At face value, maybe. But it's worth noting that this administration tried to stop the AT&T-Time Warner merger while suggesting that it would go through if Time Warner divested itself of CNN. I supported the action, but not the reasons why- it was a legislative hurdle that aimed to take out a source of journalism that was critical of the administration.

That in turn has colored my opinion of any antitrust action this administration takes, and I wouldn't be shocked if this action had some sort of corrupted subtext as well. I wouldn't trust this administration to perform antitrust actions for the sake of antitrust actions, but rather for some sort of ancillary benefits.

That has been a common pushback to many media/broadcasting mergers though. It presents a real threat to freedom of the press when a broadcasting company absorbs a media company as they can more easily suppress stories that don't serve their interests.

CNN being critical of the administration is immaterial (practically all large media outlets are). The concern from the administration seems justified rather than malicious in this case.

I think the suggestion that the admin's position on the AT&T/TW merger wasn't biased by CNN's existence as a moderate news outlet is extremely disingenuous, since multiple judges found the opposite to be true.

As well, if they cared about freedom of the press in the face of media consolidation, Sinclair wouldn't have been able to buy up so many local news outlets. But Sinclair runs stories that praise the administration, and Sinclair has impunity when it comes to acquisitions.

What is this even referring to? Google didn't file this petition until 2019. It had previously petitioned the Supreme Court in 2014 before Oracle's appeal. The circumstances were quite different then.

No.

The Obama administration took the position that SCOTUS should not take up the case, because Google was likely to win on the argument that it had a fair use claim (making the copyright issue moot), and if it didn't, then you could consider both the "is it copyright?" and "is it fair use?" concerns simultaneously.

Ellison hosted a big fundraiser for Trump literally yesterday and Obama regularly golfed with Ellison. I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist but it’s clear the guy is connected and it stands to reason it might influence the government position.

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/12/tru...

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/18/bar...

Edit: some suggest Ellison doesn’t play golf, that said Obama visited his courses regularly and I’m sure there were plenty of occasions where they interacted closely before or after the round.

> conspiracy theorist

In my opinion, a possible connection between fundraisers/golfing and political outcomes doesn't necessarily rise to "conspiracy theorist".

This is how United States politics work. The elite give money to regulate an industry.

Do elites ever give money to deregulate?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but that's not what my comment was about.

"conspiracy theorist" has, to a large extent, become a phrase used to describe a certain class of fairly nutty folks these days, rightly or wrongly. I was noting that it's possible that someone pointing out a possible political outcome based on money transfer/golf games can do so without being a member of that group, as its effectively defined today.

Either way, wherever the profit and or broader control lie.

I'm starting to think we should let/get someone to found Sirius Cybernetics and let them snap up the whole FAANG group, Oracle, etc just so they can be "first up against the wall when the revolution comes".

> Do elites ever give money to deregulate?

Enron lobbied for deregulation

In short, yes. Elites will support deregulation, when it suits/benefits them.

The Trump Administration’s environmental deregulation drive is no doubt lobbied for, backed by, and funded in part by the Fossil Fuel industry.

Larry Ellison doesn't play golf. He does own golf courses though. He is a fine athlete but golf is not one of his sports.

Fair enough but I bet there were plenty of times before/after a round where they interacted closely.

>He is a fine athlete but golf is not one of his sports.

Isn't this orthogonal? Golf has absolutely nothing to do with athleticism.

Wrong. Tiger in particular was seriously into fitness.

Tiger Woods on his old workout routine: “Well, I used to get up in the morning, run four miles,” Woods said. “Then I’d go to the gym, do my lift. Then I’d hit balls for two to three hours. I’d go play, come back, work on my short game. I’d go run another four more miles, and then if anyone wanted to play basketball or tennis, I would go play basketball or tennis. That was a daily routine.

https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/tiger-woods-revea...

I'm into fitness too: I go to the gym, I ride my bike for long distances, etc.

My job involves sitting at a desk and writing code; my athleticism has nothing to do with it. It's the same with Tiger Woods.

Obviously Tiger was into athletics because he felt it improved his golf performance - and was probably right in doing so, considering that it was his peak period of accomplishment.

Being into athletics helps my work performance too. Athletic, fit people live longer, are healthier, have fewer sick days, and it probably extends to mental performance too, which is important in programming. Being fit also probably helps combat physical problems stemming from sitting down too much, such as back problems.

I don't see the difference. Golf is not an athletic sport, and it's plainly absurd to try to argue otherwise. There's nothing "athletic" about walking around slowly and hitting a ball with a stick; even bowling is more athletic than that. It might take some skill, sure, just like playing a musical instrument like a piano takes a lot of skill, but there's nothing athletic about playing a piano either.

> Golf has absolutely nothing to do with athleticism.

Golf has more than a little to do with athleticism, though, like many, especially individual, sports, it's possible for amateurs to play at (often, an approximation of) it without much athleticism.

Well, one thing: shoes with cleats. :)

This kind of false equivalence is what drives me nuts about the modern media environment. Presidents meet with people all the time, sometimes when playing golf. No doubt Obama had similar meetings (links or no) with Google execs on multiple occasions, right? No one cares when Trump golfs with people.

Clearly running a political fundraiser sits at a different level of influence peddling. We literally have laws to regulate that and disclose the activity (where disclosure of routine meetings are, in fact, protected by law as executive privilege)!

It's different. It's not the same. Saying "Trump did a favor because Ellison drove $2M to his campaing" has a stronger basis than "Obama did a favor because Ellison let him win at golf."

And I'll just say it: at the end of the day, people who believe "everyone is just as bad" are the ones who are likely to excuse the worst corruption in government via "well, at least it's my candidate doing the cheating".