Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

Post by airstrike » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 2:53 PM UTC

xahrepap wrote: post #154

Arainach wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think that the law should make this happen" without any thought for whether what you're proposing is possible or consistent with the laws of the universe is lazy. This is similar to people who think we should just legislate secure encryption that has law enforcement backdoors. It's not possible, and people demanding it without an understanding of the area they're trying to regulate is lazy and insulting.

I think you should reread my post. My post is making a very specific point that your reaction tells me you get, but aren't applying. Read it more like a poem and less like a proposed bill.

Post by keybored » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 2:58 PM UTC

tdb7893 wrote: post #85

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To all the people pissed about the "Lake America" stuff: why in the actual fuck do you want Google of all organizations to be arbiter of geographical info, instead of federal institutions that are (at least nominally) operated under democratic principles? Don't you understand the horror of what you're suggesting: "I want Google to impose it's own personal value judgments over the government's." Yes, I think it's incr…

Democracy works best as a diffuse institution and is more than just voting. People are supposed to have rights and power themselves and I want them to try to make things better (whether I agree with them or not) and "corporations" are just groups of people. Needing to just go with the government, especially on something so clearly within their rights, is counter to the ideals of the system. I can understand Google so…

Post by kdidjwirjekej » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

selfhoster1312 wrote: post #287

sawjet wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy to think that, despite trump existing, the Democrats still lost two elections to him.

Well they had their chance for "change" with Obama, just like the french PS had their chance for "changement" with Hollande. And both betrayed their electoral base and honest people by empowering multinational corporations against consumers and small businesses. Who could have predicted that noone would want to elect them again?

Post by insane_dreamer » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 3:19 PM UTC

thrance wrote: post #171

FazJaxton wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, but it's largely our first-past-the-post voting system that forces only TWO political parties on us. Voting reform is necessary to help make other parties/candidates electable.

You can change the details of the numbers game that is played every 4 years, but that won't solve the structural issues. I live in France, in any given election we have between 10 and 15 candidates from as many parties. Yet, we're still ruled by corporate interests. The media makes sure to qualify any candidate threatening the interests of capital as a "dangerous extremist", while "pro-business" candidates receive th…

Post by insane_dreamer » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 3:21 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #141

ElProlactin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The US is a corporatocracy. It's apparently a lot easier for Americans to convince themselves that the current administration is corrupt and end there than it is to acknowledge that the entire system has been corrupted and it won't change once the administration changes.

At the turn of the century (yikes!) Clinton reconfigured the DNC to serve the corporations rather than labor. I left the party after that but am compelled to vote blue as the least worst option. Partisan politics allows capture of the government by creating a duopoly of power. Washington warned us of this threat.