1. @Diddy is making a populist argument. He's not just asking for black representation but black *ownership.* And ownership matters. It's a different and more fundamental claim than how progressives tend to think about social justice.
2. @Diddy is also taking a swipe at Comcast when he says "It’s disrespectful that distributors refuse to carry Black-owned media brands in an era where our impact and influence is undeniable." revolt.tv/news/2021/4/8/…
3. I wrote up a piece on black ownership in the cable business, the first major media business emerging after the Civil Rights movement. @Diddy is an important part of the story, as is Comcast's monopolization. prospect.org/power/remote-c…
4. White rural right-wing cable network owners and black-owned media business leaders were both incensed over the Comcast-NBC merger. Both groups recognize ownership *matters.* prospect.org/power/remote-c…
5. @Diddy is seeking a straightforward redistribution of power from the dominant gatekeepers. The power to engage in programming, the power to hire and fire, to create and sell art, and to organize media. It's an anti-monopoly claim.
1. Joe Biden has made a stark break from the recent Democratic past, He has decided that we need a government. But he hasn't decided *who* should run it.
2. Biden just put forward a $2T infrastructure bill. It will expand broadband, repair bridges using “cleaner cement,” upgrade ports, subsidize semiconductor factories, etc, all with inputs “made in America and shipped on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-crewed vessels.” whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
3. Biden wants to be FDR, not Obama. One important question is whether it’s actually possible to spend that amount of money on so many things without immense amounts of corruption or waste. The public sector is battered and weak.
I've read the case and the dissent, and went through Borland and the statutory meaning of fair use. I still can't see any legit reason for ruling Google is allowed to copy Oracle's code to create an app store monopoly and fortify its search monopoly. It's a crazy ruling.
Congress said one key element of whether something is fair use is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes."
The purpose and character of Android was lock-in and monopolization!
I'm not super confident about my understanding of this area of law, but a lot of the boosters of this decision strike me as very consumer welfare oriented. They want their free stuff and Google gives it to them, or so they imagine.
The coalition of social conservatives and big business is still solid, but it has bigger cracks than I've seen in my lifetime. I'm merely an observer of these debates on the right.
I didn't know this about Jonathan Sallet. He actively kept states off the Trump antitrust case against Google until after the election. That's concerning, because antitrust action against big tech should be bipartisan.
The whole article is frustrating. Jonathan Kanter is the obvious choice. Sallet's work on the Colorado case reflected both unnecessary partisanship on an issue where there is widespread agreement, and unwise deference to the antitrust establishment. politico.com/news/2021/04/0…
I'm infuriating that 'ethics' has come to mean corporate lawyers in the Biden White House launching hit pieces in Politico against anti-monopolists.
1. Here's the real lesson from the Suez boat mess. The geniuses running world trade tried to stick a really big boat into a too small yet critical canal. The implications of that reality are scary. mattstoller.substack.com/p/what-we-can-…
2. I love the Suez story because it's so easy to understand None of the idiocy is masked by fancy rhetoric of Ivy credentialled McKinsey bullshit.
3. The reason this disruption to global commerce seems so dumb is because it is. First let's go the ship. It was big. Really big. It weighs 220,000 tons, and is as long as the Empire State Building is high.
1. I love that Joe Biden's dog keeps biting people and no one cares. And it actually touches on a big difference between Biden and Obama. cnn.com/2021/03/30/pol…
2. In the 2000s, I used to work in the field of online organizing. Online organizing is just marketing but we used to think it was super special if we said online organizing and progressive movement together. Obama used our marketing tools better than we did.
3. The reason, as it turns out, is because extremely polished brands do great online. Obama had a marvelous brand. But eventually it saddled his administration with a harmful cult of personality he had to maintain.