[Vermeulen]

How can you so confidently say C-18 has no relevance to this - then in the same comment say you don't know enough about the law to comment on it?

If you don't understand C-18 that's fine - but then you can't confidently say that it can't apply to Bard. Seems pretty clear based on how C-18 is written that it absolutely could.

You have the ability to doublethink here to the point of arguing is likely pointless - but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill 'bootlicker's.

[llm_nerd]

"How can you so confidently say C-18 has no relevance to this"

Even Google isn't claiming it is... It is pretty ironic that you repeatedly claim that a bill is directly responsible for it when Google, despite being in a very public fight about it, isn't even claiming this.

"but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill "

Clearly I did not. Ever. You are strawmanning in a way that is absolutely agains the spirit of HN and is grossly unproductive. Attacking me as thinking in "doublethink" (because you inject your own strawman interpretations) isn't productive.

Criticize the bill all you want! But if Google throws a tantrum about it because it threatens a revenue pipeline, doing the "See, this is what you get!" bit is being a bootlicker. Mega corps always have the eager sort ready to tow the line for them and do the dirty work for them.

[crazygringo]

You would seem to be the one against the spirit of HN here.

You're calling anyone who might disagree with Canada and agree with Google "bootlicker sorts" (I see no other way to interpret your original comment) and now you're doubling down about people "ready to tow the line for them" and "do the dirty work for them".

That's "grossly counterproductive". Please don't call names or insinuate that commenters are doing "dirty work" here.

You may want to re-read HN guidelines, especially the parts "Edit out swipes", "please reply to the argument instead of calling names", and "Assume good faith."

[Vermeulen]

By saying 'regulatory uncertainty', they are saying the uncertainty of C-18 applying to Bard. Very very clearly. It's a legal risk to them right now. And yet you, who also just said they don't know enough about C-18 to comment on it, knows for certain it wouldn't apply to Bard. Incredible