fyoving

One less person on the payroll to generate negative news and internal strife is surely a positive development.

"EU paid Airbus billions in illegal subsidies, WTO rules" https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525

Are you litigating the boeing v airbus thing? didn't the WTO rule that airbus is receiving billions in illegal subsidies?

And are you suggesting that france doesn't subside specific industries?

If you're complaints are exclusive to the aviation and defence industries then a US complaint regarding the EU and france could include that and every other industry.

If my math is correct then most of the companies are American, and by far most of the potential revenue.

Considering the rhetoric leading to this tax and the french government's many raids and failed investigations into US companies and their taxes it's difficult even with careful wording for the french government to deny the actual target of this tax in a WTO type setting.

Even with recent tariffs, US tariffs are still generally low, it's hardly a poster child for "protectionism", the EU has other barriers in addition to tariffs and much of it is due to french protectionism.

If you think that these "loopholes" should be closed then close them for all companies and countries, don't enact discriminatory laws and then act indignant about it.

Shouldn't be a long inquiry, this tax is textbook discriminatory trade barrier.

If you look at EU policy as france and germany protecting their perceived interests by targeting US tech companies it starts making sense, I think a rule of thumb there is: "if it hurts google it should be law".

It's curious how when these people complain about corporations not paying taxes they reliably fail to mention that it's because of R&D tax credits.

Not sure how wise it is for politicians to employ a populist strategy against companies that outstrip them in favorability among the average citizen.

The laws are fine, what we need is to not tailor laws according to selfish political whims or to the whims of publishers and all other inferior competition.

Luckily for Google in the US the grievances of a company's enemies/competitors don't count for much.

I'll credit the WSJ for counting themselves among those enemies, but what I find vexing with all these reports is the constant and casual mentions of "breaking up" these companies as though it's a viable and realistic outcome which it isn't and any self respecting publication should present things in the proper context.

Eliminating tax deductions and the perverse incentives they entail would be a bigger boon than further taxing the successful and fortunate.

The problem isn't a lack in revenue the problem is that we are spending it on the wrong stuff.

Not really, adopting these apps is usually a modest investment on the users' part.

I don't mind the killing off of stuff that doesn't catches on it's a mark of dynamism.

I always thought the name had something to do with it, "google plus" doesn't sound right specially for a social network, also "Hangouts" is a terrible name, it doesn't internationalize well nor does it work for an enterprise setting, and "keep" is a good app but it should be called "google notes" nevermind they already used that name on a now defunct product.

Google has been worse at naming products than they have a right to be.

The author keeps conflating the "hate speech" talking points with what this investigation is actually about, it's like they can't help but pad the article with all their google grievances.

It sounds like this is due to COPPA complaints because a lot of kids watch youtube videos and apparently they are not supposed to, but if youtube was found culpable then everyone would because COPPA is a mess.

What's the thinking here? Stopping the merger of the two insignificant players would only shield the major players from real competition.

The NYT is yet to publish a correction to an article publicizing a comically erroneous study suggesting a relationship between Facebook use and attacks on refugees in Germany: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/08/fa...

They have been running smear campaigns against tech companies for years and then act dumb and ask about the change in sentiment towards them.

No politics talk at work seems to be the rational and only solution here.

"Although the Financial Times’ sources don’t explicitly lay out Google’s argument, it’s not difficult to imagine how it would go."

That's hilarious, a fourth party in speculating about what might have been said in private as reported by a paywalled publication, you know: journalism!

Says who? Personally I prefer sophisticated software that works to this ill conceived fear mongering notion of privacy.

It's worth remembering that Apple's privacy spin began with people noticing that Siri is a joke and other ML powered functions in Apple's software are not nearly as good as the competition's, so the company line basically became "our software sucks because we don't spy on you" and because tech journalists are predisposed to hate everyone else and really love framing their stories as rivals dueling they gladly adopted that narrative.

Allow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some of the reports but a key line here is:

"The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations"

It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to any of these corporations.

This whole thing is terribly misguided, there is a long list of companies and markets worthy of antitrust scrutiny and these tech companies if they are on that list then they are at the very bottom of it. The real drag on the economy are the high prices of healthcare and housing, there is also the case that ISPs have obvious monopolies and are providing inferior products and services and the list goes on.

The role of the media here shouldn't be ignored, they coined the term "big tech" to conjure negative associations and they continuously publish alarmist coverage about any combination of these firms, they also stand to benefit if any enforcement action were to occur.

The EU has different rules (and extra motivation to go after US companies) they also don't need to win in court, their enforcement action in unilateral.

That's a price fixing/cartel case not a first amendment one.

No one is reporting that the DOJ is considering going to court nor that they have any "case" let alone a "strong" one if the WSJ reports are to be believed it's very preliminary stuff.

I don't know about data accesse rumors but the fact that a bunch of Googlers did government work during the Obama years is well documented, that said the FTC is an independent agency with commissioners from both parties and they unanimously voted against going to court.

Depends on what's being investigated here, if the government would actually want to compel Google to alter their search results then it's a first amendment case.

That's one interpretation by interested parties another would be that enforcement lawyers are always aggressive and those who make the decision in the end would have to weigh the odds of winning in court and unanimously they decides not.

Regardless, the FTC would have had a much better chance than the DOJ as they have specific broad powers more suitable to this case.

The FTC act has broader powers in these cases as they can consider effect on competitors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o...

The DOJ enforces the sherman act, which is useless here (no consumer harm).

People don't seem to understand how this stuff works in the US, Google has full editorial control over their search results protected by the first amendment and that right was affirmed in court time and time again:

https://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-f...

If you don't like their free no lock in service go elsewhere, and that's why there is no sherman act case here, which is why if the DOJ actually does anything here it would be a waste of time and resources.

I don't see how after the FTC came up empty the DOJ would fare any better as arguable the sherman act is a much tougher route, and the competition landscape has changed to google's detriment (amazon ads, facebook, etc).

Anyway the article is quite scarce and the source is the WSJ so they might be trying to amplify some stuff or even advocate for it.