It is. Enforcement is incredibly slow (all of the monopolies Google has been ruled against for were obvious in 2014, with appeals they will not face penalties until at least 2030 for most of it), and we have a dictator running the country who will create or erase any case with the right amount of fealty payments. (Google's million to the inauguration fund just... wasn't enough.)

▲

MBCook 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

So much of this should have been stopped long long ago, like the purchase of Doubleclick.

We’re dealing with fallout decades later and trying to rule on that.

	▲	lysace 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I guess this kind of justice is bad for business.

▲

safety1st 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean you can't blame Trump for this one. Trump 1's DoJ initiated this case. Trump 2's DoJ asked for structural remedies e.g. breaking up Google (can't remember if the Biden DoJ was the first to talk about breakup, they probably were, but Trump DoJ carried on with it).

The news of the day is that the JUDGE told both Democrats and Republicans, as well as a supermajority of the American public, no you can't have what you want. Even though Google is guilty, you don't get it. Instead, corporate power will win again.

Imagine an alternate American history where the judge decided not to break up Standard Oil. I think it's Marc Andreesen who's literally made the comparison that data is the modern day oil. We are about to get that alternate history where the corporate robber barons win and everyone else loses. Mehta sealed the deal.

▲

righthand 2 days ago | parent [-]

If you can’t remember an important detail that hinges your argument on defending someone, stop writing the comment and go do some research. Writing a comment on a machine capable of looking up the answer so you can push your own bias is why you’re getting downvotes.

▲

safety1st 2 days ago | parent [-]

I genuinely have no idea why you're attacking me. A magic political secret only you know and won't disclose? Are you deranged?

I mean all I know about what you're saying here, is that you have some kind of secret fake facts in your brain or something, sorry that must drive you nuts

	▲	righthand 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’m not attacking you. I was pointing out why you were strongly downvoted. Mostly because of this sentence fragment: > can't remember if the Biden DoJ was the first to talk about breakup, they probably were, but Trump DoJ carried on with it You can’t remember but you also can’t be bothered to confirm details either. How do I interpret the rest of your comment then? Honest or uncertain about details? To me this kind of a thing is okay in conversation in the physical world where you don’t have access to the information. When one writes a comment online though…