Deleted tweet detection is currently running at reduced
capacity due to changes to the Twitter API. Some tweets that have been
deleted by the tweet author may not be labeled as deleted in the PolitiTweet
interface.
Showing page 125 of 277.
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
(It’s worth noting too that Google has had a major role in making mobile advertising a thing, thanks to Android. Which seems both like a credit to Google on its claims about ad prices as well as a detriment in light of the allegations about tying.) — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Adam Heimlich, the CEO of Chalice Custom Algorithms, says Google’s claim that it’s lowered ad prices is misleading. "The biggest reason prices go down is because mobile advertising is cheaper, and mobile advertising has become a much, much bigger share." — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Sen. Klobuchar delivering an epic rant against the US’s track record of lax antitrust enforcement right now, getting wonky and referencing specific cases and even Bork (!). “Relying on the courts right now… you can't say that this [Google] is going to be taken care of." — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
David Dinielli of the Omidyar Network argues that Google’s citation of Facebook and Amazon as competitors is like "a company that holds a monopoly on billboards defending itself by saying advertisers can buy magazine inserts instead. It’s simply not a defense." — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
@geoffreyfowler I went back to try to find this commitment. It seems Google left the door open at the time to “changes to the handling of data” as far as Nest was concerned: https://t.co/LAG2VmFJD7 — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Of course, Google famously promised that it would never merge Google data with DoubleClick data, and then it did anyway. Blackburn hammers Google on that point. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Sen. Klobuchar asks Google about the Fitbit deal. Google’s Harrison says the acquisition is “not about data.” “I am committing today that we will never mix that data with our ads data in a way that will show ads towards users of these things,” Harrison says. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
“This looks like monopoly on monopoly in a classic case of tying,” Hawley argues. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Finally getting more into the weeds here — Hawley is making the case that Google’s control of YouTube and other services generates massive demand for ads, which then basically forces advertisers to come to Google’s ad platform to access those eyeballs. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
And we’re back at political bias claims. “We’ve designed our policies so that political bias is not part of the equation,” Google’s Harrison says. He added earlier that Google’s removed content and gotten complaints from The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight and Democracy Now. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Sen. Cruz presses Google to identify who it thinks is its chief competitors. Google replies with Facebook and Amazon — which is true! — but these companies *also* have antitrust problems of their own. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
This is a similar argument Apple’s made (via commissioned research) on app store revenue shares. But “everyone else does it this way” is a weird defense when, like, in Apple’s case, they were the first movers and everyone followed suit. It’s not like A & G are helpless here. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
A discussion about the revenue that publishers receive from Google. Google’s defense is that it gives publishers as much of a share as its rivals do. “We’re market competitive with the other tools that are out there.” — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
I’m no lawyer but as someone who covers antitrust this seems like an ambitious connection to try to draw. The antitrust world has barely begun to think of *privacy* as a dimension of competition, nevermind a two-step claim about how political bias is a function of market power. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Despite saying this hearing is not meant to create a “political spectacle,” Lee and other GOP senators seem determined to do just that — while trying to frame their political bias complaints as an outgrowth of Google’s “market power.” — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Google says its ads policies are clear and that it’s not requiring The Federalist to do anything, just to make a choice about how to monetize its site. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Sen. Hawley is trying to force Google to admit that it is somehow requiring sites like The Federalist to engage in content moderation as a condition of showing ads. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Google’s witness says their advertising terms are clear, and that the company worked with The Federalist on options, but that ultimately the site can choose to go elsewhere for advertising alternatives. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
And now Lee is trying to draw a connection to Section 230 by suggesting it’s hypocritical for Google to deplatform The Federalist over racist comment sections when it wants to claim liability protections for the content its own users post on Google properties. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
And after all that, Lee’s first question out the gate is about… anticonservative bias, arguing that Google’s “censorship of its own platform” isn’t an antitrust violation but still evidence of “market power.” — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Who’s he trying to send a message to, I wonder…? — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Sen. Lee opens today’s Google antitrust hearing by raising anticonservative bias, but argues antitrust is not the right tool for it. “Just as I reject demands to use antitrust for social justice, I also emphatically reject using antitrust to solve other non-antitrust concerns." — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Sen. Murphy thinks Dems are too in love with nuance for their own good, but this interview with him is pretty deep and, dare I say, nuanced https://t.co/l0V7XFrFP5 https://t.co/YHTTSb4M1h — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
These bullet points above appear to be the first time anybody from the Trump administration has offered any public details about what the ban will entail. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Now, just days later, the government has reversed course, saying there’s no need for a temporary restraining order because what the employee was worried about won’t actually be a thing. https://t.co/O7PURgEtvB — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
On Saturday, DOJ filed a 16-page document in that case explaining why Judge Vince Chhabria shouldn’t issue a temporary restraining order blocking parts of Trump’s ban from going into effect. The employee’s case rests on speculation about how the ban will work, DOJ said. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Conceivably, this could have resulted in any number of things being considered illegal: Downloading or opening the app, hosting it on an app store, or as a TikTok employee feared, receiving a salary: https://t.co/pe8LsbBmT2 — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Trump’s Aug. 6 executive order outlining the ban has been met with confusion because it does not explain what Americans must do to comply with the order. It just says it’ll ban “transactions” with TikTok and leaves it to Commerce to define what that means later. — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
The clarification comes in the form of a court filing, in a wider case challenging the consitutionality of the TikTok executive order. https://t.co/1ksnjZ0eXB — PolitiTweet.org
Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung
Big: The US government has provided the first details of how Trump’s TikTok ban will be implemented. In a court filing, Commerce makes clear TikTok employees will not be barred from recieving wages or benefits, nor will they be considered in violation for doing their day jobs. — PolitiTweet.org
