4 ms·

It's okay, they're not a monopoly according to this administration. Nothing to see here, carry on!

by fedpost 28d ago

Mountain_Skies 28d ago
Google and the rest of the billionaire class thank you for ensuring everyone is too divided by red/blue tribalism to ever have enough unity to mount a fight against them. Well done!
- asdf88990 28d ago
  Exactly. It is like Google has only emerged during this administration with their shenanigans.
  - 8note 28d ago
    iirc lina khan was appointed during the first trump admin and got most of her work done suing to split google during the biden admin? you are a bit out of the loop if you think this is a partisan issue, or specifically one thats only there when trump is in charge
    - c0balt 28d ago
      She got nominated by Biden in Biden's last term in March of 2021 and left in 2025 two weeks after Trump assumed office. She did not get appointed under Trump nor did substantial work done under his administration. Edit: I do not necessarily disagree with your comment on the partisan aspects of this issue. This is only meant to respond to the first paragraph.
    - thephyber 28d ago
      Using Lina Khan as an example (your only example?) undermines your point because she started upset Biden and was quickly fired after Trump 2 started.
    - manlymuppet 28d ago
      Allow me to be anal for a moment, but what is the point of doing “if I remember correctly” for something like this? You can very easily look up exactly when Lina Khan was appointed and get answer very quickly. Is it not worth the effort checking these things before commenting? Ok rant over. Sorry to be an asshole. This is not your fault as much a standard which should be changed.
      - jtmarl1n 27d ago
        I’m 100% with you on the spirit of this comment. I don’t understand it either. I fear the standard you mentioned has been set at far too low of a level.
  - usr1106 28d ago
    It seems to be very popular on this site to condemn surveillance capitalism and billionaires. But who built and still maintains the basis for their power, misusing it and the billions. So-called smart engineers like many of HN readers. If they rated morale higher than their personal 100Ks we would not need to wait for a government to stop the misery (in vain). Yes, I have worked for 400,000 employees corp, then for a 70,000. For the last 15 years I have staid under 100. The pay is less, but it's easier to look into the mirror each morning.
  - Geezus_42 28d ago
    What rock have you been living under?
- patates 28d ago
  So we cannot say anything bad about the current administration without being divisive? What does criticising them tell you about tribalism?
  - shevy-java 28d ago
    The point is that no matter which party rules, they are bribed by big business to represent the interest of big business. Criticism without change does not really work well.
pavon 28d ago
This administration has done nothing to end or undermine the antitrust cases against Google. In both cases the judges found Google in violation of antitrust law, but both handed down fairly mild remedies, despite the administration (prosecutor) pushing for much stronger changes. The judges were appointed by Clinton (Leonie Brinkema) and Obama (Amit Mehta).
- eesmith 28d ago
  Perhaps not US cases, but those aren't the only antitrust cases against Google. What about Trump's threats after Google was hit with a 2.95 billion Euro fine from the European Commission's antitrust investigation? From last year: "EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Monday made an 11th-hour intervention to stop the European Commission from issuing a penalty against American tech giant Google for its search advertising practices, amid continued trade threats from U.S. President Donald Trump." https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-google-antitrust-decision-halted-amid-us-trade-talks-trump-sefcovic-ribera/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-google-antitrust-decision... Or from https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/10/google-meta-big-tech-6-billion-euros-eu-fine.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/10/google-meta-big-tech-6-billi... "In February, Trump signed a memorandum stating the U.S. would consider tariffs to “combat digital service taxes (DSTs), fines, practices, and policies that foreign governments levy on American companies.”" That memorandum is at https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-issues-directive-to-prevent-the-unfair-exploitation-of-american-innovation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-pr...
  - pessimizer 27d ago
    [flagged]
    - eesmith 27d ago
      My point is that your claim 'This administration has done nothing to end or undermine the antitrust cases against Google.' is incorrect if you also include European antitrust cases. Yes, the last 50 years of post-Borkianism has resulted in an entire judicial system having a very narrow and essentially useless definition of anti-trust, far different from its original goals. That's part of the broader neo-liberal movement which started around the time of Carter, gained strength with Reagan, continued with Clinton's "triangulation" and NAFTA, and is still with us. Yes, the League of Women Voters warned us about what you term the "two private clubs" back in 1988 when they decided to stop hosting the United States presidential debates saying that following the demands of the two parties would "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter". Yet you seem to think I'm somehow shocked that same aged corporate Democrats who supported Obama, and who now fight tooth and nail against the democratic socialist arm of their party, are somehow in actually in favor of effective antitrust enforcement? Your rant makes it seem like you're just easily triggered by the least bit of correction. > I want to see a third Trump term. Ahh, you're one of those anti-Constitution people. I remember as a kid people calling out "four more years" in support of a 3rd Reagan term, as their hero worship made them forget the lesson of FDR and the Twenty-second Amendment. Just like those people who forget the lesson of Guiteau about a consequence of whims and bribes as a way to run a government.
pampas 28d ago
No politicians are going to fight a media company. They're in the PR and advertising supply chain.
- lostlogin 28d ago
  ‘Lake America’ buys breathing time too.
- ketralnis 27d ago
  This administration has spent quite a lot of time going after media companies.
shevy-java 28d ago
The administration is serving private business only. They don't care about the people. It is not a democracy nor a republic state. It is an oligarchy. Thankfully more and more people realise how corrupt the orange mafia is. Recent polls show that - people learn slowly, but they learn.
2OEH8eoCRo0 27d ago
This admin said they are: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-signi... > Google used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising.
htx80nerd 27d ago
[dead]
stogot 26d ago
Blame the judges . Two judges determined Google was a monopoly but the judges declined to take drastic recourse. It’s fun to bang on the anti administration drum but this is a court thing. Edit: they did do the thing you said they didn’t https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-signi...

It's okay, they're not a monopoly according to this administration. Nothing to see here, carry on!

by fedpost 28d ago

It's okay, they're not a monopoly according to this administration. Nothing to see here, carry on!

Google and the rest of the billionaire class thank you for ensuring everyone is too divided by red/blue tribalism to ever have enough unity to mount a fight against them. Well done!

asdf88990 28d ago
Exactly. It is like Google has only emerged during this administration with their shenanigans.
- 8note 28d ago
  iirc lina khan was appointed during the first trump admin and got most of her work done suing to split google during the biden admin? you are a bit out of the loop if you think this is a partisan issue, or specifically one thats only there when trump is in charge
  - c0balt 28d ago
    She got nominated by Biden in Biden's last term in March of 2021 and left in 2025 two weeks after Trump assumed office. She did not get appointed under Trump nor did substantial work done under his administration. Edit: I do not necessarily disagree with your comment on the partisan aspects of this issue. This is only meant to respond to the first paragraph.
  - thephyber 28d ago
    Using Lina Khan as an example (your only example?) undermines your point because she started upset Biden and was quickly fired after Trump 2 started.
  - manlymuppet 28d ago
    Allow me to be anal for a moment, but what is the point of doing “if I remember correctly” for something like this? You can very easily look up exactly when Lina Khan was appointed and get answer very quickly. Is it not worth the effort checking these things before commenting? Ok rant over. Sorry to be an asshole. This is not your fault as much a standard which should be changed.
    - jtmarl1n 27d ago
      I’m 100% with you on the spirit of this comment. I don’t understand it either. I fear the standard you mentioned has been set at far too low of a level.
- usr1106 28d ago
  It seems to be very popular on this site to condemn surveillance capitalism and billionaires. But who built and still maintains the basis for their power, misusing it and the billions. So-called smart engineers like many of HN readers. If they rated morale higher than their personal 100Ks we would not need to wait for a government to stop the misery (in vain). Yes, I have worked for 400,000 employees corp, then for a 70,000. For the last 15 years I have staid under 100. The pay is less, but it's easier to look into the mirror each morning.
- Geezus_42 28d ago
  What rock have you been living under?
patates 28d ago
So we cannot say anything bad about the current administration without being divisive? What does criticising them tell you about tribalism?
- shevy-java 28d ago
  The point is that no matter which party rules, they are bribed by big business to represent the interest of big business. Criticism without change does not really work well.

pavon 28d ago

This administration has done nothing to end or undermine the antitrust cases against Google. In both cases the judges found Google in violation of antitrust law, but both handed down fairly mild remedies, despite the administration (prosecutor) pushing for much stronger changes. The judges were appointed by Clinton (Leonie Brinkema) and Obama (Amit Mehta).

eesmith 28d ago
Perhaps not US cases, but those aren't the only antitrust cases against Google. What about Trump's threats after Google was hit with a 2.95 billion Euro fine from the European Commission's antitrust investigation? From last year: "EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Monday made an 11th-hour intervention to stop the European Commission from issuing a penalty against American tech giant Google for its search advertising practices, amid continued trade threats from U.S. President Donald Trump." https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-google-antitrust-decision-halted-amid-us-trade-talks-trump-sefcovic-ribera/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-google-antitrust-decision... Or from https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/10/google-meta-big-tech-6-billion-euros-eu-fine.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/10/google-meta-big-tech-6-billi... "In February, Trump signed a memorandum stating the U.S. would consider tariffs to “combat digital service taxes (DSTs), fines, practices, and policies that foreign governments levy on American companies.”" That memorandum is at https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-issues-directive-to-prevent-the-unfair-exploitation-of-american-innovation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-pr...
- pessimizer 27d ago
  [flagged]
  - eesmith 27d ago
    My point is that your claim 'This administration has done nothing to end or undermine the antitrust cases against Google.' is incorrect if you also include European antitrust cases. Yes, the last 50 years of post-Borkianism has resulted in an entire judicial system having a very narrow and essentially useless definition of anti-trust, far different from its original goals. That's part of the broader neo-liberal movement which started around the time of Carter, gained strength with Reagan, continued with Clinton's "triangulation" and NAFTA, and is still with us. Yes, the League of Women Voters warned us about what you term the "two private clubs" back in 1988 when they decided to stop hosting the United States presidential debates saying that following the demands of the two parties would "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter". Yet you seem to think I'm somehow shocked that same aged corporate Democrats who supported Obama, and who now fight tooth and nail against the democratic socialist arm of their party, are somehow in actually in favor of effective antitrust enforcement? Your rant makes it seem like you're just easily triggered by the least bit of correction. > I want to see a third Trump term. Ahh, you're one of those anti-Constitution people. I remember as a kid people calling out "four more years" in support of a 3rd Reagan term, as their hero worship made them forget the lesson of FDR and the Twenty-second Amendment. Just like those people who forget the lesson of Guiteau about a consequence of whims and bribes as a way to run a government.

pampas 28d ago

No politicians are going to fight a media company. They're in the PR and advertising supply chain.

lostlogin 28d ago
‘Lake America’ buys breathing time too.
ketralnis 27d ago
This administration has spent quite a lot of time going after media companies.

shevy-java 28d ago

The administration is serving private business only. They don't care about the people. It is not a democracy nor a republic state. It is an oligarchy. Thankfully more and more people realise how corrupt the orange mafia is. Recent polls show that - people learn slowly, but they learn.

2OEH8eoCRo0 27d ago

This admin said they are: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-signi... > Google used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising.

htx80nerd 27d ago

[dead]

stogot 26d ago

Blame the judges . Two judges determined Google was a monopoly but the judges declined to take drastic recourse. It’s fun to bang on the anti administration drum but this is a court thing. Edit: they did do the thing you said they didn’t https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-signi...