Comment by meowface

Comment by meowface 4 days ago

6 replies

Sure, the law should be enforced against them. The law's the law. I wasn't trying to imply they should not face the full penalties the law requires, here. Obviously they should. No one is above the law.

The tone of your post just carried an impression of criminality in the sense of wanton fraud or murder rather than an organization using its money to put itself in a position to make more money via consensual contracts with technology product providers and running afoul of "wait, you can't be too good at running a business" regulations.

immibis 4 days ago

Aren't you implying that actual fraud, as well as things like copyright infringement, would be anything more than an organization using its money to put itself in a position to make more money via consensual contracts and running afoul of "wait, you can't be too good at running a business" regulations?

  • meowface 2 days ago

    Fraud usually implies deceiving someone or something.

    • immibis 2 days ago

      Which is just a company being better at business than you. Selling promises and breaking them is a very good business model, in a free market without government intervention, since it makes a lot of profit. If you were good at business, you wouldn't give money to those companies. Hence, them being better at business than you.

pyrale 3 days ago

> The tone of your post just carried an impression of criminality in the sense of wanton fraud

Oh, they also did that [1]. If a bank did this kind of stuff, perpetrators would see jail.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

  • meowface 2 days ago

    Well, since this discussion is about the law as well:

    >In September 2022, a ruling in the case dismissed claims there was collusion between Google and Facebook regarding the matters covered in the agreement.

    • pyrale 2 days ago

      The scope of the part of this ruling alluded to by this wikipedia quote is extremely limited. All it says is that facebook didn't explicitly promise to not develop header bidding in the future, so the agreement is not a collusion between fb and google.

      In essence, all that it says is that this lawsuit is limited to Google's fraud and monopoly behaviour, and does not extend to Facebook.

      In many other matters, the judge allowed the litigation to go forward. Just check out the document below [1] and ctrl-f "the complaint plausibly alleges".

      [1]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...