Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FreekFrealy t1_j9zhqu7 wrote

If he understood it he wouldn't have been surprised by the result.

4

nicuramar t1_j9zyj36 wrote

That’s just a polemic remark, as I read it. You’re assuming too much.

0

FreekFrealy t1_j9zzb0p wrote

Did he or did he not understand when crafting this legislation that Google would never agree to pay to list a site and as a result would de list sites subject to this legislation?

And I'm assuming too much by taking him at his word that he didn't understand this would happen?

2

nicuramar t1_j9zznrs wrote

> Did he or did he not understand when crafting this legislation that Google would never agree to pay to list a site and as a result would de list sites subject to this legislation?

I’m sure he had considered that possibility. But when communicating politically, things tend to get angled a bit.

> And I’m assuming too much by taking him at his word that he didn’t understand this would happen?

Well, it’s politics :p. But I also don’t agree that he couldn’t be surprised even if he understands the issue.

0

FreekFrealy t1_ja046rq wrote

He certainly had access to experts who understood that I have no doubt tried to impress on him the reality of what would happen.

But he saw his problem "Journalists need money" and tried to find a way to treat a foreign company as a cash pinata for that need even though they had neither the justification or even the necessary leverage to do it.

He's a smart guy and definitely had the matter explained to him. Problem is you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. There's another saying that doesn't perfectly apply in this situation but is definitely in the same vein: "Don't bother trying to make a man understand something that his paycheck depends on not understanding".

1