this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
978 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
57453 readers
4164 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
lol this is going to go nowhere
I don’t think so. EU did push through with reform, the US will join sooner or later.
SCOTUS rarely (like ultra rare) gets involved in technical economic cases -- they don't have the expertise and single-issue cases which don't present a Constitutional question are beneath the Court. Cases like this go to judges who have experience in the details of antitrust actions and are well-versed in the economic and marketplace analysis required by the type of action the DOJ is bringing here.
Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.
The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.
I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.
Saying one is wrong, or doesn't know what they're talking about, is not ad hominem. Maybe it's a language thing, but to me saying someone is wrong is equivalent to saying their argument is wrong. And saying someone is out of their element/depth is the same as saying they're wrong on the subject, aka their argument is wrong.
Enjoying it so much that you're now reporting my comments as breaking rule 1 and 3, huh?
Also, might not want to brigade by reporting with your other account @[email protected]. Did you forget to sign out on that one? Just needed a little more umph and downvoting in this thread? Pretty sure that's against the rules too.
Pro tip: If you're going to use a diff account to brigade, you might want to change the profile up a bit so they don't all resemble each other.
So let's tally it up:
Extremely similar profile aesthetics, down to colors and style
Same exact account birthdays, 23 Aug 2023
Similar comment history, also confrontational, and many downvotes from the community
Both accounts reporting my exact comments, "hudson" sandwiched between your "gregorum" account
Each of my comments downvoted twice
It's extremely delusional/insulting for you to expect anyone to believe all that's coincidence. Oh the irony of you posting the NP when you can't even come clean when caught in your own lies.
Have you changed your profile pics yet? Are you going to go back and edit your comments more to try and look better for when a mod gets around to your complaints? You are acting so see through right now, and it's not a good look.
How do you know?
So another lie. Also, you lose.
Yeah, I saw some reports from both accounts yesterday that made it obvious that's their backup account. Also, not the first time they've done this, and they also spam report comments when they get angry.
Thanks for looking and not just zipping by. I'll practice better restrain from feeding the trolls, I don't want to make the mods lives any harder.
Hey no worries, appreciate it!
Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.
The EU passed new laws to address new needs. The US is trying to see if they can provide consumer protection with existing consumer protection laws from the past.
Passing consumer protection laws is pretty hard when people don’t vote enough democrats into the senate and house. The GOP hates consumer protection regulation.
At least it happened.
If it was all Blue States, if probably agree, but it does include a few Deep Red States with North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. That makes me cautiously optimistic.
Because???
If was all Blue States, with a Democratic Federal DOJ, it's quite possible that it's just political messaging. With a mix of Blue & Red States, it's still possible it's messaging or a (rare) common-enemy, but it's more likely they think something's actually there, and they don't want to waste their time playing nice with the "other side".
Bet you're not quite right on that.