Google's onetime hired gun could now be its antitrust nightmare

Politico ^ | July 6, 2019 | STEVEN OVERLY and MARGARET HARDING MCGILL

[PJ-Comix]

When Google needed government sign-off on a 2007 acquisition that would tighten its grip on the digital advertising market, the company turned to antitrust attorney and lobbyist Makan Delrahim to help get the job done.

Now, as the Justice Department’s top antitrust enforcer, Delrahim could be the one to undo it all.

[PJ-Comix]

Not shedding any tears for Google/YouTube here. They also need to investigate how Google's search algorithms are designed to screw conservatives and Trump. Project Veritas has the PROOF.

[PapaBear3625]

The first thing any competent Google lawyer would do is demand that Delrahim be completely recused from the case.

As their former attorney, he knows privileged information about Google.

[moovova]

Google to Mr. Delrahim: “So, Makan, how would you like to own your own country?”

[slowhandluke]

Second step is to see if he gets deferred payments from his Google employment, and if so the gov't should insist he stays out of it.

Sometimes big money corporations don't mind facing a friendly ex-employee. Often (see Goldmund Sachs) helping them find a gov't job. So, friendly or not, he should recuse.

[PGR88]

Delrahim could be the one to undo it all.

OR, he could be Google's man on the inside who deflects or any attempts to limit their power or horse trades on their behalf. the term is called "regulatory capture."

[FoxInSocks]

He is an attorney and lobbyist — doesn’t say he had ever been retained by and represented Google.

[Cowboy Bob]

The first thing any competent Google lawyer would do is demand that Delrahim be completely recused from the case.

As Justice Kagan taught us in the Obamacare case, it is not necessary to recuse oneself, despite any obvious conflicts. She has set a precedent.

[ClearCase_guy]

Attorney Client privilege seems to have taken a hit in the Age of Trump. The Democrats seem to not value such protection anymore. But I suppose it depends on whose ox is getting gored.

[BobL]

The bottom line with all this targeted crap is whether Google and others are making in-kind contributions to Democrats. That is illegal and no different than, say, defense companies spending millions of corporate contributions to Republicans.

So, if so (which of course is true, just based insider information), then they need a CEASE AND DESIST order from a judge...and then, after that, begin the prosecutions.

[matt04]

I don’t care that Google/YouTube/Gmail/etc. are a huge conglomerate and all work seemly together. Like you pointed out, my issue is with how they handle searchers and appear to make certain content they don’t like harder to find, block it, etc.

[Brilliant]

Conflict of interest.

[dp0622]

I’m thinking just the opposite.

He has and will see plenty of $$ from google.

Hes in their pocket

[Brian Griffin]

Content providers need to organize to get a decent share of the money getting made.

Think of ASCAP and BMI for the music industry.

[Brian Griffin]

“making in-kind contributions to Democrats”

There should be no such thing as campaign finance law.

[Brian Griffin]

Many of the searches yield results out of date.

The Internet has been big for over 20 years now.

[Brian Griffin]

The European Union will deal with Google.

I’ll enjoy that more than 10 Democrats screaming at each other incoherently.

[tbw2]

Microsoft was prosecuted under anti-trust for bundling a browser and operating system.

Google today combines content (Google books, youtube, scanned libraries) with search with online advertising (where it is nearly a monopoly). On that basis alone, they could be attacked under anti-trust.

All of Big Tech can be prosecuted for anti-competitive business practices, and payment processors, too, for being in league with them.

Example 1: Gab

Google had a special data mining relationship with Twitter. Gab.AI shows up as an alternative, and once it got big, all Big Tech firms smear it as racist to justify banning it. Removed from app stores and search results. They ganged up to kill an upstart rival. Anti-competitive business practices, done under cover of “fighting hate speech”.

Example 2: Subscribestar and Freestartr

This one lets you sue Paypal, Stripe and Chase Bank under anti-trust laws.

Patreon says if we don’t like you, you can’t use our service. Fine, people move to Freestart, Hatreon and Subscribestar. Big Tech refuses ads from these sites, censors them in search results, and throttles their social media sharing. That’s interference in marketing of their service. Then the criminal cabal kicks in.

These liberal bullies roped in payment processors. The alternatives to Patreon (which Big Tech supports) were denied payment processing. Paypal, Stripe and Chase bank said we don’t like you, we won’t do business with you. Cave based on our political checklist, and we’ll let you exist. Subscribestar gave in so it wouldn’t die. Freestartr closed.

This was an organized effort by Big Tech plus financial institutions to kill companies that weren’t in lockstep with them. Youtuber Law outlined this and how many laws were violated.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Let's assume that after years or decades of discovery and hearings and judgments and appeals, Google does get broken up, just as the original AT&T was once broken up. What's to prevent each of the new, smaller units from being infested by SJWs? The problem is not unique to Google or Facebook - corporations in general have cadres of liberals embedded in their upper echelons, determined to use the corporations to promote liberal values. That's why Gillette is making commercials berating men for being men, it's why SalesForce is refusing to let gun companies use its services, its why Netflix is demanding that Georgia reverse its abortion laws, its why Target has unisex bathrooms, and its why Nike is apparently against the US flag.

Anti-trust may be part of the solution, but only part of it - corporate American is in the hands of SJWs, and unless conservatives recognize and attack the problem, it will only get worse.

[tbw2]

Google today combines content (Google books, youtube, scanned libraries) with search with online advertising (where it is nearly a monopoly). On that basis alone, they could be attacked under anti-trust.

All of Big Tech can be prosecuted for anti-competitive business practices, and payment processors, too, for being in league with them.

Example 1: Gab

Google had a special data mining relationship with Twitter. Gab.AI shows up as an alternative, and once it got big, all Big Tech firms smear it as racist to justify banning it. Removed from app stores and search results. They ganged up to kill an upstart rival. Anti-competitive business practices, done under cover of “fighting hate speech”.

Example 2: Subscribestar and Freestartr

This one lets you sue Paypal, Stripe and Chase Bank under anti-trust laws.

Patreon says if we don’t like you, you can’t use our service. Fine, people move to Freestart, Hatreon and Subscribestar. Big Tech refuses ads from these sites, censors them in search results, and throttles their social media sharing. That’s interference in marketing of their service. Then the criminal cabal kicks in.

These liberal bullies roped in payment processors. The alternatives to Patreon (which Big Tech supports) were denied payment processing. Paypal, Stripe and Chase bank said we don’t like you, we won’t do business with you. Cave based on our political checklist, and we’ll let you exist. Subscribestar gave in so it wouldn’t die. Freestartr closed.

This was an organized effort by Big Tech plus financial institutions to kill companies that weren’t in lockstep with them. Youtuber Law outlined this and how many laws were violated.

[willyd]

The W3C is an illegal oligopoly ... now the justice department and consumer protection agency has to break it up.