31–40 of 440 posts
Good. To quote an old friend who worked for Google: "I'm worried that if the rest of America knew what we were actually doing here they would literally come here and kill us..."
Suddenly, any regret from not pursuing a Google interview is gone...
Good. To quote an old friend who worked for Google: "I'm worried that if the rest of America knew what we were actually doing here they would literally come here and kill us..."
To what extent does antitrust law require specific intentional or knowing conduct? Is there some "knew or should have known" standard that would require Google to explain why they didn't anticipate or investigate some suspiciously favorable placement of Google products/services/affiliates? Or can Google basically shrug and say "algorithm" a lot and the Justice Department would have an uphill battle to prove intent?
Good. To quote an old friend who worked for Google: "I'm worried that if the rest of America knew what we were actually doing here they would literally come here and kill us..."
Do the ends justify the means? Maybe. Is this causing an unfortunate precedent to be set? Maybe, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suddenly, any regret from not pursuing a Google interview is gone...
Will you consider interviewing should the case ultimately turn out in Google's favor?
Good. To quote an old friend who worked for Google: "I'm worried that if the rest of America knew what we were actually doing here they would literally come here and kill us..."
But the thing we should be concerned with is how the government goes about solving this anti-competitive issue. A breakup is not in the cards since Google is not a monopoly. So the fact that the justice dept has jurisdiction here does not bode well for us. It likely means any remedies will be within the parameters of the current regulatory regime. But what we as consumers really need is a new regulatory regime. What do I mean by that? Well, like the Microsoft case, they may "solve" this whole issue of anti-competitive practices by simply obliging google to allow everyone access to their 'OS', so to speak.
But in this case the 'OS' would effectively be their data.
Which is our data.
Which would be very bad news for us.
All of a sudden, hundreds of companies, all with guaranteed access to our data. Basically, imagine the privacy equivalent of a 9mm round being turned into a shotgun blast for everyone not fortunate enough to be born an EU citizen. (GDPR)
What we really need is a GDPR, not really sanctions against Google. But DOJ can only give us sanctions. I'm starting to believe that somewhere deep in the bowels of the government, there is an extreme aversion to any potential action that might lead to making commerce based privacy infractions illegal.
While I think an antitrust suit against Google would be a waste of time, they really need to stop recommending Chrome every time you do a Google search with a different browser. Just stop, that will not play well to a jury.
I think you meant "I don't want them found guilty" which is a different thing. If you really think there is no case to answer I don't think you understand what an antitrust case is about. It's about market dominance and anti competitive behaviour. Something alphabet has already demonstrated they are capable of doing, as in when google, Facebook and apple agreed not to poach Staff and altered the pay rates accordingly, something of which they have already been found guilty.
Relevant tweet from a Yelp SVP, who propagated many allegations of anticompetitive behavior in Google Search: > :) https://twitter.com/lutherlowe/status/1134621790720995328
While I think an antitrust suit against Google would be a waste of time, they really need to stop recommending Chrome every time you do a Google search with a different browser. Just stop, that will not play well to a jury.