can you explain how someone being incorrect about something weakens their position? i assume the position in question is that their should be more trust busting. "there have been these antitrust actions" isn't actually a counter argument to "there should be more antitrust actions", so it doesn't weaken the position, unless i'm not understanding what you mean by that.
you know what my favorite fallacy is? the fallacy fallacy, the mistaken assumption that by showing an argument is invalid you've shown its conclusion is false.
There hasn't been so much as a finger lifted against antitrust behavior since 2000. They feel as though they're invincible at this point.
This is false and it weakens your position.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-g...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-prevails-l...
https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google...
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/19/eu-orders-apple-to-open-up-a...
…and there are many more.
You can say those aren’t enough, but it is 100% fallacious to say there has been zero antitrust actions against Apple and Google since 2000.
can you explain how someone being incorrect about something weakens their position? i assume the position in question is that their should be more trust busting. "there have been these antitrust actions" isn't actually a counter argument to "there should be more antitrust actions", so it doesn't weaken the position, unless i'm not understanding what you mean by that.
you know what my favorite fallacy is? the fallacy fallacy, the mistaken assumption that by showing an argument is invalid you've shown its conclusion is false.
3 replies →
Apple got a lot of flak for their shenanigans, but here's hoping the EU puts the hammer down on both of them.