rickncliff

I'm guessing it's some sort of a rule here to have at least one anti-google link on the front page at all times but I think this needs addressing:

1. Ads keep the lights on and they are labeled as such.

2. The Basecamp guy was complaining that ads for competing services are showing when searching for his service which is something that courts have affirmed time and again as being pro consumer because it exposes new users to competing services.

This describes a recent case and links to others: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/05/another-court-...

This is ridiculous; so Amazon aren't supposed to use open source software or offer services that compete with startups?!

It's suspect when papers side with accusers and adopt their rhetoric wholesale, this kind of advocacy delegitimizes all their other reports IMO.

Whatever else they do it doesn't preclude protectionism.

ACCC to lead development of a code of conduct to govern dealings between tech giants and media businesses.

Murdoch country is doing his bidding and tapping themselves on the back, all these attempts against US tech firms is protectionism and should be countered as such.

How is FB "consumer-hostile"? You'll have to pay a lot more to watch all that Disney IP soon enough.

If it got to that and it's not some sort of WSJ attempt to advocate for this sort of thing, facebook must fight it tooth and nail, and stop these attempts at governmental micromanagement once and for all.

It's suspect that they are going after tech companies which are national treasures but are enemies to corporate media, it's strange that this sort of action isn't being considered against actual malicious monopolists that the press isn't constantly attacking. No one is suggesting going after disney for instance even though they have that market cornered.

It's unfortunate that this almarmist technophobic slant is considered worthy journalism.

That is one way, don't buy his cars is another, and he can say whatever he wants.

Profiteering lawyers as middlemen to technology application is what these overly strict privacy laws are trying to establish and that's a shame.

Consequences should be social, not legal.

Avoiding speech restrictions is always a positive in my book.

As for the larger picture "defamation" is incompatible with the first amendment and laws around it should be invalidated.

I don't much care about throwing the codeword "unbiased" in there, it's just pandering to critics and their nonsense talking points.

Thankfully 1A shields us from speech restricting laws.

If you want to arrange more job opportunities for humanities majors just say so.

That tends to happen when the media is flooded with negative PR against you for an extended period of time.

"such backlash"? you just heard about it.

And there is nothing wrong about monetary profit as motivation, the pursuit of profits has elevated the living standards of billions around the world saving countless lives.

They employ a lot of talented people and they are among the few organizations that have the resources and will to actually solve these intricate problems, so more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

Evidently "consent" isn't lawfully required. The hope is that any breakthrough might lower healthcare costs, and in the worst case scenario at least some patients might benefit which is still a win.

Surely they could have come up with a less alarmist headline for what seems like a much needed initiative in healthcare innovation.

But that's the case for all tech coverage nowadays.

Not sure what's more alarming, these regulators looking to micromanage companies or the number of comments supporting this stuff.

The focus on tech companies is unwarranted as unlike other sectors no one's been hurt by these companies all the "harms" these policies are based of are hypothetical.

And by the way reuters are the ones making this about google.