notamanager

4 ms·

1.
by notamanager 7y ago
The WSJ and "other publication" aren't disinterested parties in all this, they have filed complaints against Google and they are unashamedly lobbying for laws that would exempt them from being subject to antitrust rules both
2.
by notamanager 7y ago
They haven't lost any actually, if you're referring to EU enforcement then that stuff in unilateral, a court isn't involved so technically they couldn't lose. As for background if state AGs have ulterior motives then so
3.
by notamanager 7y ago
The Washington Post article linked above mentions that the Texas AG is using his google probe to solicit donations in his reelection emails. Here is a NYT article about how state AGs get used by company lawyers to go after competitors with
4.
by notamanager 7y ago
I don't.
5.
by notamanager 7y ago
Sure but defendants (which they aren't even) are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Also that's not how the WSJ is presenting this or anything else they publish about google.
6.
by notamanager 7y ago
Fun fact: Google is allowed to defend itself and is not obliged to give prosecutors all they want. The framing of “resists giving documents” purposely makes it similar to “resisting arrest”. Fun fact 2: the AGs are being advised by a former
7.
by notamanager 7y ago
Making it less useful.
8.
by notamanager 7y ago
It's a national shame that state AGs are elected not assigned.
9.
by notamanager 7y ago
It's a national shame that state AGs are elected not assigned.
10.
by notamanager 7y ago
If Facebook were liable they wouldn't allow the posting or even the possibility of posting in the first place, the law protects individual rights by keeping the liability onus on the author as opposed to the "publisher".
11.
by notamanager 7y ago
This is such a disingenuous framing from the AG as well from media outlets who keep misrepresenting section 230. That law isn't about protecting Facebook or Google it's about ensuring that anyone can express themselves online with