6 ms·

> Schmidtlein has derided the excerpts as cherry-picked and “out of context.” "out of context" is the standard BS answer to anything. "What context, exactly, i

> Schmidtlein has derided the excerpts as cherry-picked and “out of context.” "out of context" is the standard BS answer to anything. "What context, exactly, is missing?" should be the followup question. Odd that they don't mention that Sridhar Ramaswamy is not merely the "founder of Neeva" but he was head of Google AdWords for almost 10 years! I guess you can't expect these reporters to read their own site. https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/20/23731397/neeva-search-engine-google-shutdown https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/20/23731397/neeva-search-eng...

bawolff 3y ago
> "out of context" is the standard BS answer to anything. "What context, exactly, is missing?" should be the followup question. Quoting things out of context is also the standard BS way to smear someone. In any case, i agree that the person asking the questions should expect this response. If they're prepared for that response and the quote really wasn't taken out of context, it shouldn't be too hard to make the person using it look like an idiot.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The problem with all of this is that it's a performance. Google does something actually anti-competitive, but it's subtle and requires a thorough understanding of industry dynamics to fully understand. But one of their employees said something that sounds bad, so guess what the headline is. Whether the quote was taken out of context or not isn't even the interesting question, because it's independent of whether they're actually doing something wrong. The quote could be completely in context and the employee was a fool who didn't know what they were talking about, or it could be completely out of context even though they actually did the bad thing.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    What exactly is so hard to understand? It's a well known fact that they pay to be the default search engine. Either that's against the rules or it is not. It sounds like the DOJ doesn't want to be blamed for any potential negative consequences for establishing clear rules, so instead they'll bully Google into settling so that they can get an easy win.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The Department of Justice isn't a rulemaking entity, it's the federal prosecutor's office. The antitrust laws we have are quite old and passed during the era of robber barons in order to do something about them, with extremely broad language that by its terms would prohibit not only anything you might like them to but a lot of things you might not. The result is that the courts get to make something up about when they apply, and have made a bit of a mess of it. Sure, it says, "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." But that doesn't mean Sprint can't merge with T-Mobile. Or maybe it does. Anybody have a coin to flip? What the DoJ can do is dump a bunch of allegations into an indictment and hope some of them sound plausible enough to induce a settlement. Which will ideally actually promote competition and not be some political quid pro quo.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > The Department of Justice isn’t a rulemaking entity Yes, it is. [0] > it’s the federal prosecutor’s office. That is among its functions, yes. > The antitrust laws we have are quite old and passed during the era of robber barons in order to do something about them, with extremely broad language that by its terms would prohibit not only anything you might like them to but a lot of things you might not. Among the antitrust laws we have are: * the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Reform and Enhancement Permanent Extension Act (2020); whose main effect was, as the names suggests, to make permanent the provisions of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Reform and Enhancement Act (2004). * the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act (2020) * the antitrust provisions of the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2020 (oddly enough, 2021) Some of our antitrust laws were written in the so-called “age of robber barons”, but antitrust law (even purely statute law) hasn’t been static since. [0] for illustration, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-advances-proposed-rule-strengthen-web-and-mobile-app-access-people https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-advances-p... ; you probably mean, though, that its not the rulemaking entity with regard to competition, since that’s mostly the FTC.
        3y ago
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  So what is the "context" on this?
- tiffanyg 3y ago
  I would suggest that since this is a court case, the rhetorical / commentary-like (aspects of) statements made by the attorneys in court will (especially at this level) almost certainly be 'parsed out' in facts. You're both right that this kind of language is used non-stop by people in certain roles today - especially politicians. Of course, that has always been the case in politics at any point in history I have any real knowledge about. In a courtroom, there are some real differences. First, certain types of statements may be considered impermissible, and challenges are possible in various forms during various phases of a trial or hearing. Further, people who work in these environments tend to acquire a sort of "rhet-dar" (and a rather explicit form) that too many who don't get this kind of 'practice' every (work) day don't. And, of course, instructions can be provided to juries to disregard certain statements / evidence depending on challenges / various issues with something brought into a legal proceeding. Finally, at actual decision time, while rhetoric can influence, whether the decision is made by a judge or jury, the emphasis will be on facts, laws, interpretations of laws, etc. Fluff rhetoric like "out of context" in an opening statement is quite empty, especially by the time a proceeding is wrapping up. Always makes a good sound bite for the external world though. I can't personally be much more specific since my own legal experiences (of various types) have been ad hoc and infrequent. I considered pursuing a degree several times, never did. In particular, anyone reading would be right to not consider this in any way an authoritative comment. I will provide one ref though that has some pretty good additional info from what I had a chance to skim when looking for a bit more to give y'all. I'm sure there are others here far more expert than I, perhaps one will flesh things out better than I may have - but, giving at least a sense of the role that that kind of journalist-bait might play in an actual legal proceeding seemed worth something... https://law.temple.edu/aer/2019/03/23/opening-statement-v-argument-where-is-the-line/ https://law.temple.edu/aer/2019/03/23/opening-statement-v-ar...
  - photonthug 3y ago
    Sigh, it's bad enough listening to lawyers play at this game of rigor/formality/objectivity, so it's even more tiresome to listen to others make their excuses/apologies for them. Lawyers and judges ARE politicians, not some scholars or scientists, and our courts do a bunch of batshit arbitrary stuff every day. Appealing to facts and "words mean things" and defending the profession as even meaningfully skilled, much less noble, seems silly these days when you take a look at most stuff in the real world. Roe v Wade comes to mind here- there's no esoteric and learned moral calculus going on, and we see that precedent matters only up until it does not. Judges invent the rules and ignore them when convenient. At least the other opinion engineers and spin doctors in society aren't as hypocritical about it. The outcome of this case is probably already decided, and the rest is theater..
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I don't really agree with that - I've seen plenty of things that have been taken out of context, and portrayed actions in a really false light. It's really not hard to take some off the cuff email or Slack remark and present it as something like official company policy. More importantly, though, I think anything a company says internally should be 100% irrelevant in an antitrust case. It's like the famous advice parents should give their kids when it comes to relationships: "Just ignore everything a potential partner says, and only focus on what they do." I mean, it's not like corporations need to have any sort of "mens rea" to be found a monopoly abuser. IMO all that should be evaluated are the actual actions a corporation took to stifle competition. I don't really see why internal communications are relevant at all in these trials.
- willsmith72 3y ago
  don't agree at all, internal communications are absolutely relevant
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Care to explain why? When evaluating whether a company has abused its monopoly, why isn't it enough to simply look at its actions? To be clear, I don't feel this way to give companies a break. I feel this way because whatever employees were thinking behind the scenes shouldn't matter. If a company locks up the defaults on pretty much all browsers, why isn't that fact alone enough to come to a conclusion?
    - rapind 3y ago
      I imagine it has to do with intent and willfulness. Not sure if that’s relevant or not in a monopoly case though.
    - mongol 3y ago
      On some level, I don't think a company has actions. Everything a company does are effects of what their employees do. Then it boils down to, is the action of an employee sanctioned by management? This you can only tell by looking at the internal communication.
ekianjo 3y ago
> "out of context" is the standard BS answer to anything. You are completely wrong on this one. People routinely take things out of context on purpose to defame others. Thats so common I am surprised you can make the opposite claim.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  I've asked in a bunch of places here "what IS the 'context', then?" No one has an answer.
  - murderfs 3y ago
    Why do you expect anyone here to answer you? You're not the judge, and presumably no one posting in this thread is an attorney representing Google in this case.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      why do I expect anyone to answer? They said, "out of context" as if there's some broader context that would put it in a different light. OK, what is it? Otherwise, it's just empty legal boilerplate, i.e. performance art.

bawolff 3y ago

> "out of context" is the standard BS answer to anything. "What context, exactly, is missing?" should be the followup question. Quoting things out of context is also the standard BS way to smear someone. In any case, i agree that the person asking the questions should expect this response. If they're prepared for that response and the quote really wasn't taken out of context, it shouldn't be too hard to make the person using it look like an idiot.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The problem with all of this is that it's a performance. Google does something actually anti-competitive, but it's subtle and requires a thorough understanding of industry dynamics to fully understand. But one of their employees said something that sounds bad, so guess what the headline is. Whether the quote was taken out of context or not isn't even the interesting question, because it's independent of whether they're actually doing something wrong. The quote could be completely in context and the employee was a fool who didn't know what they were talking about, or it could be completely out of context even though they actually did the bad thing.
- Aunche 3y ago
  What exactly is so hard to understand? It's a well known fact that they pay to be the default search engine. Either that's against the rules or it is not. It sounds like the DOJ doesn't want to be blamed for any potential negative consequences for establishing clear rules, so instead they'll bully Google into settling so that they can get an easy win.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The Department of Justice isn't a rulemaking entity, it's the federal prosecutor's office. The antitrust laws we have are quite old and passed during the era of robber barons in order to do something about them, with extremely broad language that by its terms would prohibit not only anything you might like them to but a lot of things you might not. The result is that the courts get to make something up about when they apply, and have made a bit of a mess of it. Sure, it says, "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." But that doesn't mean Sprint can't merge with T-Mobile. Or maybe it does. Anybody have a coin to flip? What the DoJ can do is dump a bunch of allegations into an indictment and hope some of them sound plausible enough to induce a settlement. Which will ideally actually promote competition and not be some political quid pro quo.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > The Department of Justice isn’t a rulemaking entity Yes, it is. [0] > it’s the federal prosecutor’s office. That is among its functions, yes. > The antitrust laws we have are quite old and passed during the era of robber barons in order to do something about them, with extremely broad language that by its terms would prohibit not only anything you might like them to but a lot of things you might not. Among the antitrust laws we have are: * the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Reform and Enhancement Permanent Extension Act (2020); whose main effect was, as the names suggests, to make permanent the provisions of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Reform and Enhancement Act (2004). * the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act (2020) * the antitrust provisions of the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2020 (oddly enough, 2021) Some of our antitrust laws were written in the so-called “age of robber barons”, but antitrust law (even purely statute law) hasn’t been static since. [0] for illustration, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-advances-proposed-rule-strengthen-web-and-mobile-app-access-people https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-advances-p... ; you probably mean, though, that its not the rulemaking entity with regard to competition, since that’s mostly the FTC.
      - 3y ago
AlbertCory 3y ago
So what is the "context" on this?
tiffanyg 3y ago
I would suggest that since this is a court case, the rhetorical / commentary-like (aspects of) statements made by the attorneys in court will (especially at this level) almost certainly be 'parsed out' in facts. You're both right that this kind of language is used non-stop by people in certain roles today - especially politicians. Of course, that has always been the case in politics at any point in history I have any real knowledge about. In a courtroom, there are some real differences. First, certain types of statements may be considered impermissible, and challenges are possible in various forms during various phases of a trial or hearing. Further, people who work in these environments tend to acquire a sort of "rhet-dar" (and a rather explicit form) that too many who don't get this kind of 'practice' every (work) day don't. And, of course, instructions can be provided to juries to disregard certain statements / evidence depending on challenges / various issues with something brought into a legal proceeding. Finally, at actual decision time, while rhetoric can influence, whether the decision is made by a judge or jury, the emphasis will be on facts, laws, interpretations of laws, etc. Fluff rhetoric like "out of context" in an opening statement is quite empty, especially by the time a proceeding is wrapping up. Always makes a good sound bite for the external world though. I can't personally be much more specific since my own legal experiences (of various types) have been ad hoc and infrequent. I considered pursuing a degree several times, never did. In particular, anyone reading would be right to not consider this in any way an authoritative comment. I will provide one ref though that has some pretty good additional info from what I had a chance to skim when looking for a bit more to give y'all. I'm sure there are others here far more expert than I, perhaps one will flesh things out better than I may have - but, giving at least a sense of the role that that kind of journalist-bait might play in an actual legal proceeding seemed worth something... https://law.temple.edu/aer/2019/03/23/opening-statement-v-argument-where-is-the-line/ https://law.temple.edu/aer/2019/03/23/opening-statement-v-ar...
- photonthug 3y ago
  Sigh, it's bad enough listening to lawyers play at this game of rigor/formality/objectivity, so it's even more tiresome to listen to others make their excuses/apologies for them. Lawyers and judges ARE politicians, not some scholars or scientists, and our courts do a bunch of batshit arbitrary stuff every day. Appealing to facts and "words mean things" and defending the profession as even meaningfully skilled, much less noble, seems silly these days when you take a look at most stuff in the real world. Roe v Wade comes to mind here- there's no esoteric and learned moral calculus going on, and we see that precedent matters only up until it does not. Judges invent the rules and ignore them when convenient. At least the other opinion engineers and spin doctors in society aren't as hypocritical about it. The outcome of this case is probably already decided, and the rest is theater..

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I don't really agree with that - I've seen plenty of things that have been taken out of context, and portrayed actions in a really false light. It's really not hard to take some off the cuff email or Slack remark and present it as something like official company policy. More importantly, though, I think anything a company says internally should be 100% irrelevant in an antitrust case. It's like the famous advice parents should give their kids when it comes to relationships: "Just ignore everything a potential partner says, and only focus on what they do." I mean, it's not like corporations need to have any sort of "mens rea" to be found a monopoly abuser. IMO all that should be evaluated are the actual actions a corporation took to stifle competition. I don't really see why internal communications are relevant at all in these trials.

willsmith72 3y ago
don't agree at all, internal communications are absolutely relevant
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Care to explain why? When evaluating whether a company has abused its monopoly, why isn't it enough to simply look at its actions? To be clear, I don't feel this way to give companies a break. I feel this way because whatever employees were thinking behind the scenes shouldn't matter. If a company locks up the defaults on pretty much all browsers, why isn't that fact alone enough to come to a conclusion?
  - rapind 3y ago
    I imagine it has to do with intent and willfulness. Not sure if that’s relevant or not in a monopoly case though.
  - mongol 3y ago
    On some level, I don't think a company has actions. Everything a company does are effects of what their employees do. Then it boils down to, is the action of an employee sanctioned by management? This you can only tell by looking at the internal communication.

ekianjo 3y ago

> "out of context" is the standard BS answer to anything. You are completely wrong on this one. People routinely take things out of context on purpose to defame others. Thats so common I am surprised you can make the opposite claim.

AlbertCory 3y ago
I've asked in a bunch of places here "what IS the 'context', then?" No one has an answer.
- murderfs 3y ago
  Why do you expect anyone here to answer you? You're not the judge, and presumably no one posting in this thread is an attorney representing Google in this case.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    why do I expect anyone to answer? They said, "out of context" as if there's some broader context that would put it in a different light. OK, what is it? Otherwise, it's just empty legal boilerplate, i.e. performance art.