What an incredible miscarriage of justice. Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad daylight.

▲

strictnein 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Assuming you read the ruling, what do you disagree with the judge on?

What politicians were paid off to make a judge in a lifelong position who has served for decades rule in Google's favor?

▲

shakna 4 hours ago | parent [-]

What ruling? It isn't released yet. We have declining to breakup, based on behavioral remedies, and zero details.

▲

strictnein 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Kind of my point. How does one know something is a miscarriage of justice if you haven't read the ruling? Because you don't like the outcome?

▲

mortoc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think it's a stretch to see a systemic pattern of big tech avoiding consequences that leave the rest of us in the power of monopolies.

Regardless of the content of this ruling, it's another brick in the wall.

▲

strictnein 3 hours ago | parent [-]

A separate discussion for sure, but simply seeing a headline and declaring it an "incredible miscarriage of justice" seems a little far fetched.

For example, many times the courts will point out that the laws need to be updated, which would be in the ruling. Or that a law as written is unconstitutional but it could be made so with some changes. That stuff doesn't make the headlines though, just the "Courts rules for/against X". Ideally we'd have a legislative branch that would look at these rulings and update our laws, but their disinterest in doing so isn't the courts' fault.

▲

webdood90 2 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

mpalczewski 2 hours ago | parent [-]

A legitimately rule based legal system is far more beneficial than one that takes sides based on the taste of the day. beneficial for everyone involved. If you want to write "Stan for billionaires", without any sort of reasoning, well, that says more about you.

	▲	webdood90 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The system should serve the people, not a small minority of concentrated players. If you can't see how the system is manipulated in their favor, you are part of the problem.

▲

shakna 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Accepting behavioural changes, is the same stink of the last five decades.

I would like to wait for my own judgement... But someone reacting to the same, "We're sorry", that has been so common it became a South Park meme? They have had no evidence, probably in their lifetime, that government has not simply sold out to private enterprise. There is zero reason to be mad at them.

People react to actions. The actions thus far... Do not encourage any of kind of trust. Taking time to redact the ruling, is not an encpuragement to trust.

Sure. Wait for a ruling. Re-evaluate when it releases, too.

But reacting to the exact same pile shit they've seen everytime... Why blame them?

▲

pampas 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's the modern "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel". I think it's why outdoor advertising is so rife. It's hard to fight something when you rely on it to keep your position.

▲

dgellow 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Petersipoi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just to make sure I'm understanding, you're saying that Google payed someone (presumably Trump), who then went and convinced a Clinton appointed judge who has ruled against Trump in the past to give the case to Google?

Is that actually what you think?

	▲	dgellow 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I do not no, I don’t have an opinion on the Google situation. I was responding to the following: > Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad daylight.

▲

unrented7977 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]