It is, in the sense that companies like Meta operate assuming that 230 gives them carte blanche to act as they please.
But:
"Plaintiffs characterize Meta’s duty as one of product design—that Meta should not have built Facebook in a way that boosted incitements to violence. Still, the alleged defects relate to Facebook’s core design as a publishing platform, particularly how Facebook promoted or downplayed third-party posts using algorithms. Under our case law, matching users with content is publishing conduct, even when the user has not requested the content."
At issue the question of who, if anyone, is responsible for the speech issues at play when Meta chooses to show me X rather than Y of the near infinite pool of content at its disposal.
Some are indeed looking to completely get rid of 230, but if you ask me, assuming that Meta has 230 protections for all editorial decisions it makes should be considered overbroad. I'm no lawyer, but as a citizen it seems to me that it puts Meta's influence beyond legal accountability in a way that no individual is. And that seems totally unfair.
Frankly, when you look around and everyone around you is focused first and foremost on getting rich, that's a good indication that the rich veins have already been mined.
Wealth is built on creating something of value. There is gamesmanship played to acquire that value once it is created, but without the thing itself they are all just picking each others' pockets.
Facebook did exactly this with a VPN acquisition. They didn't break into customer data; they just mined it for usage patterns.
So as a pure speculation on Goog's motives, it doesn't sound farfetched enough to call ridiculous. Competitive data is valuable, particularly if you want to strangle the youth in their cradles (or acquire them).
They also are the largest employer of doctors in the United States.
They've essentially constructed their own single-payer health care provider, but instead of being paid for by tax dollars it's a publicly traded company whose primary goal is to increase shareholder value.
As described, it is a fair ways away from what RealPage is doing. Specifically:
* RealPage sells raising rents, not just market info.
* RealPage pressures clients into taking their higher rents.
* RealPage also pressure clients to refuse to rent at lower rates for their own narrow economic interest - in other words, they actively seek to circumvent competitive pressure to keep rents high. (edit: to clarify, I mean they discourage lowering rent to attract a renter)
Pave does sound like it gives businesses a leg up over employees in wage negotiations, but until it e.g. starts promising clients that they will be able to pay lower salaries, the critical element of coordination won't be in the mix. Pave gives you the data, but you can still choose to pay above market to attract talent.
> I'm confused about why we're comparing GOTO control flow with channels, since they're completely unrelated. I guess you can make a mess with each when you use them inappropriately? With GOTO, you should avoid it because there are better options (notably, conditional statements).
Notes On Structured Concurrency goes into some depth on this comparison:
I have a good friend who's a Lyft driver. According to him, all drivers are rated on cleanliness by passengers; if you're dinged for a weird smell, there are lasting financial consequences (even if it was for reasons outside of your control, e.g. using a Lyft provided rental while repairing from a traffic accident).
We'll see how Waymo handles it! It will definitely be Waymo's problem to solve, though.
> I used to work at FB and they have a team that tries to catch employees selling access like this.
For folks who aren't familiar with FB, maxrmk is absolutely right. But some more color would probably help:
When one of the privacy teams discovers a violation of this kind, the employee is generally called into a meeting with HR and fired the very next day.
A friend of mine did this inadvertently - just trying to help a real personal friend with an account issue, and inadvertently accessed a system in a way he didn't realized was a privacy violation. Months later, he was investigating data for a project, which triggered an audit. They walked him out the door the next day after finding it.
But circular references don't leak in Java. You have to have a GC root (e.g. a static, or something in your runtime) somewhere pointing at the thing to actually leak it.
There is one case where a "circular" reference can appear to cause a leak that I know of: WeakHashMap. But that's because the keys, which are indeed cleaned up at some point once the associated value is GC'd, are themselves strongly retained references.
They're designed so that, if necessary, they can be operated by a single employee. That's why they're so tightly cramped around the grill: so that someone can cook and still keep an eye on a table.
This is also what makes it really easy to get attached to your local Waffle House: the staff make the place what it is.
Chet is going to be missed a lot in our community. His talks with Romain Guy were inspirational to me: whenever I saw them it was clear that they could each hold the stage on their own, but that having the both of them got more out of both of them, both technically and in entertainment value.
I hope he does well in comedy, but I will miss his example: that you can bring even unusual talents and interests into work life and make something worthwhile of it
It's a low traffic 4 way stop sign intersection. Low speed, probably a 25mph speed limit?
If you're cycling, this kind of intersection is only dangerous if you fail to yield/stop appropriately to auto traffic. Which seems like might be what happened here, from the description.
Of course they are different things. But the choice to define "range" as the highest possible number is misleading: people ask the range so that they can know how many stops are required at a highway speed trip.
Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best. It certainly doesn't help the Windows computer hoi polloi feel as if they have gotten what they paid for.
This is a really off base characterization of Android within Google.
Chet Haase wrote a book on those years, and while it is clear that Google gave them rocket fuel to meet their ambitions, their company culture was wildly different from the rest of Google. Shipping code on Android would not have passed muster for anyone at mainline Google; the process and standards were utterly alien from one another.
There is no way Android happens without the acquisition.
> Google will pay their lawyers a similar amount and the FTC is likely to lose again bc their case is weak!
I cannot claim to the same prior knowledge as you, but I can read a news article as well as the next person. I am not sure how you can interpret this case as a loss for the antitrust bar, no matter whether Google wins or loses.
* Set Google's claims that default search placement is not a meaningful barrier to entry next to the fact revealed in litigation that they paid 26 billion dollars for default search placement in 2021
* Communications with Apple have revealed a company so cozy with Google, that the tone is of two major players effectively dividing up the market. Even Apple partisans like John Gruber have called out Apple's hypocrisy in benefitting from this arrangement: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2023/10/27/google-aggregat...
* Internal communications were revealed that show Google choosing to goose ad rates without the slightest concern for a decline in sales — a clear sign of market power.
Of course, I don't think Judge Mehta has a great track record on this? So whether Google will lose the case is no sure thing.
But without Khan, these facts and figures are simply not here, and we are not having this debate. So while I can see some basis for your claim that Khan is a failure, I can't actually line it up with reality as I see it very well. The conversation around antitrust has changed, without a doubt, and while there a myriad reasons for that, we have to give Khan her due if we are to acknowledge that anyone has any impact on the course of human affairs at all.
This discussion is partly about how Google alters search results to increase revenue. It would stand to reason that they might also improve their stock price and search revenue by doing this, while also degrading search quality.
As for why their market share has not degraded as a result, it is likely that the folks currently prosecuting Google for antitrust violations have the best argument for why this might be so.
But:
"Plaintiffs characterize Meta’s duty as one of product design—that Meta should not have built Facebook in a way that boosted incitements to violence. Still, the alleged defects relate to Facebook’s core design as a publishing platform, particularly how Facebook promoted or downplayed third-party posts using algorithms. Under our case law, matching users with content is publishing conduct, even when the user has not requested the content."
At issue the question of who, if anyone, is responsible for the speech issues at play when Meta chooses to show me X rather than Y of the near infinite pool of content at its disposal.
Some are indeed looking to completely get rid of 230, but if you ask me, assuming that Meta has 230 protections for all editorial decisions it makes should be considered overbroad. I'm no lawyer, but as a citizen it seems to me that it puts Meta's influence beyond legal accountability in a way that no individual is. And that seems totally unfair.