Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Warns FTC: Leave Google Alone
concealment writes with this selection from Ars Technica: "A Democratic congressman who played a leading role in the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act earlier this year has taken up a new cause: shielding Google from antitrust scrutiny. In a strongly worded letter to Federal Trade Commission chairman Jon Leibowitz, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) praised Google's contribution to the nation's economy. He warned Leibowitz that if the FTC does choose to initiate an antitrust case against Google, Congress might react by curtailing its regulatory authority."
And now it's going to get hammered.
The FTC will double their resolve, they get to help Apple while defying congress.
What could be better.
You are one hundred percent right. Google is a corporation, and corporations are people, my friend.
I don't know, but why always a congressman sticks his nose in something it starts smelling fishy. Is there any other political force putting its influence to make FTC to investigate Google? Hollywood?
I wish Liberterarians would get some real friends so they'd stop posting their drivel on the internet for attention. You guys should arrange a meetup or something, get it all out of your system and stop shoehorning your idiotic philosophy into every single god damn slashdot submission.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
If there is real proof that Google has a monopoly (i.e. they control the market) and that they have acted illegally by manipulating results wrongly or have forced tied products to their search engine, they SHOULD be investigated. The real issue here is that Google has a LARGE share, but does not have a monopoly. In addition, does anybody have any real proof that Google has manipulated results or forced other products to be tied to their search engine?
Good examples are ATT, IBM and MS. Is there any proof that Google has acted like these companies did? I have not seen it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It seems an anti trust case would be clear cut. Look at the algorithms. If the algorithms are creating a horizontal monopoly by intentionally hiding the compitition in search results then Google is guilty. If the algorithms just show the links that people click on the most then Google is innocent.
Well, you're an idiot.
More like congressman is declaring FTC not to be above the law.
Google earned its keep fair and square and the FTC is probably in bed with Apple and Microsoft.
There are PLENTY worse players to go after and attacking google is blatantly selective, and the FTC knows it.
Kind of stupid to say that they shouldn't be investigated just based off the 'boost' they give the economy. I'm sure MS gave a huge boost to silicon valley, but that doesn't mean what they were doing was right or that it should insulate them from any investigations.
If Google is innocent, then no harm no foul.
Not all sides.
Lobbyists only work on the money sides.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
>Are you even familiar with the Unites States versus Microsoft.
I am. And David Boies was famous for prosecuting it. a
But then what actually happened?
The went under "observation."
Big deal. They should have been broken up. It would have been better for the company and for the investors as the pieces of Microsoft were worth more than the whole.
They weren't taken seriously. QED.
--
BMO
Jim Taggart and his railroad were already chummy with Washington in the beginning of the book
Yeah, this point was conveniently overlooked. They've already been given tax breaks, handouts, protections, etc from the gov't. But the did it 'all on their own' and not at all at the cost of others.
I thought this was the biggest fallacy of Atlas Shrugged: Railroads aren't economically sustainable in a laissez-faire system, or even possible to build without eminent domain, so Rand's point about Nat Taggart building his railroad with nothing but his brains and braun was a bunch of bullshit. History especially proved Rand wrong: just compare the European and Asian railroads to American ones. Not only are the 'socialist' rail systems of Europe and Asia much more modern, but they're also utilized much more and provide immense opportunities not available in the States. Outside a couple large metropolises (which have 'socialist' subways and trains), in the States a person is screwed without a car. It's a Catch-22 for many: can't get a job without a car, can't get a car without a job. The U.S. has Amtrak and freight trains and that's it.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
They would if they had a serf mentality.
The problem is that Ayn's premise was flawed. Companies don't hire lobbyists because they have to, they hire them because they want to influence (purchase) favorable rules and regulations. Lobbyists are not defensive, they are offensive.
The way you brought the subject up, and the fact that you pointed out a flawed premise as if it was factual is what made you sound like you were shoe horning Ayn into the conversation. You gave the impression that you were a blind follower of her.
Note: I have read Ayn's work but disagree with a lot of her philosophy.
If Google is innocent, then no harm no foul.
"No harm"? You haven't ever been investigated, have you? You might be completely and totally innocent and still be ruined, financially and personally by an "investigation".
While Google won't actually be ruined by this, to claim that there would be "no harm" is extremely naive.
This is just like those people who say, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from government spying."
So are the Super Rich our new Overlords?
Ha, "new"... hehe. I like you, you're funny.