2 ms·
No, this is not the prisoner's dilemma, because the parties can communicate and are not bound to the original decision. What you're suggesting is that the news
by qsort 6y ago
No, this is not the prisoner's dilemma, because the parties can communicate and are not bound to the original decision. What you're suggesting is that the news companies form a cartel.
> It's reasonable, then, for the EU and the news industry to seek to remove Google's monopoly advantages.
Yes, it is. But this legislation does nothing to attempt to break Google's monopoly, while at the same time granting very weird and very specific privileges to the very rich, very well-connected, very corrupt news company owners.
Google is absolutely a monopoly and is absolutely abusing that position. We should stop the monopoly situation, not introduce very weird stuff that just so happens to favor people with no reasonable claims whatsoever except "I'm friends with the regulator".
- throwaway2245 6y ago> ...granting very weird and very specific privileges to the very rich, very well-connected, very corrupt... I agree - and this solution has been agreed by Google because it suits their interests. They now get to collude with other powerful actors without having to worry about the less powerful (and have set this as an available precedent across the EU). I would find it more satisfying if Australia called Google's bluff and told them where to go.
- majewsky 6y ago> No, this is not the prisoner's dilemma, because the parties can communicate and are not bound to the original decision. What you're suggesting is that the news companies form a cartel. The second sentence disproves the first. It's effectively a prisoner's dilemma because communication between the players is effectively infeasible through illegality.