It's very likely they happened to also volunteer (or maybe be hired by) the campaign WHILE also happening to be employed by Google.
      - cycrutchfield 7y ago
        And Google would allow their employees to build IP for a particular political campaign? That is, they would waive their rights to the IP produced by their employees for the specific benefit of a particular candidate? That seems unlikely.
        monocasa 7y ago
        Eric Schmidt literally went out of his way to organize the Clinton IT infrastructure on ridiculously good terms. https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-team-hillarys-election-tech/ https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-... The idea that he utilized Google resources to do the same for Obama while he had more direct influence over Google isn't a crazy idea.
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        And he did so in his capacity as a private citizen, not by exercising his influence at Google. By the way, we are quite far afield from the initial claim that Google employees wrote software for a particular political campaign.
GeekyBear 7y ago
It's not so much an interpretation of what happened as it is a leak of what happened. >The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday faced renewed questions about its handling of its antitrust investigation into Google, after documents revealed that an internal report had recommended stronger action. The 2012 report, from the agency’s bureau of competition, said that the agency should sue the Internet search company for anticompetitive practices, according to several people who saw the report but would speak about it only under the condition of anonymity. At least one other staff report, they said, recommended not to pursue a lawsuit. In early 2013, the agency unanimously voted not to bring charges after an investigation. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to-court-staff-report-urged-ftc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to... Google has already lost several antitrust actions in the EU. It's not difficult to imagine that the investigation by FTC career officials found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to recommend taking action.
- fyoving 7y ago
  The EU has different rules (and extra motivation to go after US companies) they also don't need to win in court, their enforcement action in unilateral.

monocasa 7y ago

Google was also very positively connected to the Obama administration. It was some googlers that stepped in and turned around healthcare.gov for instance. I've heard a lot of rumors that they gave a lot of data access to the campaigns too.

fyoving 7y ago
I don't know about data accesse rumors but the fact that a bunch of Googlers did government work during the Obama years is well documented, that said the FTC is an independent agency with commissioners from both parties and they unanimously voted against going to court.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Not only is the amount of revolving door between Google and the Obama administration well documented, but Eric Schmidt was literally part of Hillary's campaign staff and personally funded a company to provide her campaign's development and infrastructure. Suffice to say, they have a lot less allies in DC this year, and even Democrats are starting to look negatively on them now.
- ajxs 7y ago
  Although this is a minor digression, I always felt that it was very interesting to contrast the overwhelming amount of airtime on the legacy media devoted to throwing fuel on the fire of "Russian interference in the 2016 election" with the scant concern for Alphabet's working relationship with the Clinton Campaign. I know I'm not the only person concerned with the disproportionate influence that companies like Google, Twitter, etc have on modern political discourse. Isn't it frightening that the assistance of such companies can be bought with the promise of regulatory lenience? Even if someone didn't agree with the previous statement, isn't it still of significant concern that the companies controlling the flow of information are participants in partisan politics?
User23 7y ago
Google engineers also built Obama's campaign software. The relationship was far tighter than most people realize.
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  They built his campaign software while working for Google? Are you sure about that?
  - mjevans 7y ago
    I think you're jumping to a conclusion with that phrasing. It's very likely they happened to also volunteer (or maybe be hired by) the campaign WHILE also happening to be employed by Google.
    - cycrutchfield 7y ago
      And Google would allow their employees to build IP for a particular political campaign? That is, they would waive their rights to the IP produced by their employees for the specific benefit of a particular candidate? That seems unlikely.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        Eric Schmidt literally went out of his way to organize the Clinton IT infrastructure on ridiculously good terms. https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-team-hillarys-election-tech/ https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-... The idea that he utilized Google resources to do the same for Obama while he had more direct influence over Google isn't a crazy idea.
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        And he did so in his capacity as a private citizen, not by exercising his influence at Google. By the way, we are quite far afield from the initial claim that Google employees wrote software for a particular political campaign.

GeekyBear 7y ago

It's not so much an interpretation of what happened as it is a leak of what happened. >The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday faced renewed questions about its handling of its antitrust investigation into Google, after documents revealed that an internal report had recommended stronger action. The 2012 report, from the agency’s bureau of competition, said that the agency should sue the Internet search company for anticompetitive practices, according to several people who saw the report but would speak about it only under the condition of anonymity. At least one other staff report, they said, recommended not to pursue a lawsuit. In early 2013, the agency unanimously voted not to bring charges after an investigation. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to-court-staff-report-urged-ftc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to... Google has already lost several antitrust actions in the EU. It's not difficult to imagine that the investigation by FTC career officials found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to recommend taking action.

fyoving 7y ago
The EU has different rules (and extra motivation to go after US companies) they also don't need to win in court, their enforcement action in unilateral.