Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
bloomberg.com
Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
#2My opinion of Ken Paxton might be different had he not attempted to overturn the results of the presidential election. Is this suit just as frivolous?
Re: Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
#3My opinion of Ken Paxton might be different had he not attempted to overturn the results of the presidential election. Is this suit just as frivolous?
If allegations are true, it doesn't seem to be frivolous.
Re: Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
#4My opinion of Ken Paxton might be different had he not attempted to overturn the results of the presidential election. Is this suit just as frivolous?
This is the downside of having an AG who has been indicted on criminal charges for thee last 6 years. How much can you trust the guy?
Re: Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
#5My opinion of Ken Paxton might be different had he not attempted to overturn the results of the presidential election. Is this suit just as frivolous?
If allegations are true, it doesn't seem to be frivolous.
That's the problem. I'm keen to see some evidence. The Texas vs. Democracy case had a 70-page filing, of which literally every aspect was obviously false. That filing makes me look at this heavily redacted filing and think "this is all made up". Maybe it's not, but it's the rational reaction.
Re: Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
#6The HN title is hugely misleading, because it drops "Texas says".
I would change it to "Google, Facebook allegedly had illegal deal to rig ad market"
Sometimes this would be a technicality, for example where it's beyond much doubt, but in this case it seems that it's far from proven, so far.
Re: Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
#7My opinion of Ken Paxton might be different had he not attempted to overturn the results of the presidential election. Is this suit just as frivolous?
If allegations are true, it doesn't seem to be frivolous.
The issue here is that:
1. It's very clear that his office has no qualms with filing cases that include untrue statements.
2. It's also the case that this group of claimants is strongly associated with a government official who is very angry at companies and has been trying to attack a communications law from every angle he has. One cannot help but wonder at the timing of all this.
It may very well be true. Sadly, we have to be skeptical now.
Re: Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
If allegations are true, it doesn't seem to be frivolous.
That's the problem. I'm keen to see some evidence. The Texas vs. Democracy case had a 70-page filing, of which literally every aspect was obviously false. That filing makes me look at this heavily redacted filing and think "this is all made up". Maybe it's not, but it's the rational reaction.
Read the actual complaint, the level of knowledge you’d need to fabricate that would be unimaginable.
Re: Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
#9Suit filed by the same Texas AG who recently asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the election results of four other states. Same standard of evidence?
Re: Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the problem. I'm keen to see some evidence. The Texas vs. Democracy case had a 70-page filing, of which literally every aspect was obviously false. That filing makes me look at this heavily redacted filing and think "this is all made up". Maybe it's not, but it's the rational reaction.
Read the actual complaint, the level of knowledge you’d need to fabricate that would be unimaginable.
I read what I could and didn't find it overly persuasive. Obviously there must be evidence underlying these claims, but in the absence of that evidence a lot of it reads like one of those LSAT questions where you are supposed to spot the faulty logic. For example it just asserts that Google made it so everyone had to use their exchange and service, in almost those exact words ("had to") but there's nothing prior to that in the filing that supports this statement.