2 ms·

The problem is that no one goes through the effort of making an official policy against something unless that something is actually a threat. In Google's case,

The problem is that no one goes through the effort of making an official policy against something unless that something is actually a threat. In Google's case, the impression that abuse of a monopoly position is one such threat. If one is going to make a rule "Under no circumstances, call a spade a spade;" you bet your sweet arse if I'm a regulator, you're getting extra effort in investigating that aspect. It's a "the lady dost protest too much" sorta thing. If you don't have that policy, then I have less reason to believe you are specifically trying to hide something. After all, if you weren't in a monopoly/monopoly adjacent position through continual M&A's, you wouldn't have that problem, now would you?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>The problem is that no one goes through the effort of making an official policy against something unless that something is actually a threat FFS. This is exactly what I mean. Is it really not that unforeseeable that some MBAs wouldn't just implement anti-trust training because "it's what all the other BigCos do"? Heck, every defense contractor has anti-bribery training that delves into avoiding optics that hint at the potential for bribery. The overwhelming majority of them aren't bribing anyone. >If one is going to make a rule "Under no circumstances, call a spade a spade;" you bet your sweet arse if I'm a regulator, you're getting extra effort in investigating that aspect. Next time you get pulled over make some wise cracks about trafficking drugs. Then maybe you'll see why they have a "don't talk about drugs" policy.