this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
407 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

69098 readers
4321 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
407
Zuckerberg’s 2012 email dubbed “smoking gun” at Meta monopoly trial (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 week ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 29 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Meta argued that "the FTC’s case rests almost entirely on emails (many more than a decade old) allegedly expressing competitive concerns" but suggested that this is only "intent" evidence, "without any evidence of anticompetitive effects."

Not sure I understand the argument. if I write that I'm going to buy another company instead of competing with them, then I go ahead and I do buy that exact company, are they arguing that the two things are not necessarily related?

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes. The argument is, raise the burden of proof: you are proving what my intent was, and what actions I took, but you should be proving negative market effects. Just because I said it, and I did it, doesn’t mean I succeeded. And if I didn’t there’s no reason to be broken up.

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Thanks, I understand better now.

On a related note, I wish I had known of the "just because I said it and I did it, doesn't mean I succeeded" line of defense when I was a kid

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Haha! Yes, but not sure how effective it would have been. I think parenting counts intent way above outcomes.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

"Attempted murder? What next? The Nobel prize in attempted physics?"