Re: Coffee money 4 years on
"Personal liability exists but is rarely enforced, and almost never against C-Level suits."
Yes, because people usually don't commit crimes.
"Example - if company x is publicly saying it's ads reach 1 billion users, even though they know a bunch of them are bots/inactive/etc, and really their reach is 500mil, that's just bluster. If it's saying the same in an investor earnings call, that's fraud."
That's an example of people usually not committing crimes, not of a failure to enforce laws or regulations.
"So, I can't say without access to any of Google's internal emails whether fraud applies in this case"
Well, you could. You could admit there is no reason to bring fraud into this. But you prefer to indulge your fantasies about conspiracies everywhere.
"I'm curious to know what would happen if a prosecutor got access to them."
That's what just happened. Again, you're imagining some stuff to shore up a warped conspiracy theory.
"breaking a company apart is not the same as closing it down"
Yes, it is. That's the whole point.
"breaking up a monopolist in a way to break their monopoly while allowing the individual companies to go on existing is a well-understood antitrust practice"
Yes, closing the company down and giving the business to other entities. It applies to breaking up similar businesses, a la Ma Bell. Not to diverse conglomerates doing lots of different stuff.
What you're talking about is shutting down Google, getting rid of Gmail, Google search services, and so on. Not splitting them into different ownership, just closing them down.
Obviously you have to go for dishonesty rather than admit that, because if you admitted what you're actually after, you'd be a laughing stock.