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.

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.

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).

The targets for their victims seem chosen...as retaliation to defend their understanding of their own interests.

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.

* 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.

Notes On Structured Concurrency goes into some depth on this comparison:

https://vorpus.org/blog/notes-on-structured-concurrency-or-g...

If channel sends are being used as invocations, then this description can apply just as well to channels as it does to the go statement.

We'll see how Waymo handles it! It will definitely be Waymo's problem to solve, though.

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.

So: yeah. This is not a very good business idea.

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.

This is also what makes it really easy to get attached to your local Waffle House: the staff make the place what it is.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

* Google seriously made the claim in court that AA.com is a competitor for them in the search market; this was even pushed back on by the judge: https://twitter.com/superwuster/status/1720499941225677240

* 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.

Amazing joke, I lol'd, fantastic work sir

In other words, this number actually means, "We do almost no non-automated detection of hate speech."

Smart spin, huh...

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.