That IS A Smoking Gun yes! But have They CONSIDERED that with Another couple MILLION Dollars in Donations to our Non Corrupt President the Trial can Go Away?
andallthat@lemmy.world
on 15 Apr 07:52
nextcollapse
Meta argued that “the FTC’s case rests almost entirely on emails (many more than a decade old) allegedly expressing competitive concerns” but suggested that this is only “intent” evidence, “without any evidence of anticompetitive effects.”
Not sure I understand the argument. if I write that I’m going to buy another company instead of competing with them, then I go ahead and I do buy that exact company, are they arguing that the two things are not necessarily related?
Yes. The argument is, raise the burden of proof: you are proving what my intent was, and what actions I took, but you should be proving negative market effects. Just because I said it, and I did it, doesn’t mean I succeeded. And if I didn’t there’s no reason to be broken up.
threaded - newest
They “trust” me.
Dumb fucks.
They “trust” me.
Dumb fucks.
They “trust” me.
Dumb fucks.
Let me know when we actually execute monopoly regulations as intended.
<img alt="" src="https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/ac9c1338-a6e2-47ed-9d26-748abf61e559.jpeg">
That IS A Smoking Gun yes! But have They CONSIDERED that with Another couple MILLION Dollars in Donations to our Non Corrupt President the Trial can Go Away?
As far as I can tell, the promise of a substantial donation seems all that’s required, that and genuflecting … pro tip, don’t mention the hands.
Just gotta Zuck that felonious toadstool
I have doubts it will get fully prosecuted under this administration. Tech oligarchy have been sucking Trump’s dick since he started his term.
Zuckerfuck being among the worst in the bunch.
Any coincidence that 2012 e-mails are finally coming to trial today?
I am honestly surprised President dum dum, or the AG hasn’t shut down this investigation yet
There are still “favors” to be done.
:soon:
Didn’t Musk and Zuck want to literally fight recently? I don’t think they are friends.
It was all a theatre, I’m pretty sure.
Hang Zuck
Not sure I understand the argument. if I write that I’m going to buy another company instead of competing with them, then I go ahead and I do buy that exact company, are they arguing that the two things are not necessarily related?
Yes. The argument is, raise the burden of proof: you are proving what my intent was, and what actions I took, but you should be proving negative market effects. Just because I said it, and I did it, doesn’t mean I succeeded. And if I didn’t there’s no reason to be broken up.
Thanks, I understand better now.
On a related note, I wish I had known of the “just because I said it and I did it, doesn’t mean I succeeded” line of defense when I was a kid
Haha! Yes, but not sure how effective it would have been. I think parenting counts intent way above outcomes.
“Attempted murder? What next? The Nobel prize in attempted physics?”
That’s when zucks first android robot model came out