info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sometimes we all agree on Laissez Faire
37 views
Skip to first unread message
agavi...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2017, 8:40:03 AM7/10/17
to
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Jul 10, 2017, 10:30:45 AM7/10/17
to
They can suck it. SAD!
xyzzy
Jul 10, 2017, 10:45:17 AM7/10/17
to
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.nysun.com/national/bezos-slim-and-buffett-billionaires-pleading/90026/
Two comments:
1. That article is like the Chinese food of news. You eat a whole meal and are still hungry. In this case the article gave zero information about what exactly the dispute is between the newspapers and google/facebook. That context would have helped to evaluate just how spurious this request was or not. Since it was left out I'm going to guess it would make them look better (for example, is Google scraping newspaper websites without permission). It also makes you wonder what other context was omitted that might make the point less sharp. Like did these three actually plead poverty, or is it just that a trade association they belong to was lobbying (I think I know the answer and you do too if you read the article carefully).
2. New York Times. Washington Post. Buffalo News. One of these is not like the others.
> http://www.nysun.com/national/bezos-slim-and-buffett-billionaires-pleading/90026/
Two comments:
1. That article is like the Chinese food of news. You eat a whole meal and are still hungry. In this case the article gave zero information about what exactly the dispute is between the newspapers and google/facebook. That context would have helped to evaluate just how spurious this request was or not. Since it was left out I'm going to guess it would make them look better (for example, is Google scraping newspaper websites without permission). It also makes you wonder what other context was omitted that might make the point less sharp. Like did these three actually plead poverty, or is it just that a trade association they belong to was lobbying (I think I know the answer and you do too if you read the article carefully).
2. New York Times. Washington Post. Buffalo News. One of these is not like the others.
Michael Press
Jul 10, 2017, 11:13:44 AM7/10/17
to
In article <bbfb77f8-2d5f-484d...@googlegroups.com>,
"the_andr...@yahoo.com" <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nysun.com/national/bezos-slim-and-buffett-billionaires-pleading/90026/
They go all in on partisan politics
then demand the winner give their chips back.
--
Michael Press
"the_andr...@yahoo.com" <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nysun.com/national/bezos-slim-and-buffett-billionaires-pleading/90026/
They go all in on partisan politics
then demand the winner give their chips back.
--
Michael Press
xyzzy
Jul 10, 2017, 11:17:57 AM7/10/17
to
This is a dispute between newspapers and Google/Facebook.
Which side is the winning partisans?
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Jul 10, 2017, 11:30:39 AM7/10/17
to
Buffett owns a shi tton of newspapers, including the once-vaunted Omaha World Herald.
agavi...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2017, 1:36:02 PM7/10/17
to
It's definitely a shallow article.
There are already laws on the books to cover what google is doing. If they're profiting from scraping web sites (difficult to block) versus crawling (easily blocked) then there are plenty of IP rules to sue them with. I assume, since that hasn't been done (successfully) they're within their rights.
I don't believe there is advertising on news.google.com.
Buffalo News is profitable?
There are already laws on the books to cover what google is doing. If they're profiting from scraping web sites (difficult to block) versus crawling (easily blocked) then there are plenty of IP rules to sue them with. I assume, since that hasn't been done (successfully) they're within their rights.
I don't believe there is advertising on news.google.com.
Buffalo News is profitable?
Ken Olson
Jul 10, 2017, 1:45:14 PM7/10/17
to
read it, I'm just taking a stab in the dark.
xyzzy
Jul 10, 2017, 1:58:19 PM7/10/17
to
Since this article is actually about a newspaper trade association that those three men belong to, I bet I could find three right-wing billionaires who are also the same trade association and write the exact same article about them.
Michael Press
Jul 10, 2017, 3:48:35 PM7/10/17
to
In article <b0263eb5-67f4-4397...@googlegroups.com>,
Congress.
It’s the sort of brazen move that might ordinarily
trigger a front-page news story or an outraged editorial —
a bunch of rich individuals asking Congress to write them
a law that would give them better negotiating power against
other rich individuals.
--
Michael Press
It’s the sort of brazen move that might ordinarily
trigger a front-page news story or an outraged editorial —
a bunch of rich individuals asking Congress to write them
a law that would give them better negotiating power against
other rich individuals.
--
Michael Press
xyzzy
Jul 10, 2017, 6:45:20 PM7/10/17
to
Hey look. A real news story about this. With details!
https://www.marketplace.org/amp/2017/07/10/tech/its-facebook-and-google-versus-newspaper-army
Interestingly the Murdoch owned WSJ is part of this alliance. So why didn't the article include Murdoch in this list of handout begging billionaires? This is a far bigger business for Murdoch than the Buffalo News is for Buffet.
https://www.marketplace.org/amp/2017/07/10/tech/its-facebook-and-google-versus-newspaper-army
Interestingly the Murdoch owned WSJ is part of this alliance. So why didn't the article include Murdoch in this list of handout begging billionaires? This is a far bigger business for Murdoch than the Buffalo News is for Buffet.
agavi...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2017, 8:48:23 PM7/10/17
to
Not sure.
Not sure how it changes anything.
Not sure how it changes anything.
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Jul 10, 2017, 8:54:45 PM7/10/17
to
dotsla...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2017, 10:17:46 PM7/10/17
to
Yep but the thing is without the lower case c conservatives y'all don't have any political clout... so forgive me for dismissing the "not ideologically pure" argument that's been floated for decades to dismiss ownership of anythinh, ever - all while simultaneously widening that gop umbrella to include true alt reich nutballs.
And all for an end game of, what? A trump presidency? Having in-name-only majorities in congress? Thumbing our nose at the rest of the western world? Clinging to some strange idea that by weight of being randomly born in the us we're somehow better than everyone else?
I honestly do not get what capital C conservatives are up to... on this side of the pond.
Cheers.
And all for an end game of, what? A trump presidency? Having in-name-only majorities in congress? Thumbing our nose at the rest of the western world? Clinging to some strange idea that by weight of being randomly born in the us we're somehow better than everyone else?
I honestly do not get what capital C conservatives are up to... on this side of the pond.
Cheers.
0 new messages