←back to thread

858 points colesantiago | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
supernova87a ◴[] 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 #
Workaccount2 ◴[] No.45109532[source]
Never link outside your domain has been rule #1 of the ad-driven business for years now.

Once users leave your page, they become exponentially less likely to load more ad-ridden pages from your website.

Ironically this is also why there is so much existential fear about AI in the media. LLMs will do to them what they do to primary sources (and more likely just cut them out of the loop). This Google story will get a lot of clicks. But it is easy to see a near future where an AI agent just retrieves and summarizes the case for you. And does a much better job too.

replies(8): >>45109781 #>>45110067 #>>45110073 #>>45110474 #>>45110625 #>>45112026 #>>45112931 #>>45113046 #
1. vkou ◴[] No.45110474[source]
> And does a much better job too.

A much better job for who? For you, or the firm running it?

A future where humans turn over all their thinking to machines, and, by proxy, to the people who own those machines is not one to celebrate.