780 karma · joined April 3, 2019
And are you suggesting that france doesn't subside specific industries?
If you're complaints are exclusive to the aviation and defence industries then a US complaint regarding the EU and france could include that and every other industry.
Considering the rhetoric leading to this tax and the french government's many raids and failed investigations into US companies and their taxes it's difficult even with careful wording for the french government to deny the actual target of this tax in a WTO type setting.
If you think that these "loopholes" should be closed then close them for all companies and countries, don't enact discriminatory laws and then act indignant about it.
If you look at EU policy as france and germany protecting their perceived interests by targeting US tech companies it starts making sense, I think a rule of thumb there is: "if it hurts google it should be law".
Not sure how wise it is for politicians to employ a populist strategy against companies that outstrip them in favorability among the average citizen.
I'll credit the WSJ for counting themselves among those enemies, but what I find vexing with all these reports is the constant and casual mentions of "breaking up" these companies as though it's a viable and realistic outcome which it isn't and any self respecting publication should present things in the proper context.
The problem isn't a lack in revenue the problem is that we are spending it on the wrong stuff.
Google has been worse at naming products than they have a right to be.
It sounds like this is due to COPPA complaints because a lot of kids watch youtube videos and apparently they are not supposed to, but if youtube was found culpable then everyone would because COPPA is a mess.
They have been running smear campaigns against tech companies for years and then act dumb and ask about the change in sentiment towards them.
That's hilarious, a fourth party in speculating about what might have been said in private as reported by a paywalled publication, you know: journalism!
"The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations"
It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to any of these corporations.
This whole thing is terribly misguided, there is a long list of companies and markets worthy of antitrust scrutiny and these tech companies if they are on that list then they are at the very bottom of it. The real drag on the economy are the high prices of healthcare and housing, there is also the case that ISPs have obvious monopolies and are providing inferior products and services and the list goes on.
The role of the media here shouldn't be ignored, they coined the term "big tech" to conjure negative associations and they continuously publish alarmist coverage about any combination of these firms, they also stand to benefit if any enforcement action were to occur.
Regardless, the FTC would have had a much better chance than the DOJ as they have specific broad powers more suitable to this case.
The DOJ enforces the sherman act, which is useless here (no consumer harm).
https://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-f...
If you don't like their free no lock in service go elsewhere, and that's why there is no sherman act case here, which is why if the DOJ actually does anything here it would be a waste of time and resources.
Anyway the article is quite scarce and the source is the WSJ so they might be trying to amplify some stuff or even advocate for it.