In the legal realm, I actually like to read blogs, newsletters, podcasts of folks that are often on the other side of an issue or thing than I am. I find it useful to gain perspective/etc.
When i have no opinion, i try to find folks on "both" sides. Like say insurance lawyers and injury lawyers takes on a thing or whatever.

So I tried to read Matt on antitrust (though it turns out we share some of the same views), but once you get beyond the "forcefulness", everything only gets worse in my experience.

It's a lot of bloviation, and when you get into the details, he often will, charitably, take interesting interpretations of the actual opinions and views of courts and others, especially when they disagree with his view. Once I read enough to have a sense of continuity (IE how did claims/views/predictions turn out), I ended up giving up my subscription because i just couldn't read it anymore. There are those who are much better at representing what's going on as a whole in a thing, even when they have a point of view and share it. Even when it's a point of view i think is totally wrongheaded. It's not as passionate, for sure, but I find it more useful and enjoyable in the end, whether i agree or not.

In Matt's case, let's take this one: "Judge Mehta tossed these claims, saying that services like Yelp and Expedia aren’t general search engines and are therefore not in the same market as Google. It was a highly technical and annoying way to read certain legal questions, but bringing an antitrust case has become virtually impossible unless it’s done perfectly."

You'll note that Matt does what he often does here - when he can't explain why he's right, things become more abstract - there aren't any examples of how it was "highly technical" or "annoying" or what "certain legal questions" are. Not a single example anywhere to be found. No example or data that backs up that it is "virtually impossible" to bring antitrust cases unless they are "done perfectly".

Nope, just some abstract complaint and throwaway language about how, you know, whatever he said in the last newsletter about how this part was gonna be a slam dunk or whatever is really right, it's just, you know, "highly technical" things got in the way.

Which ones?

Oh, well, you wouldn't know them, they live in Canada, and only visit in the summer.

Let's look at what actually happened here: No, the judge did not throw the claims out because they aren't general search engines. He threw it out because he felt the plaintiffs were way short on the evidence, because they rely entirely on an expert who cites no evidence himself, only makes up theories. This sounds like an exaggerated opinion of what happened, but it's not :)

See page 46 of the opinion.

"The court agrees with Google’s second argument. Plaintiffs’ theory of anticompetitive harm rests on a multi-linked causal sequence that relies not on evidence but almost entirely on the opinion and speculation of its expert, Professor Jonathan Baker. Plaintiffs cite Professor Baker’s report for the following propositions:

< a page of propositions elided >

Remarkably, not one of Professor Baker’s opinions, on which these fact assertions are based, cites to any record evidence.

Indeed, a closer inspection of Professor Baker's reports shows he has largely theorized the anticompetitive effects in the relevant market of Google's conduct toward the SVP's

...

Plaintiffs are required to show with proof "that the monopolist's conduct indeed has the requisite anticompetitive effect", and they have fallen well short of that burden".

This isn't even the end.

It goes on, where the Judge points out this state at oral argument and the states confirm they have no evidence, etc.

It then explains why unsupported expert opinions aren't enough to get past summary judgement, etc.
It is a clear step by step refutation of the claims, unrelated to the market question.

It does then end with "Professor Baker's opinions do not rest on facts; only his ruminations about the market effects of Google's conduct" as one final jab.

To read all that, and believe that this is about, you know, some highly technical legal questions being read in an annoying way and that it's the judge requiring them to "do it perfectly" is, uh, an interesting take for sure.

It's one thing if Matt went into this and said "I think that random theorization should be enough, because facts are a lagging indicator" or "I think the court is wrong on the following legal standard", or whatever, but nope, this just gets painted as the nonsense we started with.

This is very common in his writing, and at least for me, made it not worth reading.