←back to thread

398 points ChrisArchitect | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.198s | source
Show context
richwater[dead post] ◴[] No.45141442[source]
[flagged]
dragonwriter ◴[] No.45141460[source]
Yeah, its not like the US is also pursuing an antitrust actions against Google, including one for its abusive ad tech practices.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-prevails-l...

replies(1): >>45141493 #
richwater ◴[] No.45141493[source]
Lina Khan's success record is/was horrendous.

In the most recent case, Google may have "lost" but the government got nowhere near what it was asking for either.

replies(2): >>45141678 #>>45141803 #
orwin ◴[] No.45141678[source]
Honestly, on this particular case that's on the judge and your current culture, not Khan. Before the 80s, Google would have been forced to separate its two ads divisions, to make some space for new companies and actors.

If Lina Khan only victory is that people are now aware that having a government this friendly with monopolies isn't normal, that's probably better than most politicians since Clinton.

replies(1): >>45141740 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.45141740[source]
> Honestly, on this particular case that's on the judge and your current culture, not Khan. Before the 80s, Google would have been forced to separate its two ads divisions, to make some space for new companies and actors.

The case in which the government didn’t get what it wanted was the online search case; the trial in the remedy phase of the ad tech case starts later this month, so talking about the difference between what Google would have gotten in the 1980s for that and what they are actually getting now is premature speculation.

replies(1): >>45142415 #
1. orwin ◴[] No.45142415[source]
Oh sorry then, i guess my lack of following and my pessimism has taken over proper verification. Hopefully the US government break Google adtech in two different companies.