notamanager

The WSJ and "other publication" aren't disinterested parties in all this, they have filed complaints against Google and they are unashamedly lobbying for laws that would exempt them from being subject to antitrust rules both individually and part of lobbying groups such as newsmediaalliance.org.

Newspapers are businesses and they compete with Google. You should scrutinize their motives and the motives of those so called "intelligent people" you mention.

They haven't lost any actually, if you're referring to EU enforcement then that stuff in unilateral, a court isn't involved so technically they couldn't lose.

As for background if state AGs have ulterior motives then so does the EU many folds.

I don't.

Sure but defendants (which they aren't even) are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Also that's not how the WSJ is presenting this or anything else they publish about google.

Making it less useful.

It's a national shame that state AGs are elected not assigned.

It's a national shame that state AGs are elected not assigned.

If Facebook were liable they wouldn't allow the posting or even the possibility of posting in the first place, the law protects individual rights by keeping the liability onus on the author as opposed to the "publisher".

This is such a disingenuous framing from the AG as well from media outlets who keep misrepresenting section 230.

That law isn't about protecting Facebook or Google it's about ensuring that anyone can express themselves online without needing a highly paid lawyer and a protracted trial to do so.

It also isn't about publisher vs. platform, section 230 protects the Times from being sued for comments on their website same as for any bigger or smaller operation.

It's tragic how the powers that be in this country are trying to insert a lawyer into every transaction like it's a jobs program, and the infuriating part is that they are trying to convince people that it's for their own benefit.