Facebook, Google to Face New Antitrust Suits in US (wsj.com) 19
Big Tech's legal woes are expected to worsen in the coming weeks as federal and state antitrust authorities prepare to file new lawsuits against Facebook and Alphabet's Google, WSJ reported Monday, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: The authorities are readying as many as four more cases targeting Google or Facebook by the end of January, these people said, following the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against Google last month. Federal and state officials are probing whether the tech giants abused their power in the internet economy-- Google to dominate search and advertising, and Facebook to dominate social media. Google and Facebook have denied doing so, saying they operate in highly competitive markets and that their services, which are mostly free, benefit consumers. If Facebook were to be sued, it would mark the first government antitrust action against the social-media titan in the U.S. Facebook has come under particular criticism from Republicans and Democrats in Congress as well as President-elect Joe Biden over its content-moderation policies. Democrats generally contend the company has been too lax in policing misleading speech, while Republicans say Facebook has sometimes suppressed conservatives. Facebook has said it aims to support free speech while limiting hate speech and other harmful content.
no evidence (Score:1, Troll)
I've seen no reliable statistical evidence this is the case, only cherry-picked anecdotes. And even the anecdotes often smell of Hanlon's razor, such as sloppy explanations on why content is removed or marked.
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience, it's not so much FB moderating content, but more governments and organisations pretty much all over the world calling for stronger moderation, only countered by those who value freedom of speech higher than moderated propaganda.
Seems to be a loosing battle for the social media (not only FB) in the long run. Only time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be the case, but I'm specifically addressing the US conservative's claim that FB and Twitter censor or mark conservative content.
I do agree, though, that FB and Twitter are often stuck between a rock and a hard-place, as both sides of a viewpoint are going to eventually get ticked off by an actual or perceived mistake.
Re:no evidence[, no solution] (Score:2)
Well, a better branch than the troll FP (that was duly ignored, thankfully), but the evidence of censorship is mostly a can of worms as in bait to divert attention from the important problems. Any form of editorial control is "censorship" to someone.
Now if that isn't funny, I don't know what is!
See? I was right. I don't know what funny is.
I prefer to think about solutions these years, and to me the REAL problem that needs to be solved is the loss of freedom. The big problem is that dominant and dominating c
Re: no evidence[, no solution] (Score:2)
"Facebook is being granted the rights given to them under Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. In order to keep those rights they must be be considered and ACT AS a neutral platform and not that of publishers with editorial rights"
That is not how CDA Sec.230 works AT ALL. Stop talking that shit. There is no provision in the CDA for loss of rights under Sec.230, and you are either trolling, stupid, or most likely, both.
Re: no evidence[, no solution] (Score:2)
I assume the worst because if you were doing anything but parroting fox news bullshit you would know the truth. Or, you know, if you had read Section 230. Maybe you don't know where the line of shit you are repeating even came from, but in that case, why do you think you know what you are talking about?
Whoever told you what you repeated above is your enemy, because they are filling your head with lies you could easily find the truth about by plugging them into Google. And you are doing their dirty work.
Re: no evidence (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The working colloquial political definition and dictionary definition are not necessarily the same thing.
Indirect racism is often considered "conservative content". For example, exaggerating the terrorist risk of certain ethnic groups.
Re: no evidence (Score:2)
Conservative in this context means "trying to stop progress", not anything about conservation or outrage (except feigned and/or hypocritical.)
Facebook was a straight up antitrust failure (Score:4, Insightful)
Allowing them to buy Instagram and WhatsApp was a nearly criminal dereliction of duty by the Obama era DoJ. It was absolutely clear back then that either of these purchases would have allowed Facebook to leverage their existing dominance in one form of social media into two related types of communication products.
When people say incredulously, that Obama's people never did anything scandalous, you have to note that under Trump or Bush this acquisition would have been scandalous to many in this industry. The headlines about how the evil Republicans are allowing their boy Zuck to buy out all of the competition write themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
No it wasn't. The internet has changed too fast. Dominant players like Yahoo, AltaVista, Napster, and MySpace shrank into oblivion pretty fast by business standards. Who was to say Facebook wasn't yet another flash in the pan? Hindsight is wonderful, but doesn't fit inside a DeLorean.
That's not how antitrust law works (Score:2)
And that is a completely irrelevant objection because the acquisition of Instagram was intended to prevent that from happening. By buying out the company that many of their young users were flocking to, Facebook literally used its market power to take over the one competitor that immediately threatened to make it a flash in the pan.
That's not hindsight, that was obvious in 2012 when the acq
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic Instragram would then become the monopoly, making the problem Whack-A-Mole for the gov't.
I have to disagree. It was hard to predict who would come out ahead or what Grand Feature or angle consumers were looking for