this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
979 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59593 readers
2967 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don’t think so. EU did push through with reform, the US will join sooner or later.
The EU passed a massive, sweeping law. This is a federal lawsuit in front of an infamously conservative and pro-business Supreme Court.
Little will come of this.
SCOTUS rarely (like ultra rare) gets involved in technical economic cases -- they don't have the expertise and single-issue cases which don't present a Constitutional question are beneath the Court. Cases like this go to judges who have experience in the details of antitrust actions and are well-versed in the economic and marketplace analysis required by the type of action the DOJ is bringing here.
And Apple will appeal and appeal until they get to SCOTUS where they will win that appeal
Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.
The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.
This SCOTUS will clearly do whatever they want. And if all your argument consists of is ad hominem attacks, this conversation is over.
I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.
Insulting me personally rather than attacking my argument is an ad hominem:
Source
Saying one is wrong, or doesn't know what they're talking about, is not ad hominem. Maybe it's a language thing, but to me saying someone is wrong is equivalent to saying their argument is wrong. And saying someone is out of their element/depth is the same as saying they're wrong on the subject, aka their argument is wrong.
Ooo, more insults, and now threats? Cheers to your lack of self-control. Go on and keep telling me how upset I’ve made you. I’m enjoying this. Especially how you can’t stop.
Enjoying it so much that you're now reporting my comments as breaking rule 1 and 3, huh?
Also, might not want to brigade by reporting with your other account @hudson@sh.itjust.works. Did you forget to sign out on that one? Just needed a little more umph and downvoting in this thread? Pretty sure that's against the rules too.
Pro tip: If you're going to use a diff account to brigade, you might want to change the profile up a bit so they don't all resemble each other.
So let's tally it up:
Extremely similar profile aesthetics, down to colors and style
Same exact account birthdays, 23 Aug 2023
Similar comment history, also confrontational, and many downvotes from the community
Both accounts reporting my exact comments, "hudson" sandwiched between your "gregorum" account
Each of my comments downvoted twice
It's extremely delusional/insulting for you to expect anyone to believe all that's coincidence. Oh the irony of you posting the NP when you can't even come clean when caught in your own lies.
Have you changed your profile pics yet? Are you going to go back and edit your comments more to try and look better for when a mod gets around to your complaints? You are acting so see through right now, and it's not a good look.
How do you know?
So another lie. Also, you lose.
Yeah, I saw some reports from both accounts yesterday that made it obvious that's their backup account. Also, not the first time they've done this, and they also spam report comments when they get angry.
Thanks for looking and not just zipping by. I'll practice better restrain from feeding the trolls, I don't want to make the mods lives any harder.
Hey no worries, appreciate it!
See, you’re describing how they said a personal insult, then you’re describing how they could have, instead, simply described what I said factually, without using an insult, and then you’re calling these two very different things the same while treating me like an idiot, expecting me to not notice the difference. Which is also insulting.
It doesn’t matter how many times people try to explain that a very obvious personal insult isn’t one because it very clearly is. and repeating the insult only digs you deeper into that hole, as does repeatedly attempting to gaslight me.
My ego has nothing to with the other user using an ad hominem attack rather than attacking my argument with evidence. Nor you doing the same. It’s rather typical of narcissist to blame others for the things they themselves are doing. That seems rather contagious around here as of late.
And you projecting your issues onto me rather than accepting you are wrong is again projection.
And if I were the conspiratorial sort, I might think that employing the same, tired, narcissistic argument is strangely familiar of dev_null, but surely you have more self-control than to engage in the same hypocrisy that he accused me of by using multiple accounts from different instances to brigade this thread. Right? Lol that would be just too obvious and pathetic. Right?
I couldn’t possibly have upset you that much could I? Lol.
Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.
The EU passed new laws to address new needs. The US is trying to see if they can provide consumer protection with existing consumer protection laws from the past.
Passing consumer protection laws is pretty hard when people don’t vote enough democrats into the senate and house. The GOP hates consumer protection regulation.