> I've seen calls on this site for immediate antitrust law cases against google, and now that the Trump DOJ is doing it, immediately, there's a rush to defend Google.
Well, that's my actual position. "The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason."
I think it's important to enforce the laws we have fairly. However, going after political opponents because they are political opponents, and retroactively figuring out what laws you can use against them, is very different from enforcing the laws fairly. I think we should be going after many more companies than we do on antitrust grounds (and I think society would be better if we had even more stringent antitrust laws). Going after a single company and saying "Hmmm, antitrust?" does not actually succeed at maintaining the rule of law.
(I do, for what it's worth, agree that "political" is not an insult. It's a descriptor, and it applies to just about anything involving the government or the shape of society. In this case, I think it happens to be a descriptor for something bad. It is entirely good and proper for politics to influence what laws we have; it is improper for politics to influence against whom we choose to enforce them.)
This comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24369239) has mentioned that multiple major companies are being investigated, so maybe the investigation into Google just happens to be further along.
That's a good point, but also, given that "and Facebook and Amazon" are often Trump's next words after "Google," it doesn't do much to convince me that this isn't politically-motivated selective enforcement. (Though, on the other other hand, I'm not sure what big tech companies Trump isn't mad at, so maybe this is a low-selectivity filter.)
But Google is not a political opponent of trump and if biden were to go after facebook one could make the same accusation. This is a ridiculous standard. Those with opposing political views (and it's not clear Google really has political views) are not exempt from the law.
I don't think Google sees itself as an opponent of Trump, but Trump certainly acts as if Google is an opponent (cf. https://twitter.com/search?q=from:realdonaldtrump+google), and that's what matters here. I don't think it particularly matters whether Google really is an opponent of Trump, either.
(My personal opinion is that Google is much less of an opponent than Trump claims, but also, since politics is not a dirty word and the existence of a giant multinational corporation is inherently political even if it weren't for all the things that make Google Google, it would be entirely reasonable for Google to choose to be more of an opponent than they are - and it still would not make me feel like selective enforcement of the laws is justifiable.)
Well, that's my actual position. "The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason."
I think it's important to enforce the laws we have fairly. However, going after political opponents because they are political opponents, and retroactively figuring out what laws you can use against them, is very different from enforcing the laws fairly. I think we should be going after many more companies than we do on antitrust grounds (and I think society would be better if we had even more stringent antitrust laws). Going after a single company and saying "Hmmm, antitrust?" does not actually succeed at maintaining the rule of law.
(I do, for what it's worth, agree that "political" is not an insult. It's a descriptor, and it applies to just about anything involving the government or the shape of society. In this case, I think it happens to be a descriptor for something bad. It is entirely good and proper for politics to influence what laws we have; it is improper for politics to influence against whom we choose to enforce them.)