4 ms·
Sure, you can argue that its a bad deal, shouldn't be allowed period, etc. But that is a different argument than saying that there is no scrutiny.
by limagnolia 2mo ago
Sure, you can argue that its a bad deal, shouldn't be allowed period, etc. But that is a different argument than saying that there is no scrutiny.
- girvo 2mo agoThe argument is that the scrutiny is in practice not sufficient, as usual in these cases.
- vkou 2mo agoThe argument generally doesn't demonstrate that. The argument generally goes: 1. Google could do it. 2. <This space is intentionally left blank> 3. Therefore, Google is doing it! (Step 2 needs to be filled in a bit for it to be a good argument. Generally, analogies don't quite make the cut.)
- mring33621 2mo agoYou are ignoring the value of previous experience: Please replace 'Google' with 'Profit-driven legal entity in the USA' and reread your argument. The parent is making an assumption, based on past experience, but is also Most Likely correct.
- andybak 2mo agoAt the risk of posting without adding anything substantive, I find this an exceedingly convincing argument.
- goalieca 2mo agoInsufficient scrutiny would be more apt.
- xp84 2mo agoSounds like a case of “there’s not enough scrutiny unless the decision ends up agreeing with my position”