Google fires 20 more workers after firing 28 staff members initially for their protests against cloud contract with Israel [Update on post#139]

[Hitman]

Pakistanis have this weird expectations that their view is the best view. And leftists have for years strenthened this along with islamists.

Pakistanis have always hated Indian Muslims for not starting a civil war in India over Kashmir.

I remember a few posters on PP were so sure that Indian Muslims will create law and order issues in India over Israel- Palestine issue. I see nothing.

Far leftists rags in India like The Wire tried to ignite some flames. Didn't work.

Basically if you are not supporting a muslim cause, you are bad.

One thing I can say, Indian Muslims don't create issues as long as their Prophet is not insulted by someone in the country. Which is one reason I feel bad when they are subjected to hate by our own countrymen. Indian Muslims in my opinion are by far the most law abiding ones in the world. Sure, there are isolated incidents, but that's true with any community in India. But they are mostly law abiding ones.

And I'm speaking of Indian Muslims, not illegal immigrants.​

 

[rpant_gabba]

You seem to be consistently missing the point and veering off on a tangent.

No one is demanding that Indians protest; we're simply attempting to comprehend and emphasize why some Indians seem to be searching for excuses to justify the Gaza genocide, especially when the rest of the Global South has also condemned it.

Maybe they are learning from Pakistanis and their silence regarding the Uighurs issue wrt china.

Want me post the cringe interview by PMIK?

 

[RexRex]

While Pakistanis have demonstrated their readiness to take to the streets, as evidenced by their response to Imran Khan's removal and subsequent rallies, engaging in outright war against the establishment is a different matter altogether, at least for now, due to numerous factors.

What are these numerous factors ? There's only one factor, they're dead scared of their army.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Pichai is exactly what is happening in India.

My weightings are far closer to reality than those of a Pakistani in UK.

So a CEO in America is the exact reality of India a country near the bottom of every metric.

Have you set one foot in America to claim that your weightings are more realistic?

 

[HalBass9]

Anyways, how exactly are we in India support to react? It's a war that does not involve us directly or indirectly in any way. Looks like some people expect us to create a mess of law and order in India much like some immigrants are doing in some of the countries in the West.​

I will address all the points raised in this post comprehensively rather than responding individually to each one. As the thread lengthens, a general response becomes more practical.

Never did I anticipate finding myself delving into discussions on the fundamental understanding of individual rights in the US. It's a concept most would assume is inherently understood, requiring no further elucidation. Yet, here we are compelled to engage in discourse on a topic that should be self-evident, or entirely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion, merely because certain individuals lack the intellectual capacity to effectively counter the points raised in this thread.

Similarly, I never envisioned having to elucidate elementary English concepts to individuals who boast proficiency in the language, often using it as a badge of superiority over the wider South Asian community.

The quoted comment I posted is from post #210.

"Undoubtedly, Sundar Pichai earned his position through his exceptional education, as have many other Indians. Generally, jobs in Western countries are awarded based on merit, regardless of nationality, whether it be Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, American, or otherwise. Yet, returning to the crux of the matter, which you and a few others may be struggling to grasp: if Sundar Pichai were to comment against Israel or speak out against the Gaza genocide, how long do you suppose he would remain CEO of Google?"

Regarding the explanation of "were to": This construction is frequently employed to discuss hypothetical or improbable scenarios, plans, intentions, or possibilities in the present or future. It often conveys a sense of conditionality or expectation that may not necessarily materialize. While akin to the conditional mood, it also carries connotations of uncertainty or improbability.

No one, to my knowledge, has compelled Mr. Pichai to take a stance on the Gaza genocide. Rather, he was cited as an example to underscore a point.

Furthermore, there is a fallacious notion being disseminated that Pakistanis expect condemnation of Israel from Indians Hindus, Indian Muslims, or any other religious group from India. The criticism here is directed towards Indians who oppose those condemning the Gaza genocide, prompting an exploration into why this opposition exists, particularly among certain Indian factions. The nucleus of this discussion lies not in dictating what stance Indians should adopt, but rather in scrutinizing those who oppose protests against genocide and condemnations of the Gaza atrocities.

Indians are entitled to support, condemn, remain neutral, or adopt any stance on any issue. However, none possess the authority to dictate how others should criticize or express dissent toward any individual or group.

 

[HalBass9]

Maybe they are learning from Pakistanis and their silence regarding the Uighurs issue wrt china.

Want me post the cringe interview by PMIK?

As a Pakistani, I unequivocally condemn the ongoing atrocities against the Uyghur population in China. Furthermore, I express condemnation towards the Pakistani government for maneuvering themselves into a position where they are unable to denounce China's mistreatment of the Uyghurs.

 

[rpant_gabba]

As a Pakistani, I unequivocally condemn the ongoing atrocities against the Uyghur population in China. Furthermore, I express condemnation towards the Pakistani government for maneuvering themselves into a position where they are unable to denounce China's mistreatment of the Uyghurs.

You are deflecting. Measuring by your stick, Pakistan and Pakistanis don’t seem to care much about what appears to systemic abuse of Uyghurs based on their religion .

Guess what pakistanis speak up for depends less on the values and more on what advantageous to them

 

[cricketjoshila]

One thing I can say, Indian Muslims don't create issues as long as their Prophet is not insulted by someone in the country. Which is one reason I feel bad when they are subjected to hate by our own countrymen. Indian Muslims in my opinion are by far the most law abiding ones in the world. Sure, there are isolated incidents, but that's true with any community in India. But they are mostly law abiding ones.

And I'm speaking of Indian Muslims, not illegal immigrants.​

I agree. But Sometimes they do get inspired by the stories of invading hordes and try to copy it. Like during Godhra or CAA.

 

[HalBass9]

You are deflecting. Measuring by your stick, Pakistan and Pakistanis don’t seem to care much about what appears to systemic abuse of Uyghurs based on their religion .

Guess what pakistanis speak up for depends less on the values and more on what advantageous to them

Sir, it's important to note that you and I are not personally acquainted.

The Pakistani population totals around 250 million individuals. I cannot claim to represent every Pakistani; my views are solely my own. Similarly, it might come as a surprise, but you do not speak on behalf of every Indian; your opinions are your own.

If you are suggesting that I criticize Pakistanis who support China despite its systemic abuse of Uyghurs, then my condemnation inherently includes those individuals.

Not only have I condemned China, but I have also criticized both past and present Pakistani governments.

If my condemnation of China falls short of your expectations, I regret to inform you that I am just an ordinary individual. My capacity extends only to voicing condemnation against China.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Google scores rare legal win as 1.49bn euro fine scrapped

Google has won its challenge against a €1.49bn (£1.26bn) fine from the EU for blocking rival online search advertisers.

The bloc accused Google of abusing its market dominance by restricting third-party rivals from displaying search ads between 2006 and 2016.

Europe's second-top court ruled the European Commission - which levied the fine - "committed errors in its assessment".

The Commission said it would "reflect on possible next steps", which could include an appeal to the EU's top court.

Google welcomed the ruling: "We are pleased that the court has recognised errors in the original decision and annulled the fine," it said in a statement.

"We will review the full decision closely," it added.

It is a rare win for the tech giant, which was hit with fines worth a total of 8.2 billion euros between 2017 and 2019 over antitrust violations.

It failed in its attempt to have one of those fines overturned last week.

It is not just in under Europe where it is under pressure over its highly lucrative ad tech business.

Earlier this month, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) provisionally found it used anti-competitive practices to dominate the market.

The US government is also taking the tech giant to court over the same issue, with prosecutors alleging its parent company, Alphabet, illegally operates a monopoly in the market.

Alphabet has argued its market dominance is due to the effectiveness of its products.

Restrictive clauses

This case revolved around Google's AdSense product, which delivers adverts to websites - making Google almost like a broker for ads.

The Commission concluded Google had abused its dominance to prevent websites from using brokers other than AdSense when they were seeking adverts for their web pages.

It said the firm then added other "restrictive" clauses to its contracts to reinforce its market dominance - and levied a €1.49bn fine as a penalty.

In its ruling, the EU's General Court upheld the majority of the Commission’s findings - but annulled the decision by which the Commission imposed the fine

It said the Commission had not considered "all the relevant circumstances" concerning the contract clauses and how it defined the market.

Because of this, it ruled the Commission did not establish "an abuse of dominant position."

BBC

 

[BouncerGuy]

US judge orders Google to open app store to rivals

A US federal judge has ruled that Google must allow Android apps made by rival technology firms onto its Google Play app store for three years starting next month.

The change was among several remedies ordered by Judge James Donato in a case brought against Google by Epic Games, the maker of the hit video game Fortnite.

Google says it will appeal against the decision and ask for a pause to the proposed remedies.

In December, a jury sided with Epic, which says Google stifled competitors by controlling the distribution of apps and payments on Android phones.

"The changes would put consumers’ privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps, and reduce competition on devices," Google said in a statement.

Some legal experts have hailed the ruling as a meaningful challenge to the dominance of a handful of technology giants.

"It shows that courts are not necessarily opposed to asking dominant platforms to share access with rivals in the name of competition," said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School.

Among other remedies, the ruling called for Google to make its catalogue of apps available to competing app stores.

"That isn't something antitrust law would normally require," said Mark Lemley, professor at Stanford Law School. "But the judge correctly noted that once you have violated the antitrust laws, courts can order you to do affirmative things to undo the harm you caused, even though you didn't have the obligation to do those things in the first place."

Google had argued that its Play app store operates in a competitive landscape, citing competition with iPhone-maker Apple, which was also sued by Epic Games in 2020.

That case ended with an appeals court ruling that Apple does not have a monopoly in mobile games.

Monday's order is the latest legal blow suffered by Google in recent years on competition grounds.

In August, US District Judge Amit Mehta sided with the US Department of Justice, which accused the company of operating an illegal monopoly in online search.

Last month, District Judge Leonie Brinkema finished hearing arguments over similar government allegations that Google dominates the advertising technology market.

The company's critics say Google's fees of up to 30% on every payment made on its app store has meant higher prices for consumers.

"That is a rate they were able to charge because they were a monopoly," said Lee Hepner, Senior Legal Counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project.

Mr Hepner said that the ruling is likely change that.

"There's going to be a lot more incentive for developers to enter this market, and prices should be lower for consumers," he said.

BBC

 

[BouncerGuy]

US says it may break up Google after landmark case

The US government says it is considering whether to ask a judge to break up search engine giant Google, in a move that could reshape how technology giants do business.

The Department of Justice (DoJ) says the measures may include "structural requirements” to prevent Google from maintaining its internet search "monopoly".

In response, Google warned that the proposed changes could have unintended consequences for US businesses and consumers.

The DoJ's announcement comes after a landmark court ruling in August that found Google had maintained its dominance of online search through illegal practices.

The DoJ said in a court filing that it is considering "remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products".

In a blog post, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, said the recommendations constitute "government overreach".

The DoJ is expected to submit a more detailed set of proposals by 20 November.

Google will be able to submit its own proposed remedies by 20 December.

The court decision in August was a major blow to Alphabet, Google's parent company.

It came after a 10-week trial, in which prosecutors accused Google of paying billions of dollars a year to firms, including Apple and Samsung, to ensure it was their default search engine.

Google's lawyers argued that users are attracted to the search engine because they find it useful, and that Google is investing to make it better for consumers.

Other pending lawsuits against big US technology firms - including Facebook-owner Meta, Amazon and Apple - accusing them of anti-competitive practices.

The lawsuits are part of attempts by US authorities to strengthen competition in the industry.

BBC

 

[FearlessRoar]

Russia fines Google more money than there is in entire world

A Russian court has fined Google two undecillion roubles - a two followed by 36 zeroes - for restricting Russian state media channels on YouTube.

In dollar terms that means the tech giant has been told to pay $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Despite being one of the world's wealthiest companies, that is considerably more than the $2 trillion Google is worth.

In fact, it is far greater than the world’s total GDP, which is estimated by the International Monetary Fund to be $110 trillion.

The fine has reached such a gargantuan level because - state news agency Tass says - it doubles every day it is not paid.

According to Tass, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov admitted he "cannot even pronounce this number" but urged "Google management to pay attention."

The company has not commented publicly or responded to a BBC request for a statement.

Russia media outlet RBC reports the fine on Google relates to the restriction of content of 17 Russian media channels on YouTube.

While this started in 2020, it escalated after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years later.

That saw most Western companies pull out of Russia, with doing business there also tightly restricted by sanctions.

Russian media outlets were also banned in Europe - prompting retaliatory measures from Moscow.

This development is the latest escalation between Russia and the US tech giant.

In May, 2021, Russia’s media regulator Roskomnadzor accused Google of restricting YouTube access to Russian media outlets, including RT and Sputnik, and supporting "illegal protest activity".

Then, in July, 2022, Russia fined Google 21.1bn rouble (£301m) for failing to restrict access to what it called "prohibited" material about the war in Ukraine and other content.

There is virtually no press freedom in Russia, with independent news outlets and freedom of expression severely curtailed.

Russia fines Google more than entire world's GDP

The mind-boggling figure has been levied due to the company restricting Russian state media on YouTube.

www.bbc.com

 

[Champ_Pal]

Russia fines Google more money than there is in entire world

A Russian court has fined Google two undecillion roubles - a two followed by 36 zeroes - for restricting Russian state media channels on YouTube.

In dollar terms that means the tech giant has been told to pay $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Despite being one of the world's wealthiest companies, that is considerably more than the $2 trillion Google is worth.

In fact, it is far greater than the world’s total GDP, which is estimated by the International Monetary Fund to be $110 trillion.

The fine has reached such a gargantuan level because - state news agency Tass says - it doubles every day it is not paid.

According to Tass, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov admitted he "cannot even pronounce this number" but urged "Google management to pay attention."

The company has not commented publicly or responded to a BBC request for a statement.

Russia media outlet RBC reports the fine on Google relates to the restriction of content of 17 Russian media channels on YouTube.

While this started in 2020, it escalated after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years later.

That saw most Western companies pull out of Russia, with doing business there also tightly restricted by sanctions.

Russian media outlets were also banned in Europe - prompting retaliatory measures from Moscow.

This development is the latest escalation between Russia and the US tech giant.

In May, 2021, Russia’s media regulator Roskomnadzor accused Google of restricting YouTube access to Russian media outlets, including RT and Sputnik, and supporting "illegal protest activity".

Then, in July, 2022, Russia fined Google 21.1bn rouble (£301m) for failing to restrict access to what it called "prohibited" material about the war in Ukraine and other content.

There is virtually no press freedom in Russia, with independent news outlets and freedom of expression severely curtailed.

Russia fines Google more than entire world's GDP

The mind-boggling figure has been levied due to the company restricting Russian state media on YouTube.

www.bbc.com

Google will go bankrupt after this historic decision by a Russian court.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Google must sell Chrome to end search monopoly, justice department argues in court filing

Alphabet’s Google must sell its Chrome browser, share data and search results with competitors and take a range of other measures to end its monopoly on searching the internet, US prosecutors have argued to a judge.

Such changes would essentially result in Google being highly regulated for 10 years, subjecting it to oversight by the same Washington federal court that ruled the company maintained an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising.

Google controls about 90% of the online search market.

“Google’s unlawful behaviour has deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners who could otherwise enable entry into these markets by competitors in new and innovative ways,” the US Department of Justice (DoJ) said in a court filing.

The court papers filed on Wednesday night expand on an earlier outline on how the US wants to end Google’s monopoly. Google called the proposals radical at the time, saying they would harm US consumers and businesses and shake American competitiveness in artificial intelligence.

The company has said it will appeal.

The DoJ demands are wide-ranging, including barring Google from re-entering the browser market for five years and insisting Google sell its Android mobile operating system if other remedies fail to restore competition.

The department has also requested a prohibition on Google buying or investing in any search rivals, query-based artificial intelligence products or advertising technology.

The DoJ and a coalition of states want US district judge Amit Mehta to end exclusive agreements in which Google pays billions of dollars annually to Apple and other device vendors to make its search engine the default on their tablets and smartphones.

Google will have a chance to present its own proposals in December.

Mehta has scheduled a trial on the proposals for April, though president-elect Donald Trump and the DoJ’s next antitrust head could step in and change course in the case.

THE GUARDIAN

 

[BouncerGuy]

Google suggests fixes to its search monopoly

Alphabet's Google proposed new limits to revenue-sharing agreements with companies including Apple which make Google's search engine the default on their devices and browsers.

The suggestions stem from the US search giant's ongoing antitrust battle over its online search business.

In August, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google illegally crushed its competition in search - a decision the company vowed to appeal.

In a legal filing submitted Friday, Google said it should be allowed to continue entering into those contracts with other companies while widening the options it offers.

These options include allowing different default search engines to be assigned to different platforms and browsing modes.

Google's suggested remedies also call for the ability for partners to change their default search provider at least every 12 months.

The proposals stand in stark contrast to the sweeping remedies suggested last month by the US Department of Justice (DOJ), which recommended that Judge Mehta force the firm to stop entering into revenue-sharing contracts.

DOJ lawyers also demanded that Google sell Chrome, the world's most popular web browser.

Google's search engine accounts for about 90% of all online searches globally, according to web traffic analysis platform Statcounter.

In a statement, Google called DOJ's remedies "overbroad" and said even its own counterproposals, which were filed in response to a court-mandated deadline, would come at a cost to their partners.

Judge Mehta is expected to issue a decision in the remedies phase of the landmark case by August, after a trial.

BBC

 

[sweep_shot]

Google must sell Chrome to end search monopoly, justice department argues in court filing

Alphabet’s Google must sell its Chrome browser, share data and search results with competitors and take a range of other measures to end its monopoly on searching the internet, US prosecutors have argued to a judge.

Such changes would essentially result in Google being highly regulated for 10 years, subjecting it to oversight by the same Washington federal court that ruled the company maintained an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising.

Google controls about 90% of the online search market.

“Google’s unlawful behaviour has deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners who could otherwise enable entry into these markets by competitors in new and innovative ways,” the US Department of Justice (DoJ) said in a court filing.

The court papers filed on Wednesday night expand on an earlier outline on how the US wants to end Google’s monopoly. Google called the proposals radical at the time, saying they would harm US consumers and businesses and shake American competitiveness in artificial intelligence.

The company has said it will appeal.

The DoJ demands are wide-ranging, including barring Google from re-entering the browser market for five years and insisting Google sell its Android mobile operating system if other remedies fail to restore competition.

The department has also requested a prohibition on Google buying or investing in any search rivals, query-based artificial intelligence products or advertising technology.

The DoJ and a coalition of states want US district judge Amit Mehta to end exclusive agreements in which Google pays billions of dollars annually to Apple and other device vendors to make its search engine the default on their tablets and smartphones.

Google will have a chance to present its own proposals in December.

Mehta has scheduled a trial on the proposals for April, though president-elect Donald Trump and the DoJ’s next antitrust head could step in and change course in the case.

THE GUARDIAN

This is an absurd court ruling.

Google is a private company. Not sure why they are being forced to sell their product (Chrome).