fyoving

9 ms·

31.
by fyoving 7y ago
Depends on what's being investigated here, if the government would actually want to compel Google to alter their search results then it's a first amendment case.
32.
by fyoving 7y ago
That's one interpretation by interested parties another would be that enforcement lawyers are always aggressive and those who make the decision in the end would have to weigh the odds of winning in court and unanimously they decides no
33.
by fyoving 7y ago
The FTC act has broader powers in these cases as they can consider effect on competitors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o... The DOJ enforces the sherman act, which is useless here (no cons
34.
by fyoving 7y ago
People don't seem to understand how this stuff works in the US, Google has full editorial control over their search results protected by the first amendment and that right was affirmed in court time and time again: https://s
35.
by fyoving 7y ago
I don't see how after the FTC came up empty the DOJ would fare any better as arguable the sherman act is a much tougher route, and the competition landscape has changed to google's detriment (amazon ads, facebook, etc). Anyway the
36.
by fyoving 7y ago
They are justifying it just fine, author and others seem to only want to believe critics.
37.
by fyoving 7y ago
1. Any bad PR resulting from firing these types would be a one time thing instead of this ongoing situation. 2. Google shouldn't accommodate the delusional and entitled. 3. Labor unions are antithetical to sound economic theory and pra
38.
by fyoving 7y ago
Tell that to the suits who invented the future at IBM and Bell labs. Counter cultural types don't have a monopoly on innovation.
39.
by fyoving 7y ago
For one, they are would be retaliating against employees who generate bad PR for them. For another the rest of the tech companies don't seem to enable let alone tolerate this shenanigans.
40.
by fyoving 7y ago
I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to
41.
by fyoving 7y ago
They host your emails that is where this data comes from, if you don't like that then delete said emails. The media's modus operandi is to try and implicate tech companies with supposed violations whether it's justified or no
42.
Facebook Co-Founder Chris Hughes Got Barack Obama Elected(businessinsider.com)
2 points by fyoving 7y ago|0 comments
43.
Facebook Co-Founder Chris Hughes Seems Confused About All the Details(techdirt.com)
6 points by fyoving 7y ago|0 comments
44.
Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake(techdirt.com)
8 points by fyoving 7y ago|0 comments
45.
by fyoving 7y ago
https://www.google.com/travel/flights
46.
by fyoving 7y ago
Fair point, but there are lots of reasons to skim an article and not every academic is getting rich off of hawking their books, sometimes it's an excuse to talk about their publishings, and one could get consulting gigs out of the atte
47.
by fyoving 7y ago
There is a difference between actual experts and academic title profiteers.
48.
The Human Cost of Fosta(techdirt.com)
3 points by fyoving 7y ago|0 comments
49.
by fyoving 7y ago
Yes it's lip service but this whole narrative about online/digital privacy was seize on by traditional media to bash tech companies while driving traffic to their properties. It also gives some academics and "experts" a
50.
by fyoving 7y ago
These two are former state AGs and IMHO their kind should be barred from being part of any important deliberative body, they are prosecutors with strictly punitive mindset in a legislative body that is also supposed to encourage entrepreneu
51.
by fyoving 7y ago
There is nothing wrong with being "just a job", it most likely always was, the rest was just in your head. It's better for the company to help the delusional embrace the "it's just a job" mentality ASAP so that
52.
by fyoving 7y ago
What's the evidence to any of that? What's with the persistent narrative of google not being "just another company" and then (sadly?) becoming one? that's some fairytale nonsense.
53.
Facebook users care less about privacy than regulators(reuters.com)
1 points by fyoving 7y ago|1 comments
54.
by fyoving 7y ago
Saying that $5 billion is "chump change" is silly in any context and on a related note I keep hearing newscasters and prodcasters bemoaning the fact that Facebook is thriving and it disturbs me to no end that these people are publ
55.
by fyoving 7y ago
A marginal Google product isn't running on a dev build of a not yet released browser, the horror!
56.
by fyoving 7y ago
Slavery ain't legal.
57.
by fyoving 7y ago
"counter to building a better product ... rgardless of the success"? That's nonsense.
58.
by fyoving 7y ago
It's remarkable how someone will always find a way to lambast successful companies even if it means faulting them for becoming successful and relevant in the first place.
59.
by fyoving 7y ago
Yet further proof that their online legislations are not about privacy but attacks on US companies.
60.
by fyoving 7y ago
We don't know how this person got infected or if they even work there so you can't make that conclusion.

More ›