Comment by derbOac

Comment by derbOac 15 hours ago

1 reply

But why political content in particular?

If there is any kind of concern about content monopoly, they shouldn't grant the merger, period, it seems to me. Singling out political content is where their discussions seem questionable from my perspective. Otherwise the tacit argument is "content monopoly is ok unless it is political in nature" which seems somewhat arbitrary and very much about the government restricting speech, as it is of a specific nature being targeted.

PeterStuer 2 hours ago

I do not know if "political content" was explicitly singled out.

I think the specific question was how the merged company intended to prevent GARM style collusion in advertzing boycotting.