61–70 of 382 posts
What an incredible miscarriage of justice. Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad daylight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mark…
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 s…
> 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?
No, they're clearly claiming it's a non-partisan thing and the sitting president is irrelevant, as are the specifics of the virtue signalling happening. Yes, even though they qualified themselves with "this administration". Do you think that the Clintons aren't friends with the state department surveillance abomination or the nastiest parts of government writ large? That Bill or Hillary wouldn't fight tooth and nail to protect this terrible thing that's been wrought? Replace the context with some virtue signal about NATO intervention in Serbia 27 years ago, nothing changes. Partisan politics is for yokels.
[flagged]
I kinda somewhat reluctantly agree with you, and I think other commenters are missing the point that breaking up Google may allow non-US competitors to rise up and take Google's place on the world stage. Thus, breaking them up is not in the national interest of the US.
Sounds like it's not nothing, but also not much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. We had the same comments about Gulf of America. Edit: I don't know that there's an actual database served up by the US Gov, but governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions. All of the big mapping products have the ability to serve up different names based on where you're viewing from. And Apple just renamed: https://apnews.com/article/apple-lake-ontario-america-google...
It makes perfect sense that govs control names within their jurisdiction - I am eyerolling at both the name change and the reaction. I am curious though - is it convention to leave the data as is, or is it illegal to modify it? Regardless, itll just be changed back in 2 years; as long as I can type "lake ontario" and get directed to Lake Ontario, I do not care at all what the gov database calls it currently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 mark…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. We had the same comments about Gulf of America. Edit: I don't know that there's an actual database served up by the US Gov, but governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions. All of the big mapping products have the ability to serve up different names based on where you're viewing from. And Apple just renamed: https://apnews.com/article/apple-lake-ontario-america-google...
It makes perfect sense that govs control names within their jurisdiction - I am eyerolling at both the name change and the reaction. I am curious though - is it convention to leave the data as is, or is it illegal to modify it? Regardless, itll just be changed back in 2 years; as long as I can type "lake ontario" and get directed to Lake Ontario, I do not care at all what the gov database calls it currently.
Why do you expect meek reaction in a rename like this? What is eye rolling over reacting to this particular rename?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "long history of prevailing in court" is another way of saying "Google isn't being punished as much as they deserve" Those two things are completely different and have very different meanings. For the most part, the courts aren't the ones that fine businesses. > There have been more than 180,000 corporate fines issued in the US between 2020 and 2024, totaling more than $345 billion > 3M Company has been issued with…
The system is not equipped to check and balance multi-trillion dollar corporations.