[frgtpsswrdlame]

I think there's a wide gulf of moral culpability between pink signs worth a buck and antitrust infringements worth billions. Would you excuse the individuals at VW since really their sign wasn't pink, it was just rigged so that it would appear that way when certain individuals in the HOA drove by? Reducing the problem in the way you've done changes it. It's not really the same issue.

[kbenson]

> I think there's a wide gulf of moral culpability between pink signs worth a buck and antitrust infringements worth billions.

There may be a wide gulf depending on the details, but there doesn't necessarily have to be. They are being punished for antitrust practices proven on a legal basis. Without bringing specifics into it, there's no way to tell wither it's moral or not, the same way you can't assume someone on the sex offender registry committed a morally repugnant crime instead of just peeing in public.[1] Don't confuse legal for moral, and if you think the facts of this case support your point, then use those facts to make that point.

1: http://www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/you-might-be-sex-offend...

[frgtpsswrdlame]

What? What is with all the twisted analogies in this thread? First google is a victim of an HOA and now it's a mislabeled sex offender? Let me think, what else are HN's favorite topics of anger... I know next Google will be a young worker who can't afford a house because of NIMBYism and zoning laws!

I'm fine saying Google's actions were immoral.

[kbenson]

> now it's a mislabeled sex offender?

The only way you could construe my comment as saying Google is a mislabeled sex offender is if you completely ignored the actual point in lieu of keywords you chose to focus on.

My prior comment can be reduced to "if you're going to make a moral argument, use evidence of morality in that argument." That you responded with what appears to be an apoplectic fit doesn't really leave your prior argument any better off.

> I'm fine saying Google's actions were immoral.

Obviously. But why? I'll even help you out a bit. There are two parts of this case that are distinct as I see it, that Google suppressed search results of a new search result service they rolled out, and that their supplying their own data from the knowledge graph for shopping results when other services exist it itself monopolistic and punishable. In the former, I agree that's behavior that should not be tolerated or someone in their market position. Of the latter, I think that's a far overreach of any government. If nobody can compete because Google is just doing that much better because they've built the base of audience and information to handle it better, then Google is outcompeting the others in a good way that's better for the general public.

[summer_steven]

> Would you excuse the individuals at VW

VW is being fined right now. Does that sound like being excused?

And I do see it differently when a companies transparently refuses to obey a law and accepts a fine vs when a company lies.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>I do see it differently when a companies transparently refuses to obey a law and accepts a fine vs when a company lies

So your position is that it's worse to lie about breaking the law than it is to actually break it? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

Besides I'm really just asking about the analogy. I think if someone posted "Show HN: My color-changing, license-plate-detecting, HOA-fine-avoiding lawn ornament" we'd all be in there yucking it up at the genius of it. But when VW does the same thing (by your analogy) we're in threads talking about much more serious topics, like individual moral culpability. My point is that your analogy is flawed, it doesn't hold up.

[summer_steven]

You CAN break the law if you are okay accepting the punishment.

A good instance is jaywalking: it's a minor offense and police don't really care to enforce it. So people decide to break that law all the time.

A law is a contract. Anyone is free to break the contract if they are willing to accept the consequences.

[tannhaeuser]

Antitrust (or other civil laws) aren't about morale, they're about countering a natural tendency to form monopolies, so that the efforts to maintain market conditions (laws, currencies, etc.) with the taxpayer's money don't benefit just a single party.