Join 3,418 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The Sting
January 26, 2012 8:12 AM   Subscribe

Con Artist Starred in Sting That Cost Google Millions - The government's case also contained potentially embarrassing allegations that top Google executives, including co-founder Larry Page, were told about legal problems with the drug ads.

Mr. Page, now Google's chief executive, knew about the illicit conduct, said Mr. Neronha, the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island who led the multiagency federal task force that conducted the sting. "We simply know from the documents we reviewed and witnesses we interviewed that Larry Page knew what was going on," he said in an interview after the August settlement.
posted by Blazecock Pileon (61 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
The federal investigation, which was first revealed in May, found that Google was aware that some Canadian pharmacies that advertised on its site failed to require a prescription for substances like the painkiller Oxycontin and the stimulant Ritalin.

Don't Be Evil
posted by Skeptic at 8:18 AM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


Y'know there's been an awful lot of bad news about Google lately. While none of these things individually surprise me about Google, I'm starting to get a weird feeling that there's some particular person or group in the background setting up all of these stories. I know it's probably not the case, and that I sound like I'm wearing my tin-foil hat, but I've still got a tiny nagging feeling.
posted by nushustu at 8:25 AM on January 26, 2012 [12 favorites]


...While in the UK, Groupon's parent company came under fire for advertising snake oil as a health product.
posted by Smart Dalek at 8:28 AM on January 26, 2012 [6 favorites]


Who wants to oil a snake?
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:29 AM on January 26, 2012 [5 favorites]


Y'know there's been an awful lot of bad news about Google lately. While none of these things individually surprise me about Google, I'm starting to get a weird feeling that there's some particular person or group in the background setting up all of these stories. I know it's probably not the case, and that I sound like I'm wearing my tin-foil hat, but I've still got a tiny nagging feeling.

There is such a group. It's called Google.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:30 AM on January 26, 2012 [12 favorites]


Google is working pretty hard to become the new Microsoft.
posted by killdevil at 8:32 AM on January 26, 2012


Who wants to oil a snake?

I'm looking for ladies to oil my snake.
posted by spicynuts at 8:33 AM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


01l Ur $nake 3 t1mes l0ngr w Canadian V14grA!!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:36 AM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


Y'know there's been an awful lot of bad news about Google lately.

The matter of Google selling controlled substance ads was a story first reported on in May 2011.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:40 AM on January 26, 2012


The federal investigation, which was first revealed in May, found that Google was aware that some Canadian pharmacies that advertised on its site failed to require a prescription for substances like the painkiller Oxycontin and the stimulant Ritalin.

Then the feds should capture those shipments at the border and coordinate with Canadian authorities to prosecute. Google seems to be a minor player.
I'm not going to be an apologist for Google here, but if anyone thinks this sting operation had any purpose other than protecting Big Pharma profits they're greatly mistaken.
posted by rocket88 at 9:03 AM on January 26, 2012 [13 favorites]


Google has this fantastically complicated ads policy manual, about what kinds of ads are allowed and what aren't. What's damning here is Google had an explicit policy of allowing Canadian pharmacies to advertise to US customers. OTOH, I think it's generally a good thing that Americans can order cheaper prescription medication from Canada, so maybe Google was doing some good? Depends on the drugs and the oversight, of course.

I've forgotten the history here; when was it clear that accepting these ads was a violation of the US law? It used to be ambiguous.

To nushutu's point, I think Google is shooting itself in the foot with a lot of this bad publicity. No doubt folks like Facebook are stoking the fires on the criticism of Google+, but I dont think there's some shadowy hand coordinating blog posts from Kenya with anti-trust action in Europe with the prescription drug thing in the US. They're an enormous company involved in a lot of different businesses, there's plenty of grist for the journalist mill.
posted by Nelson at 9:07 AM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


nushustu: Y'know there's been an awful lot of bad news about Google lately. While none of these things individually surprise me about Google, I'm starting to get a weird feeling that there's some particular person or group in the background setting up all of these stories.

Mefites post about interesting things they find on the Internet. A proportion of things Mefites find on the Internet begin at MeFi. Thus, a thread or two covering a topic will cause some number of Mefites to explore the topic more thoroughly, which frequently results in their finding further interesting things on that topic. If it's closely enough related, they post it in the original thread; if not, they start a new thread.

I imagine this is partially what causes the effect of certain topics becoming a short-term trend on MeFi.
posted by gilrain at 9:09 AM on January 26, 2012 [3 favorites]


Y'know there's been an awful lot of bad news about Google lately. While none of these things individually surprise me about Google, I'm starting to get a weird feeling that there's some particular person or group in the background setting up all of these stories.

(Via)
posted by Artw at 9:15 AM on January 26, 2012 [8 favorites]


Y'know there's been an awful lot of bad news about Google lately. [...] I'm starting to get a weird feeling that there's some particular person or group in the background setting up all of these stories. I know it's probably not the case, [...].

I can tell you for a fact that there are people whose job it is to place damaging stories about companies into the media. I do not have any idea if that is what is going on here.
posted by shothotbot at 9:18 AM on January 26, 2012 [9 favorites]


Neal Caffrey is real!
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:31 AM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


Yeah. The growing feeling that I'm a footsoldier in the ongoing Apple v Google v Microsoft v Amazon war is depressing in the extreme.

But its not as depressing as the knowledge that most geeks are now cognitively unable to recognise the partisan nonsense they're given to use as weapons.
posted by seanyboy at 9:36 AM on January 26, 2012 [9 favorites]


Anyway, I'll just check who posted this story, and... WHUUU???
posted by seanyboy at 9:40 AM on January 26, 2012 [5 favorites]


The growing feeling that I'm a footsoldier in the ongoing Apple v Google v Microsoft v Amazon war is depressing in the extreme.

It helps if you think of yourself as a guerilla fighter, or perhaps a double agent. It's more romantic that way.

Or you could use Linux. (I know right? Who am I kidding.)
posted by oddman at 9:42 AM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


Neal Caffrey is real!

Thank you for reading the link.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:43 AM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


Or you could use Linux. (I know right? Who am I kidding.)

I use it every day! I'm sort of thinking of dropping it as Ubuntu gets steadily sillier though. WTF guys?
posted by Artw at 9:46 AM on January 26, 2012 [3 favorites]


Why doesn't the government use sting operations for less morally ambiguous crimes?
posted by Obscure Reference at 9:57 AM on January 26, 2012 [3 favorites]


Once you've used Spotlight or Launchy (is that still a thing on Windows?), you realize HUDs are usually way more efficient than menu trees.

Re: The Oxycontin selling: It's not evil - it's oblivious.
posted by ignignokt at 9:59 AM on January 26, 2012


One of the drugs was RU-486. I would consider myself the opposite of evil if I had to break the law to make it easily available to American women.
posted by Ayn Rand and God at 10:01 AM on January 26, 2012 [17 favorites]


Woah, woah, woah this thread is mind blowing are you people seriously upset that Google was allowing Canadian pharmacies to advertise? Seriously?

Have you people lost your minds? Or do you only focus on whats right in front of your face and ignore everything else that's ever happened, in the history of the world?

I mean for fuck sakes Allowing canadian drug imports was one of Obama's campaign promises
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said that the United States should be able to import prescription drugs (PDF) from other countries, where they are sold at significantly cheaper prices. He even co-sponsored a Senate bill proposing such an idea.
Are you seriously saying that Google was being "evil" by allowing people to do something that Obama thought was such a good idea, he campaigned on it

The Debate over allowing Canadian drug imports was a part (if minor) in the Healthcare debate!!

Seriously... there is nothing morally wrong with importing drugs from Canada, and many politicians support it, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Canada has price controls on it's drugs, which makes them cheaper. Don't think, by the way that one of the major targets of SOPA/PIPA wasn't online pharmacies selling prescription drugs at a reasonable price, while Americans would be soaked otherwise.

posted by delmoi at 10:12 AM on January 26, 2012 [26 favorites]


Then the feds should capture those shipments at the border and coordinate with Canadian authorities to prosecute. Google seems to be a minor player.

I'm not going to be an apologist for Google here, but if anyone thinks this sting operation had any purpose other than protecting Big Pharma profits they're greatly mistaken.
Many in the government (including the president) actually SUPPORT people buying cheaper drugs in Canada. (Obviously not schedule II narcotics). We're mostly talking about stuff like lipator and other health related drugs that are overpriced in the U.S.
posted by delmoi at 10:14 AM on January 26, 2012


I'm starting to get a weird feeling that there's some particular person

In the future, hatchet jobs are farmed out to fanboys because it allows companies to maintain a clean PR record versus, say, funding dubious "studies". The best part is that the hatcheteers are not paid because they enjoy the feeling of having gotten one over on eeebulll ideological enemies.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 10:14 AM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


I forgot to close my <b> tag, yet, I feel my unintentional bolding more accurately reflects my shock at what people are saying in this thread.

I mean my god are you people SERIOUSLY ARGUING THAT PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO IMPORT DRUGS FROM CANADA IN ORDER TO SAVE MONEY?, like you actually think it's a problem that Pfizer can't charge $1000 for lipitor or whatever? Are you people seriously unaware of the fact that allowing canadian drug imports has been a plank of the democratic platform, espoused by Obama and other major democrats?

Do you think Obama and Reid and Byron Dorgan are just criminals in league with Google or something? From the link I posted earlier:
Dorgan insisted to reporters that there is nothing dangerous about his plan. He said it actually contains a number of safety provisions, including establishing batch lots and tracers, that do not yet exist for our domestic supply of pharmaceuticals. David Kessler, who served as FDA commissioner from 1990 through 1997, has endorsed Dorgan's amendment, the senator told reporters.

"There's no safety issue here at all," Dorgan said. "This is the pharmaceutical industry trying in every way that it knows how to keep its ability to charge the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs to the American people."
Seriously... W.T.F!?
posted by delmoi at 10:22 AM on January 26, 2012 [3 favorites]


are you people seriously upset that Google was allowing Canadian pharmacies to advertise?

If you read the article, it is about Google ad executives from Mexico, China, the US and Canada getting caught actively helping criminals — and in one case, the con artist discussed in the article — to set up websites that sell drugs that are illegal without a prescription, in such a way that the sites would get around company policies and local laws, so as to allow ad revenue to come in. Because their employees did this and because the founders knew about it and did nothing, Google was fined $500M.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:24 AM on January 26, 2012 [5 favorites]


delmoi, if you RTFA, you'll notice that the feds have no trouble allowing sales of prescription drugs over the border, as long as those selling:
a) are legit Canadian pharmacists; and
b) ask for the prescription.

This whole investigation was about Google knowingly working with companies that failed to fulfil both a) and b) despite Google's stated policies.

If you don't see what may be wrong in helping bogus pharmacists from anywhere sell an opioid like Oxycontin online without oversight or prescription, then we may not be using the same moral compass.
posted by Skeptic at 10:25 AM on January 26, 2012 [5 favorites]


Sure, delmoi. I agree with the pharma cartel avoidance. I'm not sure that it would go better if it had been US pharmacies selling schedule II medicines without prescriptions though; the issues are orthogonal.
posted by jaduncan at 10:26 AM on January 26, 2012


I'm looking for ladies to oil my snake.

That's craigslist you're thinking of, not Google AdWords....
posted by thewalrus at 10:27 AM on January 26, 2012


One of the drugs was RU-486. I would consider myself the opposite of evil if I had to break the law to make it easily available to American women.

If it was actual RU-486. Scoop: a lot of drugs sold by bogus online pharmacists are also bogus.
posted by Skeptic at 10:28 AM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


That's craigslist you're thinking of, not Google AdWords....

That's $50 of free adwords with a new company and the ability to say "show this advert to $GENDEROFCHOICE in $MYAREA who search for "how can I hook up"". I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that plan.
posted by jaduncan at 10:29 AM on January 26, 2012


shothotbot, that's what I was talking about. I don't really think there's some grand conspiracy. It just feels like lately there's maybe some PR guy working for Apple or Microsoft or somebody doing a good job getting this stuff in the public eye.

And I know that this idea borders on ludicrous. I'm willing to bet it's all innocuous. It just seems like a weird amount of bad news for Google in a short amount of time.
posted by nushustu at 10:31 AM on January 26, 2012


So, most of this is predicated on the say-so of an admitted con artist? Well, good enough for me.

This is the line-up to get an axe sharpened, right?
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:33 AM on January 26, 2012


The story about minor adjustments to privacy policies getting the amount of traction it did was just ludicrous.
posted by Artw at 10:34 AM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


Given that Obama gave Google the green light to allow Canadian pharmacies to sell Oxycontin without prescription I can totally see Rush Limbaugh raising a stink about this on his show.


Ahem.
posted by MuffinMan at 10:40 AM on January 26, 2012


It just feels like lately there's maybe some PR guy working for Apple or Microsoft or somebody doing a good job getting this stuff in the public eye.

Why does everybody believe that Google's direct competitors are Apple or Microsoft, when Google basically is an advertising company? Its power has been a problem for many corporations not necessarily related to IT, and in particular for media companies.

This said, Google has set itself up for criticism by also being astoundingly self-righteous. Giving yourself as grand a motto as "Don't Be Evil", you may find yourself under closer scrutiny than gleefully amoral companies like Facebook or Ryanair. And being the 800-pound gorilla in the advertising market (which essentially consists in persuading people to buy things they may or may not necessarily need) doesn't help either.
posted by Skeptic at 10:42 AM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


Yeah, it's probably not apple or Microsoft. I just threw them out there. I would imagine that after the SOPA thing, media corps would be more likely to target Google. But again, I still think the odds of this being the case are slim.
posted by nushustu at 10:44 AM on January 26, 2012


delmoi, if you RTFA

That prescription is never getting filled.
posted by yerfatma at 10:50 AM on January 26, 2012 [5 favorites]


nushustu, I also suspect Google can give at least as well as it takes. I'm sufficiently cynical to imagine, for example, that the focus on Apple in many negative stories about Foxconn factories in China, despite those factories working for many other brands as well, has also been "encouraged" from that corner...
posted by Skeptic at 10:55 AM on January 26, 2012


Oh totally. I wouldn't doubt it for one second.
posted by nushustu at 11:06 AM on January 26, 2012


Why does everybody believe that Google's direct competitors are Apple or Microsoft, when Google basically is an advertising company?

Additionally, why do people think that any of these companies holds a moral high ground over the others, when all are demonstrably evil?

The fanbois of all of them are like die-hard Democrats and Republicans: perpetually wearing blinders.
posted by coolguymichael at 11:23 AM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


Or you could use Linux. (I know right? Who am I kidding.)

But Linux is also used by criminals!!!

I also suspect Google can give at least as well as it takes. I'm sufficiently cynical to imagine, for example, that the focus on Apple in many negative stories about Foxconn factories in China, despite those factories working for many other brands as well, has also been "encouraged" from that corner...

Anyone with any sense knows that Foxconn makes electronics for a lot of companies but I suspect that the marketing slogan taken as something more in regard to Google and Apple is just peachy image make them a focus of casual dismissal net wide.
posted by juiceCake at 11:42 AM on January 26, 2012


Not only was this story probably leaked by Apple agents they probably set up this sting themselves -YEARS in advance. In fact although Im not sure if it made to the MSM (main-stream media like Newyork Times, cnn) it is known that Obama is conected to STEVE JOB HIMSELF.
posted by ignignokt at 11:43 AM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


To expand on delmoi's comments, we've had discussions on MeFi before about Canadian pharmacies and importing Canadian drugs. That's from 2002. Usually those discussions go something like:

of course we should be able to import drugs from Canada, the pharmaceutical companies are corrupt, etc.

In that thread above we even have users admitting to purchasing drugs via Google advertisements, and the potential life-saving ability to get insulin cheaply and without a prescription online. There are dozens of askmefi questions also on the subject.

We've had discussions in the past about the trend for bus companies and seniors to arrange bus trips across the border to purchase medication. There were no real problems with that practice.

Same goes with the Mexican border. It's an open secret you can cross the border to pick up personal amounts of prescription drugs in Tijuana and other border towns and bring them across with you. Whether it's legal or just that it's an accepted thing and border patrol turns a blind eye to it, I don't know, but it's been going on for years. And that includes steroids.

I get that this steroid selling douchebag is a slimey con-man. But that's the way it always is, the federal government carefully chooses cases based on public perception. In this case, the federal government wanted more control over Google's results, including ad results. They didn't get what they wanted via requests, so they played hardball.

Being aware of Google's growing influence and the amazing and scary amounts of data they have on all of us is something we should all be aware of. To the point that I'd recommend people migrate off their servers. At some point this will be abused, it's a given. Maybe not by the current ownership, but that's the thing with corporations, they go on even when the founders don't. And the information the corporation has goes on with it.

But the continual Apple fan-boy bashing on here and elsewhere is obvious to anyone. And posts like this aren't helping, they're just making it more obvious there's an axe to grind.
posted by formless at 12:17 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


The impression I increasingly get is that NONE of these vaunted tech companies have the slightest idea what they're doing; they lucked into their billion-dollar businesses by having one decent idea ten seconds before everybody else did. And now their creations are careening off the hillside with no one really at the controls.

I don't think Google is evil; I think they're just incompetent. Ditto Facebook and all the rest.

They know how to scale up the server farms but not to actually manage what they do -- in fact, their whole success is predicated on the total lack of interest in managing what they do; the algorithm does it for them.

And yet they are all hailed as oracular megageniuses before whom we must all prostrate ourselves. We know that Zuckerberg considered it a major world-changing experience to put on a necktie every day for a year; do you think Larry Page could, say, wash a load of clothes or parallel park a car or ring up a sale at a cash register?
posted by Fnarf at 12:18 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


From the article:

When he was 16 years old, Mr. Whitaker took his mother's credit card, rented a private jet and flew his girlfriend for a shopping spree

That's pretty baller.

in Knoxville

That's slightly less baller. Come on, man. You had a private jet.
posted by mhum at 12:23 PM on January 26, 2012 [9 favorites]


So, most of this is predicated on the say-so of an admitted con artist? Well, good enough for me.

Like the article details, the government made Whitaker prove his claims, by getting Google to do what he claimed it did, before they prosecuted.
posted by hootenatty at 12:49 PM on January 26, 2012


delmoi, if you RTFA, you'll notice that the feds have no trouble allowing sales of prescription drugs over the border, as long as those selling:
a) are legit Canadian pharmacists; and
b) ask for the prescription.

This whole investigation was about Google knowingly working with companies that failed to fulfil both a) and b) despite Google's stated policies.


Here's a collection of feedback from patient advocacy groups and Canadian pharmacies describing how the action will harm US consumers:

Canadian Pharmacies React To US Gov't Taking $500 Million From Google Over Their Ads

From CIPA, the group now responsible for verifying pharmacy ads:
Removing patient access in the U.S. will not remove patient need,” Harwood-Jones points out. “Our Web site and phone lines are constantly busy fielding inquiries from Americans who cannot afford the maintenance medicines they need. These American patients are buying pharmaceuticals online, and they need guidance and direction to locate safe sources for reasonably priced medications.

Here's CIPA protesting SOPA.

These aren't steroid-selling con-men, these are legitimate pharmacies and trade groups.

An analysis from a pharma marketer on how this will help the pharmaceutical industry and FDA in their long-standing battle against US citizens buying drugs online from Canadian pharmacies.

This action needs to be examined in the broader context of SOPA and regulatory capture of the FDA by the pharmaceutical industry. These powerful groups are not happy with the availability of cheap medicine overseas, even if the administration itself is supportive of Americans purchasing Canadian drugs.
posted by formless at 1:04 PM on January 26, 2012 [6 favorites]


nushustu: "Y'know there's been an awful lot of bad news about Google lately. While none of these things individually surprise me about Google, I'm starting to get a weird feeling that there's some particular person or group in the background setting up all of these stories."

What kind of scumbags would try to pull an underhanded stunt like that?
posted by mullingitover at 1:18 PM on January 26, 2012 [3 favorites]


If you read the article, it is about Google ad executives from Mexico, China, the US and Canada getting caught actively helping criminals — and in one case, the con artist discussed in the article — to set up websites that sell drugs that are illegal without a prescription,
Most of this sounds like moral panic bullshit to me. Why should anyone think a pharmacy in Canada would be any more likely to violate rules then a Pharmacy in the U.S? I mean does anyone here think that Canada is some lawless hinterland full of rouge pharmacies who routinely distribute drugs to whoever asks for them? I doubt that happens any more in Canada then here in the U.S?

Obviously if a few of them don't follow the law, then unscrupulous or lazy reporters can spin shock stories about Google advertising selling advertising for rouge Canadian pharmacies and highlight the few, if any mistakes or errors that occurred. But like I said. It's canada. Why should google, or anyone else expect lawlessness from canada? I certainly don't have a problem with what happened.

And to be honest I could care less if people get Oxycontin without a prescription, given the insane restrictions on doctors even prescribing it to people who really do have chronic pain.

If they're addicted to opiods, wouldn't it be better if they're getting safe Oxycontin from Canadian pharmacies rather then buying heroin off the street? Since when has Metafilter, on average been a huge supporter of the war on drugs?

But like I said, I'm willing to bet that instances like that were the exception and, this being Canada most people would expect these companies to be legitimate and regulated by the Canadian government.

So basically I have no problem with this and don't see why anyone (other then Pfizer's lobbyists and Rupert Murdoch, owner of the wall street journal and sill angry about SOPA failing thanks to Google's lobbying efforts) would either.
Why does everybody believe that Google's direct competitors are Apple or Microsoft, when Google basically is an advertising company? Its power has been a problem for many corporations not necessarily related to IT, and in particular for media companies.
Yeah, like I said SOPA just failed, and Murdoch was super pissed. And he owns the WSJ and has been blaming them for the death of the newspaper print industry forever. This is the guy who tweeted "So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery," after SOPA failed and now suddenly there's an article bashing Google in the WSJ, about something that happened a while ago, as far as I know.

It seems like a lot of people in this thread are just taking this as whatever information is put in front of their face at face value, without thinking critically about it. Yes, there may have been some abuses but for the most part this is about preventing legitimate Canadian pharmacies (who are now all banned from advertising on Google, as far as I can tell) from advertising cheaper drugs to American consumers. And some people are just taking any opportunity to bash Apple's competitors.
do you think Larry Page could, say, ... parallel park a car
Well, google built a car that drive itself, so probably?
posted by delmoi at 3:16 PM on January 26, 2012 [5 favorites]


hinterland full of rouge pharmacies

La menace rouge
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 3:49 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


Thanks, delmoi, for your efforts in a post and thread dominated by some weird conjunction of different forms of insanity.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:10 PM on January 26, 2012 [3 favorites]


...While in the UK, Groupon's parent company came under fire for advertising snake oil as a health product.

Only because it wasn't dilute enough to get the approval of the Prince of Wales.
posted by srboisvert at 4:00 AM on January 27, 2012 [1 favorite]


[Folks, you know where MeTa is. Leave the needling of other users out of this thread, please?]
posted by jessamyn at 8:58 AM on January 27, 2012


Meta
posted by Artw at 9:35 AM on January 27, 2012


Thanks, delmoi, for your efforts in a post and thread dominated by some weird conjunction of different forms of insanity.

A story about a con artist selling fake prescription drugs, in a process linked directly to a CEO of a major company that plays a role in millions of people's lives, is usually pretty big news, no matter what parties are involved, or what our personal feelings might be. I'd like to extend my appreciation and gratitude to those of you who were genuinely interested in the subject of the post, who took the time to read the links and posted comments in good faith.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:47 AM on January 29, 2012


I read them and posted in bad faith.
posted by yerfatma at 12:07 PM on January 29, 2012


Yeah. Me, too. That's a non-trivial accusation to make implicitly, especially in my case where you're quoting me beforehand.

I find the government's actions in this matter to be very disturbing and objectionable, and for a constellation of reasons in which my feelings about Google, positive or negative, don't appear.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:55 PM on January 29, 2012


Yeah. The growing feeling that I'm a footsoldier in the ongoing Apple v Google v Microsoft v Amazon war is depressing in the extreme.

This is a damned important and good point. A narrow version of it occurred to me recently (re: the increasingly unreadable Jon Gruber and his cadre of fellow Mac-bloggers) but I hadn't understood it in these personal terms and all of a sudden I am glad to be reading the Internet, only this once, because mostly it is shit. The End.
posted by waxbanks at 5:05 PM on February 1, 2012


« Older The Hidden Mythos of Police Academy....  |  Stephen Colbert interviews Mau... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments