-
robinberjon alextcone dmarti swodinsky steveglista Yeah... I also think it's a mistake to work on the assumption that Google is afraid of fighting legal battles, that seems ahistorical. What they want is to create precedent one way or another. That feels like, to some extent, what Topics is about, defining the absolute limits.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -3 🙁
-
robinberjon alextcone dmarti swodinsky steveglista Topics is also sort of great for them because it's a win/win, if they lose that to regulators Brave gets a stern talking to and Chrome loses basically nothing. Google's size means it gets to define what's possible & regulators are often too confused to hit them directly (see IP)Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood +11 🙂
-
robinberjon alextcone dmarti swodinsky steveglista I mean it as very clear that regulators have an appetite to take it to big tech, but look no further than the CMA to see that they don't really understand how to do so with our existing legal framework, which means they need to start smaller, and be seen coming.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
robinberjon alextcone dmarti swodinsky steveglista As a result, I don't really think looking to Google to understand the legal concerns works. They're seemingly not aiming for compliance, but to escape restrictions, something most other entities can't stomach the liability for.On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood 0