wwwdonohue

That’s exactly what whataboutism is for. Accusing someone of being a hypocrite without addressing the actual point at all.

Edit: and with zero evidence that they might even be a hypocrite in the first place...

People have plenty of places they can express their political opinions. They can go to rallies, canvass for candidates, phonebank, volunteer, etc. etc. And all those would actually make a difference! I think people just like complaining, don’t like working, and have identified in politics something that they can use to loaf that is “virtuous.”

But do we really have to draw these lines at work, during work hours? The office is not a public square. It’s not a place where you give feedback to people in power...

Let's say the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee learns via his work that a high-ranking member of the CCP is sending secrets to the United States in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Is it ultimately beneficial for that information to be made fully transparent?

I sort of agree, but part of me also thinks that if a company builds the world's best mobile OS and search engine and ad platform and video streaming service and internet browser and mapping service... well, good for them! They built the best products and it seems like it would ultimately be anti-consumer to do anything about it.

It's different if a company like Google establishes its dominance via one great product (search) and then wields that power to artificially protect its other lines of business through e.g. contracts, the same way Microsoft did with OEMs.

Sure, nothing "illegal" about it, but ultimately, it fits the de facto understanding of antitrust being about "consumer welfare." A company leveraging its dominance in one business to exert control over others =/= a company having success because it built the best products.