Zuckerberg’s 2012 email dubbed “smoking gun” at Meta monopoly trial

Comments

• madeinthebackseat@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Let me know when we actually execute monopoly regulations as intended.

  source

  • nick@midwest.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Image

    source
• resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  They “trust” me.

  Dumb fucks.

  source

  • AstralPath@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    They “trust” me.

    Dumb fucks.

    source

    • MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      They “trust” me.

      Dumb fucks.

      source
• BigMacHole@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  That IS A Smoking Gun yes! But have They CONSIDERED that with Another couple MILLION Dollars in Donations to our Non Corrupt President the Trial can Go Away?

  source

  • vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    As far as I can tell, the promise of a substantial donation seems all that’s required, that and genuflecting … pro tip, don’t mention the hands.

    source
  • errer@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Just gotta Zuck that felonious toadstool

    source
• malloc@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I have doubts it will get fully prosecuted under this administration. Tech oligarchy have been sucking Trump’s dick since he started his term.

  Zuckerfuck being among the worst in the bunch.

  source

  • MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Any coincidence that 2012 e-mails are finally coming to trial today?

    source
• andallthat@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  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 completing with them, then I go ahead and I do but that exact company, are they arguing that the two things are not necessarily related?

  source

  • whereisk@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • andallthat@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Thanks, I understand better now.

      On related note, I wish I had know of the “just because I said it and I did it, didn’t mean I succeeded” line of defense when I was a kid

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• 0p3r470r@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I am honestly surprised President dum dum, or the AG hasn’t shut down this investigation yet

  source

  • tburkhol@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    There are still “favors” to be done.

    source
  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Didn’t Musk and Zuck want to literally fight recently? I don’t think they are friends.

    source

    • Klear@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It was all a theatre, I’m pretty sure.

      source
  • j0ester@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    :soon:

    source
• 800XL@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Hang Zuck

  source
• Ledericas@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  That’s when zucks first android robot model came out

  source