notamanager

The WSJ and "other publication" aren't disinterested parties in all this, they have filed complaints against Google and they are unashamedly lobbying for laws that would exempt them from being subject to antitrust rules both individually and part of lobbying groups such as newsmediaalliance.org.

Newspapers are businesses and they compete with Google. You should scrutinize their motives and the motives of those so called "intelligent people" you mention.

They haven't lost any actually, if you're referring to EU enforcement then that stuff in unilateral, a court isn't involved so technically they couldn't lose.

As for background if state AGs have ulterior motives then so does the EU many folds.

The Washington Post article linked above mentions that the Texas AG is using his google probe to solicit donations in his reelection emails.

Here is a NYT article about how state AGs get used by company lawyers to go after competitors with money exchanging hands (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-creat...)

Here is the one about the Mississippi AG used by the movie industry to go after google (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/technology/google-attorne...)

The WSJ is a not an uninterested party in this case, and this is but one example of them misquoting and spinning reports to attack google (https://searchengineland.com/misquoted-and-misunderstood-why...)

I don't.

Sure but defendants (which they aren't even) are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Also that's not how the WSJ is presenting this or anything else they publish about google.

Fun fact: Google is allowed to defend itself and is not obliged to give prosecutors all they want. The framing of “resists giving documents” purposely makes it similar to “resisting arrest”.

Fun fact 2: the AGs are being advised by a former News Corp (read: WSJ) lawyer who also advises other google competitors (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/texas-a...)

Fun fact 3: AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt: the one in Mississippi was issuing subpoenas to Google on behalf of the entertainment industry (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...)

Making it less useful.

It's a national shame that state AGs are elected not assigned.

It's a national shame that state AGs are elected not assigned.

If Facebook were liable they wouldn't allow the posting or even the possibility of posting in the first place, the law protects individual rights by keeping the liability onus on the author as opposed to the "publisher".

This is such a disingenuous framing from the AG as well from media outlets who keep misrepresenting section 230.

That law isn't about protecting Facebook or Google it's about ensuring that anyone can express themselves online without needing a highly paid lawyer and a protracted trial to do so.

It also isn't about publisher vs. platform, section 230 protects the Times from being sued for comments on their website same as for any bigger or smaller operation.

It's tragic how the powers that be in this country are trying to insert a lawyer into every transaction like it's a jobs program, and the infuriating part is that they are trying to convince people that it's for their own benefit.