3 ms·

If this were the case, they would've used it as a PR opportunity to bash the legislation. It wouldn't have happened silently.

• JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > they would've used it as a PR opportunity to bash the legislation To what end? Needlessly pissing off lawmakers isn’t a smart strategy.
  • ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    It's basically their goto strategy though. For instance, responding to third party payment provider laws by saying "okay, but you still have to pay us 27% anyways" is pretty much purposely intended to respond by following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, forcing lawmakers to go back and be even more clear on the demand. They know the law was intended to address their abusive pricing arrangements, but they decided, of course, to thumb their nose at it and add a new "platform fee" instead.
  • soraminazuki 4y ago
    But they're already known to do exactly that. Here's how a lobbying group representing Google, among other companies, went full scaremongering in reaction to a proposed anti-trust law: https://inv.riverside.rocks/jXf04bhcjbg?t=1297 https://inv.riverside.rocks/jXf04bhcjbg?t=1297
    • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      Oh, sorry, forgot this hasn’t passed yet. Yes, they should be doing that regardless.
  • jbjbjbjb 4y ago
    I’m not sure of that, tit for tat does well as a strategy. Also lawmakers change every so often and usually love to pick over the negatives from their predecessor’s time and do things differently.