51–60 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some weird reason, outlinks are to be avoided, because it's seen as "leaving your site". In a store front, I can see that making sense. In a site to provide information... not so much.
News sites aren't just providing information: they're trading reporting for ad impressions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FTC won the case against Google did they not? Which monopolies would you like to see them tackle?
They should probably just stop shaking down the American tech firms that are driving US economic growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in violation of the sacred law of the attention economy: Never link outside your garden.
For some weird reason, outlinks are to be avoided, because it's seen as "leaving your site". In a store front, I can see that making sense. In a site to provide information... not so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every one can afford the name brand. - Sincerely a kid raised on everything store brand.
I dont think anyone's arguing against generic alternatives of name brand items. The issue here is Amazon using up-and-coming and popular products as fodder for them to generic-ize and push to the top of results, essentially knee capping the original seller.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know she's on the right track because the ghouls here are calling her political.
i genuinely have no idea why someone would be trying to defend amazon on HN
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What has she done that didn't fail or get shot down as political overreach? (not being sarcastic...i mean that i may have missed something inadvertently)
Not GP. I would say that her effectiveness is both in Fire and Motion [1], while one wants more Fire, before the status quo was not only no fire, but also no motion. Even the motion is a good starting point that businesses are having management adapt their strategies and plans to account for the motion, just out self-interested risk mitigation in case there is more fire than there currently is today, and that fire ge…
In this case, her cases even if lost would be the equivalent of cover fire. Businesses need to re-act to the cover fire and cannot advance (perform their own motion) while she is firing.
The second part is that you would hope/expect her to be able to gain territory in the near future via the "motion" part of the strategy.
So I agree in your framing, just from my perspective you flipped the terminology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this to be the case with most primary sources, not just for court cases. A couple days ago, an American WWII bomb exploded at a Japanese airport and the article linked on HN didn't even show or link the video. Legacy media really sucks.
Why single out legacy media for this specifically? This isn't something newer media is better at.
Reuters is legacy media, hence why I mentioned legacy media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if I accept Khan's framing of, even though I haven't won any cases I have scared off potential mergers and that is a win. I think the US already leans too heavily on tying everything up in courts forever.
Was the successful Google antitrust case not brought by the feds?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why single out legacy media for this specifically? This isn't something newer media is better at.
Many popular podcasts would show the video, or pull up fact-checking in real time. If that's what you mean by "newer media" I would say it's 10x better. Reuters is legacy media, hence why I mentioned legacy media.
Like basically any rocket attack I assume happened in like 2006 and between completely different belligerents than whatever a post claims at this point
Earlier quoted context omitted.
News sites aren't just providing information: they're trading reporting for ad impressions.
Serious question: are paywalled news articles better at outlinking and do they have no ads?