This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Thank you for an incomplete article. I’m sure the good folks a goigle and faecebook had nothing to do with it.
How about we get a more complete and more balanced picture? Selahw (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The exact opposite problem, really.
It certainly is bizarre that the main topic—Google and Facebook's collusion—is treated as factual and nefarious if there's a court order specifically dismissing it. Either (a) the entire thing is less bad than currently portrayed (for some reason) or (b) the judge (for some reason) was completely wrong. Which is it, explained in detail with specific citations. (Obviously the court order should be a WP:RS for laying out the specific reasons for A. B seems more likely on the face of things, especially given how difficult the US has made bringing antitrust suits for decades, but would need to look for tightly reasoned and reliable accounts when anyone arguing about it is more likely to be a non-WP:RS crank with a blog.)
Given the Citizens United ruling and the ability of either of the defendants to devastatingly sue or throttle access to Wikipedia, this article actually needs a WP:BLP level of care. — LlywelynII 21:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
