| ▲ | daft_pink 4 days ago |
| does anyone else think that trump is going to nix this thing as soon as he takes office? |
|
| ▲ | lolinder 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| No. This case was launched by Trump's DOJ in 2020 [0], in conjunction with the Republican Attorneys General representing a bunch of states that Trump won handily this election. Trump's Attorney General Barr released a statement when they announced the lawsuit [1]: > Today, millions of Americans rely on the Internet and online platforms for their daily lives. For years, there have been broad, bipartisan concerns about business practices leading to massive concentrations of economic power in our digital economy. Hearing those concerns, I have made it a primary commitment of my tenure as Attorney General for the Department of Justice to examine whether technology markets have been deprived of free, fair, and open competition. This case has never has been a partisan issue. It was opened by a Republican DOJ and pushed through by a Democratic DOJ, and there's no reason to believe that the Republicans won't see through what they started. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2... [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-an... |
| |
| ▲ | EasyMark 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There is no way that Google won’t be able to ummm “influence” Trump into not dropping this. 2016 was different, Trump was a neophyte and pulled in people who were actually competent and not necessarily sycophants, this time around he is -only- selecting sycophants. There won’t be delegations any longer other than small details, overriding detail will come only from Trump himself, he will not cede any major decisions this time. Those he doesn’t care about the details on you can refer to Project 2025 for likely policies. I consider busting up Google not being a “small item”. Trump has said that the justice department serves him and his needs/desires, and will not be an independent entity. This will go for all departments that he has the slightest bit of interest in. | |
| ▲ | daft_pink 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thanks, I’ve sort of assumed that all these things they’ve been announcing during the lame duck period were things Biden wanted to rush through that Trump has a high probability of nixing as tends to happen during the lame duck period when party control switches. I appreciate your insight on this specific issue. | | |
| ▲ | lolinder 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, in this case the lame duck timing is purely coincidental, the government is acting to provide their proposal before a December deadline set by the federal judge. |
| |
| ▲ | leptons 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >and pushed through by a Democratic DOJ, Suggesting that Merrick Garland is somehow a "Democratic DOJ" is kind of laughable at this point. He's a Republican. He's been dragging his feet going after the biggest Republican crook in history. Appointing Merrick Garland is one of the biggest mistakes Biden ever made. | | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | He Was Obamas nominee for SCOTUS, Bidens selection for AG, and has been held in contempt by the republican House. | | |
| ▲ | NewJazz 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | He was Obama's nominee because Obama knew the Senate would only approve a conservative nominee. | | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Strange that the Republican house didn't nominate him given that he's such a fervent Republican. | | |
| ▲ | NewJazz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Senate, and he isn't fervent and maybe that was the issue. Or perhaps it was just about the principal of the matter. |
| |
| ▲ | curt15 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | He was also previously recommended by Mitch McConnell. |
| |
| ▲ | lolinder 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It sounds like the main reason to call him effectively a Republican is that he hasn't chosen to prosecute Trump, which is a lousy argument. Plenty of rational Democrats have been saying all along that prosecuting him would be counterproductive, as it turned out it was in the event. "I'm voting for the felon" was a rallying cry in the Midwest. At least the fact that he got a state-level conviction means the felony will stick. Had he been convicted of a felony at the federal level he'd have won anyway and just pardoned himself. | | |
| ▲ | skissane 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > At least the fact that he got a state-level conviction means the felony will stick. That’s far from guaranteed. He has multiple grounds to appeal that conviction both through the New York state courts - and if they don’t overturn it, then the federal courts. If it makes it to SCOTUS, odds are high the conservative majority will be looking for some federal law grounds to overturn it. But it might not ever make it that far. Legal commentators all along have been saying the prosecution’s legal theory is rather novel, and maybe the state appellate courts decide it is a novelty they don’t like. Plus, the way it uses allegations of uncharged federal crimes to upgrade a state misdemeanour to a state felony gives the federal courts an easy way to overturn it, by deciding the state courts have misconstrued the scope of those uncharged federal crimes. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sigh_again 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Adorable how HN's in absolute denial over this comment and downvoting you. Garland is a donator to the Federalist Society. Garland was a gift from Obama to the Republicans, trying to put someone who's right wing enough at the Supreme Court to appease the Rs. (And it didn't even work). |
| |
| ▲ | kolinko 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | oh wow, TIL. I assumed Trump would be against any government control
of Big Tech | | |
| ▲ | mvdtnz 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a weird thing to say. Trump has always been critical of big tech and favours breaking them up. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tech-factbox/fa... https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/10/18659748/t... | | |
| ▲ | toyg 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Trump is critical of big tech that doesn't help him - I'm happy to bet he will oppose breaking up X as long as Musk is in his cabinet. Trying to describe Trump on a coherent ideological level is a fool's errand, like most strongmen he's just an opportunist. | | |
| ▲ | wil421 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would X be broken up? When I think of Big Tech I certainly don’t think of companies like Twitter or Snapchat. | | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The defining feature of the privilege is that it's arbitrary. If it was governed by a set of consistent rules, then it would be less effective at making him feel like he had power - the system, rather, would have power instead. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Twitter is very small compared to the likes of Google though, so not very big. It doesn't make sense to break up such a small company that basically just does one thing. |
| |
| ▲ | Workaccount2 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The point is that even if X was a dominating monopoly, it would be fine because Elon is on Trumps nice list. Trump is a typical power whore who praises and protects those that kiss his feet, and admonishes and punishes those who don't. This is the same game that all these self-interested power hungry people play. |
| |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | More informatively: Trump was in favor of eliminating Section 230 protections for Twitter after they fact-checked one of his lies about election security. Presumably he will now want to revoke Section 230 for non-Twitter companies. | |
| ▲ | robertlagrant 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would you break up X? | | |
| ▲ | dmd 4 days ago | parent [-] | | To get two fabulous new companies, > and <. Or maybe ^ and v ? Or / and \ ? | | |
| ▲ | robertlagrant 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm much more on board with this plan now. I want to see how many stock exchanges crash when I buy shares in < |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump supports people who make him feel good and hates people who make him feel bad. He isn't pointing the DoJ at big tech. He is pointing the DoJ at people who make him feel bad. Trump thinks that YouTube (and Google more broadly) is unfair to conservatives and is full of whiney liberals. You won't see consistent application of Trump's DoJ. It'll just be a hammer that he can swing at things he doesn't like. It could even be the case that many of the things that he swings the hammer at will deserve it. But there will be similarly deserving people, groups, and organizations who get off scot free because Trump isn't personally angry at them. | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump is not particularly in favor of anti-trust policy in general, but he (and the GOP more generally, though Trump’s personal angle that of the GOP more broadly are slightly different though in general alignment) are very much for punishment of anyone in the information space that isn’t actively tilting in the direction he prefers, and is absolutely in favor of using antitrust law as a lever for that. | |
| ▲ | qeternity 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Trump is against things that oppose him, and for things that favor him. He perceives Big Tech as being an enemy, so he will use whatever tools available to punish. |
| |
| ▲ | yamumsaho9292 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No. They’ll change the settlement terms, however, to probably include their priorities. |
|
| ▲ | blackeyeblitzar 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I hope not. An important part of encouraging innovation in tech is to take power away from the megacorps that will otherwise use their capital and distribution channels and illegitimate practices (like bundling) to control everything and take all the gains. These actions from Lina Khan, the DOJ, the EU commissions, etc are crucial to creating a fair landscape for competition. |
| |
| ▲ | hobs 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Trump took net neutrality off the table, he only wanted to punish big tech for perceived slights or not supporting him enough, he's famous for putting people with no knowledge of the problems or experience with them in power managing them. What exactly would be driving your hopes here? | | |
| ▲ | lolinder 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe the fact that Trump's DOJ started this lawsuit, backed by the Republican Attorneys General for 11 states that Trump won this year? What exactly is driving you to think that he'd abort a mission that he and his allies started? | | |
| ▲ | hobs 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well the other posters answered, but in a nutshell because his record on consistency is non-existent. Tax Reform, Immigration, Syria, TikTok, most of his original cabinet picks, he wanted to hang his vice president, Wikileaks and government leaks in general, the list goes on, his positions are about as fluid as any person I know. | |
| ▲ | throw16180339 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Everything else is for sale in his administration, so I don't see why this wouldn't be. | |
| ▲ | rurp 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well he started the drive to ban TikTok, but did a 180 after a single meeting with a billionaire who owns part of it. I have no idea what Trump's DOJ will do with this case; I doubt he knows or cares about the case himself. I won't be surprised either way they go with it. | |
| ▲ | decremental 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | anonandy42 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I had to create an account to ask you this point blank. Why are you acting like taking Net Neutrality rules off the table is a bad thing? Have you read what is in
the Net Neutrality rules? Or are you just regurgitating what the news and your favorite tubers of the time were telling you to do? I read through 100 of the 400 pages, that was enough to make me sick. I was disgusted at the crap in there. A full 2/3rds of the rules I viewed were terrible. Many of those rules clearly existed only to enshrine the largest of players from ever being challenged or having any competition. I'm convinced anybody who speaks in favor of Net Neutrality is ignorant and hasn't bothered to read any of the guidelines contained therein. I can't be convinced that any intelligent free thinking consumer would ever want that drek to exist and am appalled that it has any defenders at all. | | |
| ▲ | justinclift 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I read through 100 of the 400 pages ... Is this the 400 page PDF you're meaning? https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-15-24A1.pdf That's the "Order on Remand" PDF link from this page: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-orde... Which in turn is the "2015: FCC adopts rules..." link on this page: https://www.fcc.gov/net-neutrality --- There's a more recent 512 page thing too, though I'm not real sure where it fits in: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-52A1.pdf | |
| ▲ | hobs 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Net neutrality ensures equal access, protects consumers from conspicuous data caps while no investment is put into infrastructure, prevents ISPs from throttling things they don't like, and increases competition. You didn't actually say what rules are bad, and we'd probably agree "hey this rule in this law is BS" - that's very different than "net neutrality is BS" Feel free to go into detail about why NN is bad for consumers, I think you will find many ardent defenders here. | |
| ▲ | anonandy42 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Go ahead and vote me down for abdicating for your better treatment. You can have true, real net neutrality without keeping competition out of it. But every vote down just tells me you love the colluding Comcast's and AT&T's customer service and prices. I have a small internet company near me. Excellent service, lightning fast internet, a decent price. They have a limited number of available static IP numbers that can be granted to customers, I pay for one because I host a server for my needs, few customers actually need this feature. Under one of the first 20 rules (2015), they would have to provide total and equal service across the board to all customers. Innocent looking on paper, but impossible for the this small company to do realistically. Another rule I recall (9 years ago, may be off a bit on this one) required a method for any government body or customer to call up and view a full summery of data usage at whim by logging into their account. This requires an incredibly costly and unrealistic implementation for a burgeoning company. The point is that, taken alone, these rules seem altruistic and with good intent but when you imagine the requirements of hundreds of them, it is IMPOSSIBLE for new competitors to break into the field. The big boys already collecting your fees monthly can easily afford any thing being arbitrarily required. That company of mine got bought out by the way. One of the big 4 bought them, it was a good 5 years. But we are going back to one choice of ISP in my area again. I fully expect the customers service to go to absolute shit and the cost monthly to slowly begin to rise. | | |
| ▲ | hobs 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I didn't vote you down, but having specific examples of problems with legislation you had is a much stronger argument, and is completely normal. The big boys are already creating a lot of negative competition and you are right that regulatory capture is really bad, more money = more influence in legislation. However, the world of data caps and shitty service abounds very much because of the lack of SOME of these rules, and so the middle ground in my mind isn't destroy it all, it's fixing legislation. Laws often have unintended consequences and trample on minority viewpoints, but while in the "destroy it all" framework we do get to reject some onerous rules, the vast majority of us get bent over a barrel, get more expensive service, and have no choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tjpnz 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If Sundar flatters him enough. |
|
| ▲ | duringmath 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We can hope, his DOJ might amend their demands or the judges he appoints will overturn it on appeal if needed. |
|
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So it's hard to say, Trump hates Google, Gaetz hated Google, I assume any Trumpist (I guess it's Bondi now) thinks Google is "unfair to conservatives". So it's easy to imagine letting Google reap the penalties of the existing case being an easy choice for them. On the other hand, he's promised to remove Khan, Kanter, etc, and end antitrust enforcement. So someone may have to actively decide to continue as is, or change tack a bit. The third concern of course is that Trump is a crook. He might not like Google but I'm sure neither him nor Sundar would have any qualms with figuring out how to slide a billion dollars in Trump's pocket to make the case go away. |
| |
| ▲ | chucke1992 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It also does not help that Google is often seen together with various left leaning initiatives - like Google is one of the big proponents. Plus there was some backlash on Twitter over Youtube hiding Joe Rogan video and so on. | |
| ▲ | xrd 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Musk took over Twitter and then started xAI. Trump Social should announce they are going to be adding AI and resell Anthropic. They can take their 20% and everyone is happy. |
|
|
| ▲ | nine_zeros 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > does anyone else think that trump is going to nix this thing as soon as he takes office? Depends on how much Google is willing to scratch Trump's back. Remember, Trump is a corrupt quid pro quo President. All he needs is something valuable in exchange for his corrupt powers. |
|
| ▲ | xyst 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Google just needs to deposit a few million into an offshore account and this will disappear into the ether. Then administration will throw so much “anti woke” shit and the average American will forget about it. |
|
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The case started under Trump so probably not |
|
| ▲ | Handy-Man 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not really. He and his backers actually want this to happen to GOOG. |
