PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Anthony on June 27, 2017, 11:56:29 AM
-
BRUSSELS—The European Union’s antitrust regulator on Tuesday fined Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL -1.98%▲ Google a record €2.42 billion ($2.71 billion) for favoring its own comparison-shopping service in search results and ordered the search giant to apply the same methods to rivals as its own when displaying their services.
The decision, if it is upheld, would force Google to reshape the way it presents search results for products in Europe, the latest move by Brussels to rein in the tech world. The decision could also have further-reaching implications for other Google products and services—as well as those from competitors.
These search engines have been found to deliver biased leftist results, and slanted to certain companies, and sites. Also if you use google, MSN, or Yahoo email, anything regarding guns goes to your SPAM folder. At least it has for my MSN account.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-slapped-with-2-7-billion-eu-fine-over-search-results-1498556971
-
Didn't we have a faux intellectual recently try to tell us this just wasn't true?......You know, algorithms and all that.
-
Didn't we have a faux intellectual recently try to tell us this just wasn't true?......You know, algorithms and all that.
Yes, I remember that. These companies, are all run by hardcore leftists, so it doesn't surprise me they would act unethically, or illegally. I don't use Google for this reason, and haven't in a long time. However, the one I do use is probably no better. >:(
-
It's about time!
Google left a horse's head in my bed years ago to frighten me into using their web search site.
And I didn't even own a horse.
-
This just reminds me why the Left has been so successful over the years. They control Education, the Media, rank and file government, unions, and major corporations. Society is practicing soft tyranny by converting to a PC culture over the years, often due to pressure by this large corporations. It is really amazing that Republicans, especially Trump get elected at all.
-
It's about time!
Google left a horse's head in my bed years ago to frighten me into using their web search site.
And I didn't even own a horse.
LOL!!!
Well played sir!
-
It is really amazing that Republicans, especially Trump get elected at all.
And of the ones that do get elected, very few are willing to bite the hand that feeds them.
-
If google doesn't pay, what the EU going to do? Think they will block that URL from the countries of the EU? Betting the citizens would scream to the top of the empire if the EU autocrats tried to block it.
-
If google doesn't pay, what the EU going to do? Think they will block that URL from the countries of the EU? Betting the citizens would scream to the top of the empire if the EU autocrats tried to block it.
Lots of countries around the world block internet access to certain sites for a variety of reasons. It would be a major kick in the nuts to google.
-
If the EU tried to block google.com, the autocrats in charge would be in a world of shit. I know plenty of countries block a lot of URLs, but this is the EU, not Somalia, or Cuba, or China. They are supposedly 'democracies' of some kind, although they certainly operate a lot more like oligarchy.
-
The EU is NOT an elected body. It is a parasitic bureaucracy that acts without reasonable, or effective oversight and it is doing this for money, just like every other progressive organization on earth.
Like the pig, Jesse Jackson, Jr. Said, "It's all about the money."
Now that England is moving out, they have to steal from others to make up the difference, so they have money to force democracies to indulge their communist agenda.
-
What a bunch of twits. What's so hard to understand about Alphabet knowing the rules, choosing to break the rules, and then bitching when they're caught and penalized? They absolutely knew that what they were doing was wrong. No sympathy from me.
-
What a bunch of twits. What's so hard to understand about Alphabet knowing the rules, choosing to break the rules, and then bitching when they're caught and penalized? They absolutely knew that what they were doing was wrong. No sympathy from me.
I don't know who I dislike more, the EU, or Google. :)
-
The EU is NOT an elected body. It is a parasitic bureaucracy that acts without reasonable, or effective oversight and it is doing this for money, just like every other progressive organization on earth.
Like the pig, Jesse Jackson, Jr. Said, "It's all about the money."
Now that England is moving out, they have to steal from others to make up the difference, so they have money to force democracies to indulge their communist agenda.
Yeah, I got that. Which is why I called them 'autocrats' and not something else. But - the nations that make up the EU are supposed to be democracies? Germany was a republic, but I guess they are some kind of hybrid now. France is a democracy, UK, a parliamentary republic, etc. So, the EU sets a law, google supposedly violates it, EU fines them, and then google tells them to pound sand.
The question remains. If I was in charge of google I would tell the EU to get stuffed. There is NO WAY the EU powers would block the google URL. It just wouldn't happen. In fact, I might self-block the EU from accessing google URLs for a few days, just out of spite. Of course, that would cost money, but the alternative to knuckling under to the EU is unacceptable. Google owns the domain, they don't have to play nice about it. As much as I dislike google, their motives are fundamentally sound. Advance google, and the google brand(s). There are other search engines, plenty of them. Can you imagine if they forced Vauxall to advertise Peugeot cars along side Vauxall cars? Lunacy
-
I'm curious why so many people here hate lawbreakers, except for when it comes to Google. This is odd.
-
I'm curious why so many people here hate lawbreakers, except for when it comes to Google. This is odd.
Antitrust laws are like laws against personal use of drugs or laws against who you may have consensual sex with. The government inserts itself between private parties making their own value choices - when no one's property was forcibly taken or life otherwise forcibly impaired.
Let's quickly break it down: there are three parties, a service being offered to one party, and two sets of agreements involved that I can see:
(P1) Users (U) who do web searches (W).
(P2) Google (G) which displays advertisements of its own choosing and order (A).
(P3) Enterprises (E) that sell products and services.
(A1) G allows U to do S for free, so long as U understands that G may perform A.
(A2) In exchange for payment from E, G will perform A for E.
So which agreement, A1 or A2, creates a victim? Both are otherwise generic statements where you can substitute many things for the variables.
How is U a victim if competitors to G exist (e.g. Bing, Yahoo)?
Is U being forced to use G or not?
How is E a victim if competitors to G exist (e.g. Bing, Yahoo)?
Is E being forced to use G or not?
What is the one entity that IS threatening to use force in all this? (Hint: its initials are E.U.)
-
If I may distill Jim's post a bit - here we have a wildly successful business model. Growing like a weed in spring, and we have a Plutocracy with the ability and willingness to write rules designed to extract revenue from the success of others, without contributing to the betterment of their citizens.
Google makes a better mouse-trap. In fact, google has made the best mouse-trap in all mouse-trap history, and they are rewarded for their efforts by the market. They then leverage that success to things ancillary to trapping mice, and make more modest but significant success at that as well.
The hierarchy in place where google is being successful wants a taste(in fact, a damn big bite). They write laws which will slap down success, and force those who make the best mouse-trap give money to the lesser mouse-trap makers. It is Socialism writ large. Punish the successful, and award the lesser for simply being able to build a mouse-trap without losing a finger or two.
-
Antitrust laws are like laws against personal use of drugs or laws against who you may have consensual sex with. The government inserts itself between private parties making their own value choices - when no one's property was forcibly taken or life otherwise forcibly impaired.
Let's quickly break it down: there are three parties, a service being offered to one party, and two sets of agreements involved that I can see:
(P1) Users (U) who do web searches (W).
(P2) Google (G) which displays advertisements of its own choosing and order (A).
(P3) Enterprises (E) that sell products and services.
(A1) G allows U to do S for free, so long as U understands that G may perform A.
(A2) In exchange for payment from E, G will perform A for E.
So which agreement, A1 or A2, creates a victim? Both are otherwise generic statements where you can substitute many things for the variables.
How is U a victim if competitors to G exist (e.g. Bing, Yahoo)?
Is U being forced to use G or not?
How is E a victim if competitors to G exist (e.g. Bing, Yahoo)?
Is E being forced to use G or not?
What is the one entity that IS threatening to use force in all this? (Hint: its initials are E.U.)
Well said Jim. I too am wondering where the lawbreaking is. I'm no fan of The Google, but I'm having a tough time seeing who is being unfairly disadvantaged.
-
Too right. I became aware of Google's machinations on the search end of things years ago, and have abandoned them entirely.
I have a strong inclination to not feed any beast I become aware of that I don't think contributes in a positive way to human flourishing, and to patronize enterprises that I believe do operate toward a better world. True, I sometimes have to decide in dimness or total darkness, but I think it's worth taking the time to think about what we support and what we don't.
Makes it easier when business go full moonbat publicly! :)
-
I'm curious why so many people here hate lawbreakers, except for when it comes to Google. This is odd.
Actually, in my case, it's more of a love/hate relationship. I love that I can dig up dirt on you, but I hate that you can do the same to me.
-
Ah, so only laws you agree with should be enforced. Gotcha. Sounds kinda Trumpish.
-
Ah, so only laws you agree with should be enforced. Gotcha. Sounds kinda Trumpish.
Actually that was Obama's strategy for eight years, especially with immigration related law.
-
Ah, so only laws you agree with should be enforced. Gotcha. Sounds kinda Trumpish.
Not sure about the 'how it sounds' but basically - yes, in a very real way that's true.
I was not supportive of the following US laws:
Slavery(allowance of)
Segregation
Exec order 9066
Prohibition
Miscegenation
EAPIS (how the f*** is this still a US law? Completely unconstitutional)
If we start looking at intl laws, well - there aren't enough electrons to list all the laws I'm against in other countries(specifically the EU, not the N Korean kind of 'law').
I know there are a lot of people who abide by whatever laws those whom we consent to be governed by make up. It's almost as if once a law become active, it automatically becomes validated or sanctified. I live mostly by my own code. When that conflicts with law, I'll take the consequences.
-
I'm curious why so many people here hate lawbreakers, except for when it comes to Google. This is odd.
The EU is not a lawmaking body, even though it has usurped that power and uses it to their hearts' content.
Get over yourself.
-
Ah, so only laws you agree with should be enforced. Gotcha. Sounds kinda Trumpish.
You need a diet of other than msnbc
-
You need a diet of other and msnbc.
As always, you make no sense. Other and msnbc?
-
The EU is not a lawmaking body, even though it has usurped that power and uses it to their hearts' content.
Get over yourself.
Apparently they have the power to fine google, so how do you explain your position? You're an odd duck. And a hostile one at that. Maybe more fiber would help.
-
Actually that was Obama's strategy for eight years, especially with immigration related law.
What's up with you people who can't express a thought without it leading back to Obama. You're so focused on someone who hasn't been in office for five months. It's okay to talk about how Trump is an idiot without also saying "so was Obama".
-
What's up with you people who can't express a thought without it leading back to Obama. You're so focused on someone who hasn't been in office for five months. It's okay to talk about how Trump is an idiot without also saying "so was Obama".
My point is that we saw examples from Obama abut what you say Trump is doing now. I have no evidence from you, nor anyone else that Trump is selectively enforcing laws like Obama did, because Trump ISN'T doing it.
-
What's up with you people who can't express a thought without it leading back to Obama. You're so focused on someone who hasn't been in office for five months. It's okay to talk about how Trump is an idiot without also saying "so was Obama".
Just to be clear - you tossed the first 'Trump' bomb in post 20. And we have clear evidence of selective enforcement during the prev admin. I could start listing all the non-enforcement, but again - run out of electrons....
F&F - dead agent
Sec of state homebrewed server
That marine who went awol
security breach in cabinet
immigration(I saw a blurb somewhere that if we added up all the misprision charges for lack of enforcement of illegals, it added up to about 13 million prison years! made me chuckle)
-
What's up with you people who can't express a thought without it leading back to Obama. You're so focused on someone who hasn't been in office for five months. It's okay to talk about how Trump is an idiot without also saying "so was Obama".
Well, Trump is trying to fix what O fucked up. The maggots are spilling out of the wounds O hacked into our country's vitals. The Dems seem to own stock in maggot food. The healthcare issue right now is at its core O-care being adjusted to try and remedy its built-in fatal flaws.
Still, it is an obvious sign of non-think when someone kneejerks to "but your guy did it, too!" when their guy's actions are condemned. Happens continuously with my liberal friends. You don't see conservatives doing it as much, because we're capable of looking ahead and trying to figure out solutions that work, with clear eyes about our guy's weaknesses, and are more inclined to dialogue instead of defaulting to auto-think along feelzy party lines.
-
What's up with you people who can't express a thought without it leading back to Obama. You're so focused on someone who hasn't been in office for five months. It's okay to talk about how Trump is an idiot without also saying "so was Obama".
That's funny.
Obama disciples focused on Bush and Cheney for 8 years.
-
Gerhardt, you are a pussy.
-
Apparently they have the power to fine google, so how do you explain your position? You're an odd duck. And a hostile one at that. Maybe more fiber would help.
Please provide a link to their authority to levy this fine. What court would Google be dragged into should they tell the EU to pound sand?
-
The authority to levy the fine is from article 101, 102, and 103 et-al(basically a crat in an office with a lot of other crats). I don't know which treaty language in specific. As for the court they would be pulled into the EU does have a court;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice
-
What's up with you people who can't express a thought without it leading back to Obama. You're so focused on someone who hasn't been in office for five months. It's okay to talk about how Trump is an idiot without also saying "so was Obama".
I have no idea how old you are so I might have to give you a pass on this in case you are too young to recall the constant "it was Bush's fault" all during the O reign. Because otherwise I can't believe you would say such a thing with a straight face.