3 ms·
? I'm not entirely sure what you mean. What I was trying to convey was that the FBI could have exerted some kind of pressure to get Google to run the anti-boot
by spondylosaurus 3y ago
? I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
What I was trying to convey was that the FBI could have exerted some kind of pressure to get Google to run the anti-booter ads of their own volition instead of the FBI (presumably) buying the ads like anyone else would buy ads. I have no idea what that kind of pressure would entail cuz I don't work for the feds and couldn't say what their "do this or else" strategies are like, lol.
- not2b 3y agoIt doesn't cost that much compared to their budget, so it's easier to pay for ads than get into a fight with Google lawyers.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoWhat do you mean by pressure? I think that you are making an assumption about how the FBI operates.
- spondylosaurus 3y agoRight, I am assuming, because I'm not particularly familiar with the workings of the FBI lol. Surely it's obvious that by "pressure" I'm referring to the threat of some sort of nebulous legal-y action if Google didn't comply with [xyz request]. Is that not how law enforcement functions? (I'd be shocked if they were asking very nicely and offering to take Google out to dinner.)
- acheron 3y agoThe point is that the real world is not a thriller movie. No, the FBI doesn't do that.
- spondylosaurus 3y agoWhat exactly do they do, then?
- matthewterhune 3y agoOf course they do, though not to a big company like Google for something trivial like this when they could pay a bit of money. Threats aren't cost free.
- thatguy0900 3y agoCorrect, the fbi never breaks the law or does anything not strictly above board.