rickncliff

This is ridiculous; so Amazon aren't supposed to use open source software or offer services that compete with startups?!

It's suspect when papers side with accusers and adopt their rhetoric wholesale, this kind of advocacy delegitimizes all their other reports IMO.

Whatever else they do it doesn't preclude protectionism.

>ACCC to lead development of a code of conduct to govern dealings between tech giants and media businesses.

Murdoch country is doing his bidding and tapping themselves on the back, all these attempts against US tech firms is protectionism and should be countered as such.

How is FB "consumer-hostile"? You'll have to pay a lot more to watch all that Disney IP soon enough.

If it got to that and it's not some sort of WSJ attempt to advocate for this sort of thing, facebook must fight it tooth and nail, and stop these attempts at governmental micromanagement once and for all.

It's suspect that they are going after tech companies which are national treasures but are enemies to corporate media, it's strange that this sort of action isn't being considered against actual malicious monopolists that the press isn't constantly attacking. No one is suggesting going after disney for instance even though they have that market cornered.

It's unfortunate that this almarmist technophobic slant is considered worthy journalism.

That is one way, don't buy his cars is another, and he can say whatever he wants.

Profiteering lawyers as middlemen to technology application is what these overly strict privacy laws are trying to establish and that's a shame.

Consequences should be social, not legal.

Avoiding speech restrictions is always a positive in my book.

As for the larger picture "defamation" is incompatible with the first amendment and laws around it should be invalidated.

I don't much care about throwing the codeword "unbiased" in there, it's just pandering to critics and their nonsense talking points.

Thankfully 1A shields us from speech restricting laws.