4 ms·

I’m not sure that’s inherently disqualifying. When it comes to questions of law and justice, it seems entirely reasonable to ask about similar cases, simply to

by md_ 6y ago

I’m not sure that’s inherently disqualifying. When it comes to questions of law and justice, it seems entirely reasonable to ask about similar cases, simply to investigate the equal and fair application of law, no? “Whatsboutism”, as I understand it, is a technique where one brings up ill-proven allegations that are unrelated to the matter at hand merely to distract. Here, the claim seems much more on point: it’s that this is a political case, as shown by the failure to pursue similar cases against other companies. (Is it? I don’t personally know. But it seems like a fair point to make.)

gfodor 6y ago
Law especially at the federal DOJ level is as much about which cases to pursue as it is about what cases have merit. Either no monopolists should be prosecuted or a select subset worthy of the opportunity cost should be. How big the subset is a question, and the proper subset could be zero, but it's not a contradiction to see selective enforcement of anti-trust. The opposite, where many big, massive cases are opened on many fronts simultaneously is almost never the methodology of federal law enforcement afaict.
- md_ 6y ago
  Sure, but the claim here wasn't (as I read it) that this is unusual, but that it's unjust. If prosecutors are selecting the highest ROI targets based on some calculation of which cases they can win and which cases have the biggest consumer or market impact (or are most egregious), that doesn't seem especially problematic. If they're selecting targets for prosecution based on who has political connections and who does not, however, that's very different. Taken to the extreme, it's "whataboutism" to ask about racial disparities in criminal prosecutions; if a defendant is guilty, who cares if some other accused perpetrator of a different race wasn't prosecuted for a similar offense? The impartial application of law--at least with respect to considerations like race or political connectedness--can certainly conflict with the pragmatic considerations of prosecutorial strategy, and I don't think it's simply "whataboutism" to question that tension.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    Well, the burden of proof seems to be on the person making claims going after big tech vs other industries is politically motivated. I would prefer the DoJ step in to take actions against companies that are abusing their power to massively violate the world's privacy through surveillance systems which have unimaginable capabilities for shaping global human behavior. It's hard to think of a more worthy target of anti-trust law than the companies which are poised to control the minds and behavior of billions due to their market power.
    - md_ 6y ago
      Agreed. But I read the parent’s comment as being about the legitimacy of such a claim itself—that the claim of political bias is not merely lacking proof but “whataboutism” and thus illegitimate or irrelevant, even if proven. :) Of course one might view these cases as legitimate, and bemoan that similar prosecutions don’t happen against companies in other industries, as well. The effect of political bias may be to suppress cases that should be brought, not to bring cases that shouldn’t be.

by md_ 6y ago

gfodor 6y ago

Law especially at the federal DOJ level is as much about which cases to pursue as it is about what cases have merit. Either no monopolists should be prosecuted or a select subset worthy of the opportunity cost should be. How big the subset is a question, and the proper subset could be zero, but it's not a contradiction to see selective enforcement of anti-trust. The opposite, where many big, massive cases are opened on many fronts simultaneously is almost never the methodology of federal law enforcement afaict.

md_ 6y ago
Sure, but the claim here wasn't (as I read it) that this is unusual, but that it's unjust. If prosecutors are selecting the highest ROI targets based on some calculation of which cases they can win and which cases have the biggest consumer or market impact (or are most egregious), that doesn't seem especially problematic. If they're selecting targets for prosecution based on who has political connections and who does not, however, that's very different. Taken to the extreme, it's "whataboutism" to ask about racial disparities in criminal prosecutions; if a defendant is guilty, who cares if some other accused perpetrator of a different race wasn't prosecuted for a similar offense? The impartial application of law--at least with respect to considerations like race or political connectedness--can certainly conflict with the pragmatic considerations of prosecutorial strategy, and I don't think it's simply "whataboutism" to question that tension.
- gfodor 6y ago
  Well, the burden of proof seems to be on the person making claims going after big tech vs other industries is politically motivated. I would prefer the DoJ step in to take actions against companies that are abusing their power to massively violate the world's privacy through surveillance systems which have unimaginable capabilities for shaping global human behavior. It's hard to think of a more worthy target of anti-trust law than the companies which are poised to control the minds and behavior of billions due to their market power.
  - md_ 6y ago
    Agreed. But I read the parent’s comment as being about the legitimacy of such a claim itself—that the claim of political bias is not merely lacking proof but “whataboutism” and thus illegitimate or irrelevant, even if proven. :) Of course one might view these cases as legitimate, and bemoan that similar prosecutions don’t happen against companies in other industries, as well. The effect of political bias may be to suppress cases that should be brought, not to bring cases that shouldn’t be.