←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: 0.406s | 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. camillomiller ◴[03 Sep 25 06:43 UTC] No.45112898[source]▶
As a reporter, I can tell you that your comment stems from a common fallacy: y’all think you know better than reporters what our jobs are and what the dynamics of our publishing platform entail. For some reason, everyone feels like they would know how to be a journalist better than the actual professionals.

That said, reporters have most probably nothing to do with what you’re decrying. Linking policies are not the reporter’s business. There are probably multiple layers of SEO “experts” and upper management deciding what goes on page and what not. Funnily enough, they might be super anal about what the story links, and then let Taboola link the worst shit on the Internet under each piece… So please, when you start your sentence with “reporters” please know that you’re criticizing something they have no power to change.

replies(5): >>45113027 #>>45113510 #>>45113716 #>>45114166 #>>45135746 #
2. mquander ◴[03 Sep 25 07:03 UTC] No.45113027[source]▶
I sympathize with how annoying it must be to have other people messing up your work, but also, if your name is at the top of the page, and there's not really any other way for readers to know anyone in particular that is taking responsibility for any specific detail on that page, it's obviously going to be your reputation on the line to some extent.
3. widhhddok ◴[03 Sep 25 08:37 UTC] No.45113510[source]▶
This comment deflects from the very real original comment's gripe with not linking to the original source.
4. inigoalonso ◴[03 Sep 25 09:10 UTC] No.45113716[source]▶
How is providing factual information (e.g., "The full court ruling is available at https://court.rulings/case_123456.pdf", or at least "The case is number 123456.") not part of the reporter's job? No need to link to it, just provide the fact.
5. frontfor ◴[03 Sep 25 10:31 UTC] No.45114166[source]▶
It doesn’t matter. From the general population point of view, whoever writes the article is the “reporter”, and “they” don’t provide the links. You can argue otherwise and it won’t change the optics.
6. supernova87a ◴[05 Sep 25 07:04 UTC] No.45135746[source]▶
I don't really care if you think people don't understand details of the job you do, or the system in which you operate. Your name is on the article and it's my expectation at this point that someone telling a story give me the original source when it's easily available. I don't need to know the complications or reasons why it isn't done, I want the right outcome.

If anything, you should be helping to cut through the BS layers and insisting that the original source link (or, even just the full name of the court case) be included with your reporting.