15 ms·

The judge was appointed by Clinton, so they've been in their role for decades now. It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would

The judge was appointed by Clinton, so they've been in their role for decades now. It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy.

bigyabai 1mo ago
To the contrary, the entire DOJ understands that FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door. Any judge that attempts to defang Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system, which this administration will fight tooth and nail to defend. Not very different from how federal protectionism keeps Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage. Anyone trying to loosen America's grip on software distribution is crossing an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists.
- vasco 1mo ago
  Since you are getting no replies but getting downvoted I'm adding source from 2016 corroborating what you mention: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-revolving-door-us https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-rev... 251 individuals in such detected instances just in google. And that report is 10 years old, I'd bet it's 10x that by now.
  - strictnein 1mo ago
    That makes the argument worse, not better. Google employees tens of thousands of people. The US intelligence apparatus employees hundreds of thousands of people. In all of that, over eight years, there are 251 people who moved between the two, and because of that absolute rounding error, the entire federal government is beholden to them? Since you are making the accusation that this is a real conspiracy: statistically, how many people should have rotated between these two giant employers over an 8 year span? The answer isn't zero. Also, this makes the "data" even more pointless: "between Google or related firms, and the federal government, national political campaigns and Congress during President Obama’s time in office" "were appointed to federal advisory boards." Do you know how many of those boards exist? There are tons of them. I've known a couple of people who have served on them. They're incredibly boring and deal with things like "What accessibility standards should federal government websites support?". Of course you would want people from Google on that type of board. > 251 individuals in such detected instances just in google. And that report is 10 years old, I'd bet it's 10x that by now. "Detected instances" It's so secret that I can name one of them off the top of my head: Matt Cutts. Is he part of this vast conspiracy too?
    - vasco 1mo ago
      What conspiracy mate? It's not so deep, I was curious if what he said was a lie due to the downvotes and found nice evidence for it. You don't find it convincing it's your choice, but the dude didn't pull it out of his ass.
      - strictnein 1mo ago
        The conspiracy that Google is protected on high because people have rotated between two giant employers. If you think it is "nice evidence", how many people should have moved between those two employers? And you made the claim that the rate likely drastically increased over the past 10 years. Based on what, exactly?
        watwut 1mo ago
        Big companies being protected "from high" based on payments and favors is not conspiracy theory anymore. It is out there in the open expected thing.
        ux266478 1mo ago
        You think that giant employers being protected, especially when they align themselves with government interests of the day, is a conspiracy? Do you also think that suggesting economic producer interests are a high priority is a conspiracy? Or that corporations with contracts to the government are generally compliant with governmental requests?
        JMiao 1mo ago
        yes, such has been the reality for some time now. look at boeing
        DarmokTanagra 1mo ago
        [dead]
- strictnein 1mo ago
  The DOJ isn't part of the Judiciary branch, it's part of the Executive. > FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door Most of the NSA is active duty service members and former military. Did you mean other three letter agencies, excluding the most powerful one dealing with surveillance? > Any judge that attempts to interfere with Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. But now she's doing his bidding. Is that what you're claiming? Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this.
  - bigyabai 1mo ago
    > The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. That's a very different, partisan effort. It's not bipartisan like the Patriot Act was, or domestic surveillance in-general. > Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this. Not everything is as it seems. You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth.
    - strictnein 1mo ago
      > You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. I mean, you're correct? It's impossible to prove a negative. > There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. You're the ones making the extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is on you, not the people pointing out the flaws in these claims.
      - mobelkh 1mo ago
        i would argue, the NSA not being up to some bullshit is more unlikely, and thus has the burden of proof on it, to assume otherwise is to ignore history and basic incentives these orgs have.
  - 1mo ago
- surcap526 1mo ago
  [dead]
- rootsudo 1mo ago
  100% glad someone states the obvious. Sometimes here people think these tech companies are on truly altruistic missions on making “the world a better place!!1” or truly making an impact by being an IC in their role and having access to perks which, have largely been taken away as the market matures to data collection and surveillance. If you want to have some fun, go on LinkedIn and see how many former military people, proud of their service, boast how they are at x or y tech company in director esque roles. Then bookmark them and see the pages disappear in the future. Boy I’m glad it’s legally 100% ok to scrap LinkedIn data because it truly is a revolving door.
  - edgyquant 1mo ago
    Can you give an example of what you’re saying here? Companies spin up and vanish?
- JMiao 1mo ago
  agree with you but including netflix is becoming hilarious
  - xp84 1mo ago
    The acronym gets awkward if we don't, though
    - edoceo 1mo ago
      I thought we were using "Mag7" these days.
  - makeitdouble 1mo ago
    Or that N could be Nvidia now.
- roosterIllusi0n 1mo ago
  RCS is google's foothold. It forces everyone to share with google and currently, there is no carrier option for RCS. You have to pick google or apple or go without.
- ralfd 1mo ago
  > Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage Please. The Androidfication of iOS with malware/scamware would cost quadrillions in market damage.
  - gambiting 1mo ago
    Citation needed. The idea that somehow my mum can't even find the space bar on her keyboard and yet is competent enough to go through several warning screens to install a custom .apk is just laughable.
    - jen20 1mo ago
      > is competent enough to go through several warning screens What about "is incompetent enough to press the buttons when the nice man from Microsoft calls about the viruses on her USB"?
      - gambiting 1mo ago
        She's laugh at him and disconnect. She might not know where the space bar is but she's not an idiot.
        jen20 1mo ago
        Good for her - MANY people fall for these scams, however.
        bigyabai 1mo ago
        The internet is full of scams. If you desensitize someone to that reality, then you better disable Safari access, iMessage, calls and FaceTime for their own good.
        jen20 1mo ago
        Indeed, it would be a good idea for iOS to have a mode for the elderly that is almost exactly like that (similar to child mode, and for similar reasons).
- alexashka 1mo ago
  > an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists We're all ashamed, apparently?? What do they call this, projections of a guilty conscience?
  - bigyabai 1mo ago
    Jingoism. America loves the free market until TikTok and Chinese cars enter it, then it's kicking and screaming all the way down.
    - alexashka 1mo ago
      You're not getting it. There is no 'we', there is no 'America'. These are propaganda terms. When you use them, you bolster the people who mindlessly repeat slogans and frustrate those who don't. It's a lose-lose.
      - bigyabai 1mo ago
        My point was to relate the American POV of the judge with the America-optimistic POV of the parent comment. Using "we" and "America" in that context is perfectly clarifying, I'm not beholden to pivot to your pet nitpick.
        alexashka 1mo ago
        You're not beholden to make any effort to understand me or anyone else, that's a given. Here is what an LLM thinks about what you've done: > The “we” is doing a lot of rhetorical work: it turns what could have been stated as “the U.S. government doesn't openly admit this” into the much broader and more dramatic “we Americans are collectively unwilling to admit it.” I hope that helps. Or is the LLM also nitpicking and failing to understand your 'perfectly clarifying' remarks? Feel free to copy paste and ask an LLM yourself, all I did was ask it 'who is the 'we' referring to?' and copy pasted original parent and your reply.
        1mo ago
- shevy-java 1mo ago
  Understandable, but how is that fair to other competitors? The whole system is now easily abused by huge mega-corporations. That goes against capitalism. Why did the USA suddenly abandon capitalism?
  - M95D 1mo ago
    There's nothing sudden about it. It was happening since 1970, according to one very popular site.
- anon84873628 1mo ago
  Then why is the DOJ bringing the anti-trust cases in the first place? You think it's all one big conspiracy with the judges so they can save face with consumers? This litigation was initiated under the Biden admin and not withdrawn by Trump.
  - bigyabai 1mo ago
    Because winning an anti-trust case sets a much larger precedent than having no case at all. Closing the case can block repeat litigation on the same grounds. If you were Meta, for example, you would much rather be investigated by a corrupt administration than gamble on a future administration being nice. You might even make political donations to this end, and curry favor with the politicians to steer into the outcome you want. Like how Apple was able to escalate foreign App Store litigation to a presidential flamewar, all because Tim Cook bet on the right political cards. We see the same partisan cake-cutting with AI firms, as a way to punish Anthropic for not kissing ass hard enough. The natural response to a grassroots demand for regulation is to invest your money against it. If Microsoft could avoid a breakup, why can't Google? Why not Apple? What if they're all for sale, like the Catholic Church selling indulgences?
    - anon84873628 1mo ago
      This case against Google was initiated under Biden, and generally celebrated at the time. For your theory to be correct you need to explain how the DOJ brought a deliberately flawed case or weakened it at some point. I haven't read anyone suggesting anything like that.
JMiao 1mo ago
we got rick grimes over here walking into atlanta
ElProlactin 1mo ago
> It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy. The US is a corporatocracy. It's apparently a lot easier for Americans to convince themselves that the current administration is corrupt and end there than it is to acknowledge that the entire system has been corrupted and it won't change once the administration changes.
- slg 1mo ago
  Two things can be true at once, the entire system is corrupt and the current administration is much more corrupt than any prior administration.
  - pstuart 1mo ago
    The current administration is in a class of its own regarding corruption -- it is the principle driver of everything they do. The nazi stuff is just bonus for them.
- pstuart 1mo ago
  At the turn of the century (yikes!) Clinton reconfigured the DNC to serve the corporations rather than labor. I left the party after that but am compelled to vote blue as the least worst option. Partisan politics allows capture of the government by creating a duopoly of power. Washington warned us of this threat.
  - FazJaxton 1mo ago
    You are correct, but it's largely our first-past-the-post voting system that forces only TWO political parties on us. Voting reform is necessary to help make other parties/candidates electable.
    - pstuart 1mo ago
      You too are correct, it was a "get it out there" comment. My armchair assessment of the the electoral trap we're in: * first-past-the-post voting * dark money (money is not speech, it is power) * campaign finance reform (current model is legalized bribery) * eliminate the electoral college (popular vote for president)
bbor 1mo ago
Also worth a shoutout is the fact that Google also got off scott free for their main monopoly case (the "will they have to sell Chrome?" headlines from a while back). I won't pretend to have even a vague idea of why exactly both rulings (sentencings?) came down so leniently, but it does seem even more unlikely that any sort of executive branch interference was at play.
nielsbot 1mo ago
Clinton was a neoliberal. Not an expert, but I thought for a long time the vision of anti-trust being democracy-preserving (or at least preventing corporations from being able to compete with the government for power) was replaced by a view "consumer harm" was the only concern of anti-trust law. Basically focusing on pricing competition. Read more about SCOTUS justice Robert Bork who ushered in the modern anti-trust viewpoint. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox > Bork argues that the original intent of antitrust laws as well as economic efficiency makes consumer welfare and the protection of competition, rather than competitors, the only goals of antitrust law.
anon84873628 1mo ago
Indeed, Judge Brinkema is more recently famous for blocking the 1.6B "anti-weaponization fund".

bigyabai 1mo ago

To the contrary, the entire DOJ understands that FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door. Any judge that attempts to defang Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system, which this administration will fight tooth and nail to defend. Not very different from how federal protectionism keeps Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage. Anyone trying to loosen America's grip on software distribution is crossing an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists.

vasco 1mo ago
Since you are getting no replies but getting downvoted I'm adding source from 2016 corroborating what you mention: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-revolving-door-us https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-rev... 251 individuals in such detected instances just in google. And that report is 10 years old, I'd bet it's 10x that by now.
- strictnein 1mo ago
  That makes the argument worse, not better. Google employees tens of thousands of people. The US intelligence apparatus employees hundreds of thousands of people. In all of that, over eight years, there are 251 people who moved between the two, and because of that absolute rounding error, the entire federal government is beholden to them? Since you are making the accusation that this is a real conspiracy: statistically, how many people should have rotated between these two giant employers over an 8 year span? The answer isn't zero. Also, this makes the "data" even more pointless: "between Google or related firms, and the federal government, national political campaigns and Congress during President Obama’s time in office" "were appointed to federal advisory boards." Do you know how many of those boards exist? There are tons of them. I've known a couple of people who have served on them. They're incredibly boring and deal with things like "What accessibility standards should federal government websites support?". Of course you would want people from Google on that type of board. > 251 individuals in such detected instances just in google. And that report is 10 years old, I'd bet it's 10x that by now. "Detected instances" It's so secret that I can name one of them off the top of my head: Matt Cutts. Is he part of this vast conspiracy too?
  - vasco 1mo ago
    What conspiracy mate? It's not so deep, I was curious if what he said was a lie due to the downvotes and found nice evidence for it. You don't find it convincing it's your choice, but the dude didn't pull it out of his ass.
    - strictnein 1mo ago
      The conspiracy that Google is protected on high because people have rotated between two giant employers. If you think it is "nice evidence", how many people should have moved between those two employers? And you made the claim that the rate likely drastically increased over the past 10 years. Based on what, exactly?
      - watwut 1mo ago
        Big companies being protected "from high" based on payments and favors is not conspiracy theory anymore. It is out there in the open expected thing.
      - ux266478 1mo ago
        You think that giant employers being protected, especially when they align themselves with government interests of the day, is a conspiracy? Do you also think that suggesting economic producer interests are a high priority is a conspiracy? Or that corporations with contracts to the government are generally compliant with governmental requests?
      - JMiao 1mo ago
        yes, such has been the reality for some time now. look at boeing
      - DarmokTanagra 1mo ago
        [dead]
strictnein 1mo ago
The DOJ isn't part of the Judiciary branch, it's part of the Executive. > FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door Most of the NSA is active duty service members and former military. Did you mean other three letter agencies, excluding the most powerful one dealing with surveillance? > Any judge that attempts to interfere with Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. But now she's doing his bidding. Is that what you're claiming? Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this.
- bigyabai 1mo ago
  > The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. That's a very different, partisan effort. It's not bipartisan like the Patriot Act was, or domestic surveillance in-general. > Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this. Not everything is as it seems. You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth.
  - strictnein 1mo ago
    > You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. I mean, you're correct? It's impossible to prove a negative. > There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. You're the ones making the extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is on you, not the people pointing out the flaws in these claims.
    - mobelkh 1mo ago
      i would argue, the NSA not being up to some bullshit is more unlikely, and thus has the burden of proof on it, to assume otherwise is to ignore history and basic incentives these orgs have.
- 1mo ago
surcap526 1mo ago
[dead]
rootsudo 1mo ago
100% glad someone states the obvious. Sometimes here people think these tech companies are on truly altruistic missions on making “the world a better place!!1” or truly making an impact by being an IC in their role and having access to perks which, have largely been taken away as the market matures to data collection and surveillance. If you want to have some fun, go on LinkedIn and see how many former military people, proud of their service, boast how they are at x or y tech company in director esque roles. Then bookmark them and see the pages disappear in the future. Boy I’m glad it’s legally 100% ok to scrap LinkedIn data because it truly is a revolving door.
- edgyquant 1mo ago
  Can you give an example of what you’re saying here? Companies spin up and vanish?
JMiao 1mo ago
agree with you but including netflix is becoming hilarious
- xp84 1mo ago
  The acronym gets awkward if we don't, though
  - edoceo 1mo ago
    I thought we were using "Mag7" these days.
- makeitdouble 1mo ago
  Or that N could be Nvidia now.
roosterIllusi0n 1mo ago
RCS is google's foothold. It forces everyone to share with google and currently, there is no carrier option for RCS. You have to pick google or apple or go without.
ralfd 1mo ago
> Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage Please. The Androidfication of iOS with malware/scamware would cost quadrillions in market damage.
- gambiting 1mo ago
  Citation needed. The idea that somehow my mum can't even find the space bar on her keyboard and yet is competent enough to go through several warning screens to install a custom .apk is just laughable.
  - jen20 1mo ago
    > is competent enough to go through several warning screens What about "is incompetent enough to press the buttons when the nice man from Microsoft calls about the viruses on her USB"?
    - gambiting 1mo ago
      She's laugh at him and disconnect. She might not know where the space bar is but she's not an idiot.
      - jen20 1mo ago
        Good for her - MANY people fall for these scams, however.
        bigyabai 1mo ago
        The internet is full of scams. If you desensitize someone to that reality, then you better disable Safari access, iMessage, calls and FaceTime for their own good.
        jen20 1mo ago
        Indeed, it would be a good idea for iOS to have a mode for the elderly that is almost exactly like that (similar to child mode, and for similar reasons).
alexashka 1mo ago
> an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists We're all ashamed, apparently?? What do they call this, projections of a guilty conscience?
- bigyabai 1mo ago
  Jingoism. America loves the free market until TikTok and Chinese cars enter it, then it's kicking and screaming all the way down.
  - alexashka 1mo ago
    You're not getting it. There is no 'we', there is no 'America'. These are propaganda terms. When you use them, you bolster the people who mindlessly repeat slogans and frustrate those who don't. It's a lose-lose.
    - bigyabai 1mo ago
      My point was to relate the American POV of the judge with the America-optimistic POV of the parent comment. Using "we" and "America" in that context is perfectly clarifying, I'm not beholden to pivot to your pet nitpick.
      - alexashka 1mo ago
        You're not beholden to make any effort to understand me or anyone else, that's a given. Here is what an LLM thinks about what you've done: > The “we” is doing a lot of rhetorical work: it turns what could have been stated as “the U.S. government doesn't openly admit this” into the much broader and more dramatic “we Americans are collectively unwilling to admit it.” I hope that helps. Or is the LLM also nitpicking and failing to understand your 'perfectly clarifying' remarks? Feel free to copy paste and ask an LLM yourself, all I did was ask it 'who is the 'we' referring to?' and copy pasted original parent and your reply.
        1mo ago
shevy-java 1mo ago
Understandable, but how is that fair to other competitors? The whole system is now easily abused by huge mega-corporations. That goes against capitalism. Why did the USA suddenly abandon capitalism?
- M95D 1mo ago
  There's nothing sudden about it. It was happening since 1970, according to one very popular site.
anon84873628 1mo ago
Then why is the DOJ bringing the anti-trust cases in the first place? You think it's all one big conspiracy with the judges so they can save face with consumers? This litigation was initiated under the Biden admin and not withdrawn by Trump.
- bigyabai 1mo ago
  Because winning an anti-trust case sets a much larger precedent than having no case at all. Closing the case can block repeat litigation on the same grounds. If you were Meta, for example, you would much rather be investigated by a corrupt administration than gamble on a future administration being nice. You might even make political donations to this end, and curry favor with the politicians to steer into the outcome you want. Like how Apple was able to escalate foreign App Store litigation to a presidential flamewar, all because Tim Cook bet on the right political cards. We see the same partisan cake-cutting with AI firms, as a way to punish Anthropic for not kissing ass hard enough. The natural response to a grassroots demand for regulation is to invest your money against it. If Microsoft could avoid a breakup, why can't Google? Why not Apple? What if they're all for sale, like the Catholic Church selling indulgences?
  - anon84873628 1mo ago
    This case against Google was initiated under Biden, and generally celebrated at the time. For your theory to be correct you need to explain how the DOJ brought a deliberately flawed case or weakened it at some point. I haven't read anyone suggesting anything like that.

JMiao 1mo ago

we got rick grimes over here walking into atlanta

ElProlactin 1mo ago

> It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy. The US is a corporatocracy. It's apparently a lot easier for Americans to convince themselves that the current administration is corrupt and end there than it is to acknowledge that the entire system has been corrupted and it won't change once the administration changes.

slg 1mo ago
Two things can be true at once, the entire system is corrupt and the current administration is much more corrupt than any prior administration.
- pstuart 1mo ago
  The current administration is in a class of its own regarding corruption -- it is the principle driver of everything they do. The nazi stuff is just bonus for them.
pstuart 1mo ago
At the turn of the century (yikes!) Clinton reconfigured the DNC to serve the corporations rather than labor. I left the party after that but am compelled to vote blue as the least worst option. Partisan politics allows capture of the government by creating a duopoly of power. Washington warned us of this threat.
- FazJaxton 1mo ago
  You are correct, but it's largely our first-past-the-post voting system that forces only TWO political parties on us. Voting reform is necessary to help make other parties/candidates electable.
  - pstuart 1mo ago
    You too are correct, it was a "get it out there" comment. My armchair assessment of the the electoral trap we're in: * first-past-the-post voting * dark money (money is not speech, it is power) * campaign finance reform (current model is legalized bribery) * eliminate the electoral college (popular vote for president)

bbor 1mo ago

Also worth a shoutout is the fact that Google also got off scott free for their main monopoly case (the "will they have to sell Chrome?" headlines from a while back). I won't pretend to have even a vague idea of why exactly both rulings (sentencings?) came down so leniently, but it does seem even more unlikely that any sort of executive branch interference was at play.

nielsbot 1mo ago

Clinton was a neoliberal. Not an expert, but I thought for a long time the vision of anti-trust being democracy-preserving (or at least preventing corporations from being able to compete with the government for power) was replaced by a view "consumer harm" was the only concern of anti-trust law. Basically focusing on pricing competition. Read more about SCOTUS justice Robert Bork who ushered in the modern anti-trust viewpoint. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox > Bork argues that the original intent of antitrust laws as well as economic efficiency makes consumer welfare and the protection of competition, rather than competitors, the only goals of antitrust law.

anon84873628 1mo ago

Indeed, Judge Brinkema is more recently famous for blocking the 1.6B "anti-weaponization fund".