4 ms·

Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market

207 points by akashshah87 6y ago

ketamine__ 6y ago
My opinion of Ken Paxton might be different had he not attempted to overturn the results of the presidential election. Is this suit just as frivolous?
- sanxiyn 6y ago
  If allegations are true, it doesn't seem to be frivolous.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    That's the problem. I'm keen to see some evidence. The Texas vs. Democracy case had a 70-page filing, of which literally every aspect was obviously false. That filing makes me look at this heavily redacted filing and think "this is all made up". Maybe it's not, but it's the rational reaction.
    - nr2x 6y ago
      Read the actual complaint, the level of knowledge you’d need to fabricate that would be unimaginable.
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        I read what I could and didn't find it overly persuasive. Obviously there must be evidence underlying these claims, but in the absence of that evidence a lot of it reads like one of those LSAT questions where you are supposed to spot the faulty logic. For example it just asserts that Google made it so everyone had to use their exchange and service, in almost those exact words ("had to") but there's nothing prior to that in the filing that supports this statement.
  - KirinDave 6y ago
    The issue here is that: 1. It's very clear that his office has no qualms with filing cases that include untrue statements. 2. It's also the case that this group of claimants is strongly associated with a government official who is very angry at companies and has been trying to attack a communications law from every angle he has. One cannot help but wonder at the timing of all this. It may very well be true. Sadly, we have to be skeptical now.
- 1MoreThing 6y ago
  This is the downside of having an AG who has been indicted on criminal charges for thee last 6 years. How much can you trust the guy?
- s3r3nity 6y ago
  Ad hominem attacks don't have any impact on validity of the underlying argument. Facts are still facts.
jfoster 6y ago
The HN title is hugely misleading, because it drops "Texas says". I would change it to "Google, Facebook allegedly had illegal deal to rig ad market" Sometimes this would be a technicality, for example where it's beyond much doubt, but in this case it seems that it's far from proven, so far.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  >according to a lawsuit filed by 10 states led by Texas.
  - jfoster 6y ago
    Things don't become true based merely on the number of lawsuits filed. If there were some further substance in the public domain (eg. emails, whistleblower, technical analysis, etc.) then adding "allegedly" might be more of a technicality. At the moment, I have no idea whether Facebook & Google did this or not. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. No judges have ruled on it yet. No evidence has been presented. Even the details of what exactly they are being accused of are vague. It's purely an allegation at this point.
- microtherion 6y ago
  Yes, given recent events, omitting ", Texas says" from a title seems somewhat rash, all the more so when the lawsuit is announced by the Texas AG of recent notoriety, introducing it by saying "Texas takes the lead once more!"
pavlov 6y ago
Suit filed by the same Texas AG who recently asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the election results of four other states. Same standard of evidence?
joshl325 6y ago
https://twitter.com/TXAG/status/1339283520099856384 https://twitter.com/TXAG/status/1339283520099856384? "Texas takes the lead once more!" I can never understand why do they have to do that. Creating us vs them mentality for everything.
- smilekzs 6y ago
  "... known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm." CA does this kind of stuff routinely --- part of what Elon Musk described as "complacency".
dang 6y ago
This is currently the #1 story on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718. We'll merge (most of) the comments thither.
- pinewurst 6y ago
  Where did it go then?
  - dang 6y ago
    It's still there. There have been multiple submissions of the same basic story, we merged them, and the one we merged them into is still #1 on the front page. Or am I misunderstanding your question?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - pinewurst 6y ago
      Sorry - Just realized I accidentally marked it “hidden” :(

207 points by akashshah87 6y ago

My opinion of Ken Paxton might be different had he not attempted to overturn the results of the presidential election. Is this suit just as frivolous?

sanxiyn 6y ago
If allegations are true, it doesn't seem to be frivolous.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  That's the problem. I'm keen to see some evidence. The Texas vs. Democracy case had a 70-page filing, of which literally every aspect was obviously false. That filing makes me look at this heavily redacted filing and think "this is all made up". Maybe it's not, but it's the rational reaction.
  - nr2x 6y ago
    Read the actual complaint, the level of knowledge you’d need to fabricate that would be unimaginable.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      I read what I could and didn't find it overly persuasive. Obviously there must be evidence underlying these claims, but in the absence of that evidence a lot of it reads like one of those LSAT questions where you are supposed to spot the faulty logic. For example it just asserts that Google made it so everyone had to use their exchange and service, in almost those exact words ("had to") but there's nothing prior to that in the filing that supports this statement.
- KirinDave 6y ago
  The issue here is that: 1. It's very clear that his office has no qualms with filing cases that include untrue statements. 2. It's also the case that this group of claimants is strongly associated with a government official who is very angry at companies and has been trying to attack a communications law from every angle he has. One cannot help but wonder at the timing of all this. It may very well be true. Sadly, we have to be skeptical now.
1MoreThing 6y ago
This is the downside of having an AG who has been indicted on criminal charges for thee last 6 years. How much can you trust the guy?
s3r3nity 6y ago
Ad hominem attacks don't have any impact on validity of the underlying argument. Facts are still facts.

jfoster 6y ago

The HN title is hugely misleading, because it drops "Texas says". I would change it to "Google, Facebook allegedly had illegal deal to rig ad market" Sometimes this would be a technicality, for example where it's beyond much doubt, but in this case it seems that it's far from proven, so far.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
>according to a lawsuit filed by 10 states led by Texas.
- jfoster 6y ago
  Things don't become true based merely on the number of lawsuits filed. If there were some further substance in the public domain (eg. emails, whistleblower, technical analysis, etc.) then adding "allegedly" might be more of a technicality. At the moment, I have no idea whether Facebook & Google did this or not. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. No judges have ruled on it yet. No evidence has been presented. Even the details of what exactly they are being accused of are vague. It's purely an allegation at this point.
microtherion 6y ago
Yes, given recent events, omitting ", Texas says" from a title seems somewhat rash, all the more so when the lawsuit is announced by the Texas AG of recent notoriety, introducing it by saying "Texas takes the lead once more!"

pavlov 6y ago

Suit filed by the same Texas AG who recently asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the election results of four other states. Same standard of evidence?

joshl325 6y ago

https://twitter.com/TXAG/status/1339283520099856384 https://twitter.com/TXAG/status/1339283520099856384? "Texas takes the lead once more!" I can never understand why do they have to do that. Creating us vs them mentality for everything.

smilekzs 6y ago
"... known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm." CA does this kind of stuff routinely --- part of what Elon Musk described as "complacency".

dang 6y ago

This is currently the #1 story on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718. We'll merge (most of) the comments thither.

pinewurst 6y ago
Where did it go then?
- dang 6y ago
  It's still there. There have been multiple submissions of the same basic story, we merged them, and the one we merged them into is still #1 on the front page. Or am I misunderstanding your question?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pinewurst 6y ago
    Sorry - Just realized I accidentally marked it “hidden” :(