Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market | Hacker News Reader

Google, Facebook Had Illegal Deal to Rig Ad Market

bloomberg.com

207 pointsakashshah8719 comments

This is currently the #1 story on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718.

We'll merge (most of) the comments thither.

Where did it go then?

It's still there. There have been multiple submissions of the same basic story, we merged them, and the one we merged them into is still #1 on the front page. Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Sorry - Just realized I accidentally marked it “hidden” :(

My opinion of Ken Paxton might be different had he not attempted to overturn the results of the presidential election. Is this suit just as frivolous?

If allegations are true, it doesn't seem to be frivolous.

That's the problem. I'm keen to see some evidence. The Texas vs. Democracy case had a 70-page filing, of which literally every aspect was obviously false. That filing makes me look at this heavily redacted filing and think "this is all made up". Maybe it's not, but it's the rational reaction.

Read the actual complaint, the level of knowledge you’d need to fabricate that would be unimaginable.

I read what I could and didn't find it overly persuasive. Obviously there must be evidence underlying these claims, but in the absence of that evidence a lot of it reads like one of those LSAT questions where you are supposed to spot the faulty logic. For example it just asserts that Google made it so everyone had to use their exchange and service, in almost those exact words ("had to") but there's nothing prior to that in the filing that supports this statement.

The issue here is that:

1. It's very clear that his office has no qualms with filing cases that include untrue statements.

2. It's also the case that this group of claimants is strongly associated with a government official who is very angry at companies and has been trying to attack a communications law from every angle he has. One cannot help but wonder at the timing of all this.

It may very well be true. Sadly, we have to be skeptical now.

This is the downside of having an AG who has been indicted on criminal charges for thee last 6 years. How much can you trust the guy?

Ad hominem attacks don't have any impact on validity of the underlying argument. Facts are still facts.

Suit filed by the same Texas AG who recently asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the election results of four other states. Same standard of evidence?

The HN title is hugely misleading, because it drops "Texas says".

I would change it to "Google, Facebook allegedly had illegal deal to rig ad market"

Sometimes this would be a technicality, for example where it's beyond much doubt, but in this case it seems that it's far from proven, so far.

>according to a lawsuit filed by 10 states led by Texas.

Things don't become true based merely on the number of lawsuits filed. If there were some further substance in the public domain (eg. emails, whistleblower, technical analysis, etc.) then adding "allegedly" might be more of a technicality.

At the moment, I have no idea whether Facebook & Google did this or not. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. No judges have ruled on it yet. No evidence has been presented. Even the details of what exactly they are being accused of are vague. It's purely an allegation at this point.

Yes, given recent events, omitting ", Texas says" from a title seems somewhat rash, all the more so when the lawsuit is announced by the Texas AG of recent notoriety, introducing it by saying "Texas takes the lead once more!"

https://twitter.com/TXAG/status/1339283520099856384?

"Texas takes the lead once more!"

I can never understand why do they have to do that. Creating us vs them mentality for everything.

"... known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."

CA does this kind of stuff routinely --- part of what Elon Musk described as "complacency".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com