6 ms·

I'm not a lawyer but the first amendment argument is a separate concern than antitrust violations. You can exercise your first amendment rights while still brea

by glbrew 7y ago

I'm not a lawyer but the first amendment argument is a separate concern than antitrust violations. You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law.

fyoving 7y ago
Depends on what's being investigated here, if the government would actually want to compel Google to alter their search results then it's a first amendment case.
- tantalor 7y ago
  > Take a look at google AMP The argument here is its unfair to bias ranking towards a preferred format. In this case, something about excluding competitors, except AMP is completely open-source[1] so...? The counterargument is yes you can, because it's your pamphlet/newspaper/website and you're the editor, not the government. [1] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Yeah, if AMP is antitrust then so is Facebook's Open Graph. Despite the hate for both on HN, neither format is targeting competitors or hurting consumers in this case.
    - _hl_ 7y ago
      I think the antitrust argument against AMP is a bit more subtle. The argument seems to be that Google is abusing it's market dominance to push sites into using AMP. This in turn prevents them from using third party trackers, while the pages will be served via Google caches when accessed from Google search. Hence Google gets to track the visitor, while third party tracking from other providers is prevented. I.e. Google is abusing it's power to thwart competition in the analytics and ad-tech business. Of course as a consumer, I don't really care whether it's some random company or Google who gets to violate my privacy, and I especially couldn't care less about lack of innovation in the privacy violation business, so I think the antitrust angle here is pretty slim.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        Maybe - is Amp rendering blocking third party tracking from GTM tags?
      - themacguffinman 7y ago
        Third party trackers are not prevented.
        _hl_ 7y ago
        You can use Google Analytics through the <amp-analytics> element [1], but since AMP prevents third-party scripts that were not approved by Google, I'm not sure how you would include other trackers in an AMP site. [1] https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/amp-analytics/ https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...
        themacguffinman 7y ago
        You can easily use other analytics vendors https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-measure/configure-analytics/?referrer=ampproject.org https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-...
eftychis 7y ago
Yes, the first amendment here does not seem to apply, except if the poster above, has something else in mind? That DOJ even considers going to court, hints that they have a strong case -- given how conservative the DOJ is to betting on a court case and not settling.
- fyoving 7y ago
  No one is reporting that the DOJ is considering going to court nor that they have any "case" let alone a "strong" one if the WSJ reports are to be believed it's very preliminary stuff.
  - eftychis 7y ago
    Thank you for the correction!
tantalor 7y ago
> You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law. Go on... example?
- glbrew 7y ago
  Here is the first example I came across: https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antitrust-case/ https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antit... No one is saying these broadcast groups don't have 1st amendment rights, just that they were going about it in an anti-competitive way.
  - fyoving 7y ago
    That's a price fixing/cartel case not a first amendment one.
    - reallydude 7y ago
      Isn't that the point? What you prosecute is not related the first amendment, despite the actions being protected by it.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        This case is clearly price fixing, not first amendment. The radio stations weren't broadcasting their prices to consumers, but secretly communicating with competitors to form a cartel, which is forbidden. Doesn't matter if they were radio stations or grocery stores.
  - tantalor 7y ago
    The fact that the companies in that suit were radio stations seems irrelevant to the facts of the case; they could have been hamburger restaurants and the legal question would not change.

by glbrew 7y ago

I'm not a lawyer but the first amendment argument is a separate concern than antitrust violations. You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law.

fyoving 7y ago

Depends on what's being investigated here, if the government would actually want to compel Google to alter their search results then it's a first amendment case.

tantalor 7y ago
> Take a look at google AMP The argument here is its unfair to bias ranking towards a preferred format. In this case, something about excluding competitors, except AMP is completely open-source[1] so...? The counterargument is yes you can, because it's your pamphlet/newspaper/website and you're the editor, not the government. [1] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml
- bduerst 7y ago
  Yeah, if AMP is antitrust then so is Facebook's Open Graph. Despite the hate for both on HN, neither format is targeting competitors or hurting consumers in this case.
  - _hl_ 7y ago
    I think the antitrust argument against AMP is a bit more subtle. The argument seems to be that Google is abusing it's market dominance to push sites into using AMP. This in turn prevents them from using third party trackers, while the pages will be served via Google caches when accessed from Google search. Hence Google gets to track the visitor, while third party tracking from other providers is prevented. I.e. Google is abusing it's power to thwart competition in the analytics and ad-tech business. Of course as a consumer, I don't really care whether it's some random company or Google who gets to violate my privacy, and I especially couldn't care less about lack of innovation in the privacy violation business, so I think the antitrust angle here is pretty slim.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Maybe - is Amp rendering blocking third party tracking from GTM tags?
    - themacguffinman 7y ago
      Third party trackers are not prevented.
      - _hl_ 7y ago
        You can use Google Analytics through the <amp-analytics> element [1], but since AMP prevents third-party scripts that were not approved by Google, I'm not sure how you would include other trackers in an AMP site. [1] https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/amp-analytics/ https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...
        themacguffinman 7y ago
        You can easily use other analytics vendors https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-measure/configure-analytics/?referrer=ampproject.org https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-...

eftychis 7y ago

Yes, the first amendment here does not seem to apply, except if the poster above, has something else in mind? That DOJ even considers going to court, hints that they have a strong case -- given how conservative the DOJ is to betting on a court case and not settling.

fyoving 7y ago
No one is reporting that the DOJ is considering going to court nor that they have any "case" let alone a "strong" one if the WSJ reports are to be believed it's very preliminary stuff.
- eftychis 7y ago
  Thank you for the correction!

tantalor 7y ago

> You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law. Go on... example?

glbrew 7y ago
Here is the first example I came across: https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antitrust-case/ https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antit... No one is saying these broadcast groups don't have 1st amendment rights, just that they were going about it in an anti-competitive way.
- fyoving 7y ago
  That's a price fixing/cartel case not a first amendment one.
  - reallydude 7y ago
    Isn't that the point? What you prosecute is not related the first amendment, despite the actions being protected by it.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      This case is clearly price fixing, not first amendment. The radio stations weren't broadcasting their prices to consumers, but secretly communicating with competitors to form a cartel, which is forbidden. Doesn't matter if they were radio stations or grocery stores.
- tantalor 7y ago
  The fact that the companies in that suit were radio stations seems irrelevant to the facts of the case; they could have been hamburger restaurants and the legal question would not change.