←back to thread

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

(www.cnbc.com)
858 points colesantiago | 6 comments | 02 Sep 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
supernova87a ◴[02 Sep 25 21:30 UTC] No.45109304[source]▶
By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story. (and another user here kindly did that for us below: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... )

It seems such a simple step (they must have been using the ruling PDF to write the story) yet why is it always such a hassle for them to feel that they should link the original content? I would rather be able to see the probably dozens of pages ruling with the full details rather than hear it secondhand from a reporter at this point. It feels like they want to be the gatekeepers of information, and poor ones at that.

I think it should be adopted as standard journalistic practice in fact -- reporting on court rulings must come with the PDF.

Aside from that, it will be interesting to see on what grounds the judge decided that this particular data sharing remedy was the solution. Can anyone now simply claim they're a competitor and get access to Google's tons of data?

I am not too familiar with antitrust precedent, but to what extent does the judge rule on how specific the data sharing need to be (what types of data, for what time span, how anonymized, etc. etc.) or appoint a special master? Why is that up to the judge versus the FTC or whoever to propose?

replies(34): >>45109436 #>>45109441 #>>45109478 #>>45109479 #>>45109490 #>>45109518 #>>45109532 #>>45109624 #>>45109811 #>>45109851 #>>45110077 #>>45110082 #>>45110294 #>>45110366 #>>45110367 #>>45110536 #>>45110690 #>>45110834 #>>45111086 #>>45111256 #>>45111423 #>>45111626 #>>45112443 #>>45112591 #>>45112729 #>>45112898 #>>45112978 #>>45113292 #>>45113388 #>>45113710 #>>45114506 #>>45115131 #>>45115340 #>>45116045 #
1. rafram ◴[02 Sep 25 22:45 UTC] No.45110077[source]▶
I’ve noticed this in New York Times articles in the last couple years. Articles are heavily interlinked now - most “keyword” terms will link to a past article on the same topic - but the links rarely leave the Times’ site. The only exception is when they need to refer back to a prior story that they didn’t cover, but that another publication did. Sources are almost never linked; when they are, it’s to a PDF embed on the Times’ own site.

I assume they and all the other big publications have SEO editors who’ve decided that they need to do it for the sake of their metrics. They understand that if they link to the PDF, everyone will just click the link and leave their site. They’re right about that. But it is annoying.

replies(1): >>45110332 #
2. skrtskrt ◴[02 Sep 25 23:14 UTC] No.45110332[source]▶
It's also a political tool.

About a year ago when the NYTimes wrote an article called liked "Who really gets to declare if there is famine in Gaza?", the conclusions of the article were that "well boy it sure is complicated but Gaza is not officially in famine". I found the conclusion and wording suspect.

I went looking to see if they would like to the actual UN and World Food Program reports. The official conclusions were that significant portions of Gaza were already officially in famine, but that not all of Gaza was. The rest of Gaza was just one or two levels below famine, but those levels are called like "Food Emergency" or whatever.

Essentially those lower levels were what any lay person would probably call a famine, but the Times did not mention the other levels or that parts were in the famine level - just that "Gaza is not in famine".

To get to the actual report took 5 or 6 hard-to-find backlinks through other NYTimes articles. Each article loaded with further NYTimes links making it unlikely you'd ever find the real one.

replies(2): >>45110744 #>>45113302 #
3. lazide ◴[03 Sep 25 00:08 UTC] No.45110744[source]▶
The editorial board would probably prefer the NYTimes not get murdered by the current political climate - which of course is part of why the political climate is what it is.
4. mike_hearn ◴[03 Sep 25 07:55 UTC] No.45113302[source]▶
It's true that they do this sort of thing for political reasons, but it sounds like the original NYT report wasn't meant to be merely a paraphrase of a specific UN report? In which case, it would be legitimate to cite other sources and report that they disagree?
replies(1): >>45119832 #
5. skrtskrt ◴[03 Sep 25 20:01 UTC] No.45119832{3}[source]▶
No it was a paraphrase of the report and cited no sources that disagreed. It simply sneakily misrepresented the contents and buried the links to the actual report.
replies(1): >>45125693 #
6. mike_hearn ◴[04 Sep 25 10:35 UTC] No.45125693{4}[source]▶
Then yes, that's very bad.