Google hit by Federal anti trust lawsuit

[Knowledgeispower]

The title says it all folks, begun the comeuppance of big tech has

Here's a revelant article for the topic

U.S. Accuses Google of Illegally Protecting Monopoly (Published 2020)

A victory for the government could remake one of America’s most recognizable companies and the internet economy that it has helped define.

www.google.com

 

[Husky_Khan]

U.S. Accuses Google of Illegally Protecting Monopoly (Published 2020)

A victory for the government could remake one of America’s most recognizable companies and the internet economy that it has helped define.

www.google.com

I don't know if I trust that source of yours... Google.com?

Sorry just funny that you linked the google search for the New York Times story as the article so that it shows Google.com as the article source. Googleception right there.

But yes, let's see how this turns out! Here's a weeby article for the topic.

U.S. Department of Justice Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google

This morning, the United States Department of Justice has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google. DOJ deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen confirmed the news in a press conference held this…

nichegamer.com

 

[gral]

A friend of mine posted the suit on WhatsApp(all 64 pages of it). Not being a lawyer like he is, I won't be able to understand too much of it, but a quick scan of it tells me that, while the language for the claims would seem to be quite mild for a non-lawyer;

- 'Enter structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm'; and

- 'Enjoin Google from continuing to engage in the anticompetitive practices described herein and from engaging in any other practices with the same purpose and effect as the challenged practices'

, as stated in the section pertinent to what the plantiffs request from the Court, does not bide well for Google.

 

[Cherico]

A friend of mine posted the suit on WhatsApp(all 64 pages of it). Not being a lawyer like he is, I won't be able to understand too much of it, but a quick scan of it tells me that, while the language for the claims would seem to be quite mild for a non-lawyer;

- 'Enter structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm'; and

- 'Enjoin Google from continuing to engage in the anticompetitive practices described herein and from engaging in any other practices with the same purpose and effect as the challenged practices'

, as stated in the section pertinent to what the plantiffs request from the Court, does not bide well for Google.

Google is at this point more or less completely fucked.

Operation dragonfly alone is enough for the feds to completely dismantle them, everything else is cherry on top.

 

[Typhonis]

Is it Operation Dragonfly or Project Dragonfly?

 

[Cherico]

Is it Operation Dragonfly or Project Dragonfly?

I use the terms interchangeably.

 

[bullethead]

Here's a real bad take on the whole thing:

Beware the Regulatory Crackdown on Big Tech | National Review

Legislators ought to incentivize entrepreneurs to innovate, and stay out of the way.

www.nationalreview.com

As a practical matter, content moderation at scale is impossible to do perfectly. With half the world screaming at Twitter and Facebook to take down “dangerous” content instantaneously and the other half indignant about being “censored,” there’s little room for these platforms to make informed and consistent decisions in real time. Furthermore, there could never be such thing as an absolutely objective arbiter of bias or accuracy to write and enforce the rules. (And even if there were, he or she sure as heck wouldn’t be a politician.) There is no way to avoid some amount of bias or inaccuracy if content moderation is going to occur. If content moderation is going to be prohibited, Facebook will be “Pornbook” within 24 hours.

So what to do instead?

Back to Justice Brandeis’s point about more speech: The solution to content-moderation bias on platforms isn’t pretending it can be prevented, but instead to let competition do what it does. There will come a point when bias in moderation will drive subscribers to other platforms, and, for that matter, encourage entrepreneurs to establish platforms where that bias doesn’t exist.

A) The authors clearly didn't read the text of Section 230, because even Ajit Pai's rumored regulations are about forcing everyone to be transparent in their moderation policies, and the entire thing was designed around getting smut off of most websites to begin with and B) these people clearly did not witness the growth of Big Tech first hand, because if they did, they'd know that there've been tons of competitors to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc..., but most of them have either died or been marginalized into being alternatives you only use because you're either banned off of those platforms, or in danger of getting banned.

Oh, and C) it takes a fuckton of money and specially trained personnel to get these things off the ground, so there's a super high barrier to entry that prevents newcomers from getting into the field, even before we add possible regulatory hurdles.

(If someone has a National Review account and wants to post this in their comments, feel free to do so.)

 

[Marduk]

Here's a real bad take on the whole thing:

Beware the Regulatory Crackdown on Big Tech | National Review

Legislators ought to incentivize entrepreneurs to innovate, and stay out of the way.

www.nationalreview.com

A) The authors clearly didn't read the text of Section 230, because even Ajit Pai's rumored regulations are about forcing everyone to be transparent in their moderation policies, and the entire thing was designed around getting smut off of most websites to begin with and B) these people clearly did not witness the growth of Big Tech first hand, because if they did, they'd know that there've been tons of competitors to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc..., but most of them have either died or been marginalized into being alternatives you only use because you're either banned off of those platforms, or in danger of getting banned.

Oh, and C) it takes a fuckton of money and specially trained personnel to get these things off the ground, so there's a super high barrier to entry that prevents newcomers from getting into the field, even before we add possible regulatory hurdles.

(If someone has a National Review account and wants to post this in their comments, feel free to do so.)

Its a terrible take because it takes a wide detour around the real issue.
No one cares about Facebook not wanting to be a R18 site. There is more than enough smut dedicated sites, and a number of smut tolerant ones on the internet, and its not about to change.
Social media can also be perfectly free private businesses who can do what they want with their private property without Section 230 protections, so no sense in throwing that point in.

The real issue at hand is censorship based on political controversies, and not just in stupid social media (though regarding the political effect of favoritism on such populous platforms is another matter), but also important support services that are required for any, and especially small alternatives to be competitive (the big boys like Facebook or Google could easily afford to make their own if they ever needed to, if they don't have their own already), like hosting, DDoS protection, payment processors. Which is exactly what the pro-censorship lobbyists target when anyone takes their advice and sets up competing platforms.

But lets not waste more time on dissecting this nonsensical choice of opinion on NR's part.
As the saying goes, if no one knows what something is all about, it probably is about money. It checks out in this case.

Sundar Pichai Confirms Google Gave Money to National Review Institute - Breitbart

Google CEO Sundar Pichai confirmed that the tech giant gave funds to the National Review Institute, the policy arm of establishment conservative magazine National Review — but there is a discrepancy in Pichai's explanation of why the donation is not listed in the company's annual transparency...

www.breitbart.com

 

[Es Arcanum]

If Section 230 is repealed then will it even affect these companies adversely?

I think people are acting on the belief that without the ability to monitor all the posts that the websites would collapse under lawsuits. But Google for one and I'm sure Facebook and Twitter are all working on perfecting AI algorithms to help them do just that.

If the companies were just interested in money then there wouldn't be a problem. Its the fucking social justice warrior aspect thats the problem and thats a result of the people in charge of it. They're already billionaires and want to 'change the world', one less Conservative at a time.

Section 230 should be kept for certain companies which meet certain criteria so as to encourage competition to start up and rival these other companies.

 

[Marduk]

If Section 230 is repealed then will it even affect these companies adversely?

I think people are acting on the belief that without the ability to monitor all the posts that the websites would collapse under lawsuits. But Google for one and I'm sure Facebook and Twitter are all working on perfecting AI algorithms to help them do just that.

They certainly are. But will they get the job done in time?

If the companies were just interested in money then there wouldn't be a problem. Its the fucking social justice warrior aspect thats the problem and thats a result of the people in charge of it. They're already billionaires and want to 'change the world', one less Conservative at a time.

The SJW aspect has 2 sides, not just censoring the right, they also give leeway, protection if not outright support to their own.
Imagine the sheer whining, screaming and outrage if they are legally mandated to give the same scrutiny to their own side too.

Section 230 should be kept for certain companies which meet certain criteria so as to encourage competition to start up and rival these other companies.

That would be ideal, but if we can't have the ideal...

 

[Husky_Khan]

!!!LOBBYING INTENSIFIES!!!

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/21/google-ramps-up-lobbying-facebook-outspends-peers-in-third-quarter.html

 

[Cherico]

!!!LOBBYING INTENSIFIES!!!

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/21/google-ramps-up-lobbying-facebook-outspends-peers-in-third-quarter.html

it wont work.

Google has gone from too dangerous to fuck with into too dangerous to let live they have managed to piss off pretty much every political fraction and even the left sees them as some one they have to break for their own safety.

 

[Bacle]

I expect this is happening now, partly due to the Project Veritas vids that have come out over the last few days.

This is the third installment:

 

[bullethead]

This guy (not Barr, Tim Pool's guest) has a pretty interesting idea on how to bring Google back down to size:


Separate the data aggregation part of the company, then anonymize the data and make it available to all their competitors. Another good idea he has is demanding transparency on what all the algorithms are being trained on, to see what kind of biases might be present.

 

[LordsFire]

If Section 230 is repealed then will it even affect these companies adversely?

I think people are acting on the belief that without the ability to monitor all the posts that the websites would collapse under lawsuits. But Google for one and I'm sure Facebook and Twitter are all working on perfecting AI algorithms to help them do just that.

If the companies were just interested in money then there wouldn't be a problem. Its the fucking social justice warrior aspect thats the problem and thats a result of the people in charge of it. They're already billionaires and want to 'change the world', one less Conservative at a time.

Section 230 should be kept for certain companies which meet certain criteria so as to encourage competition to start up and rival these other companies.

Algorithms will either catch so much that the site is ruined, or never catch enough to protect them from getting buried in lawsuits.

Did you see the jokes on Tumblr after that site banned porn, about how the pron-banning bot kept banning things like pictures of sand?

Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, all have hundreds of thousands to millions of new instances of content posted every day. You cannot create an algorithm up to the task of sifting through all of that sufficiently quickly and effectively, and certainly cannot do such a thing fast enough to matter.

The fact that they have billions of dollars, means that even without ideological enemies being part of the issue, opportunists looking for multi-million dollar settlements will tear them to shreds.

Losing platform protection is an inescapable lose condition for the social media giants, pretty much without exception.

 

[Cherico]

Algorithms will either catch so much that the site is ruined, or never catch enough to protect them from getting buried in lawsuits.

Did you see the jokes on Tumblr after that site banned porn, about how the pron-banning bot kept banning things like pictures of sand?

Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, all have hundreds of thousands to millions of new instances of content posted every day. You cannot create an algorithm up to the task of sifting through all of that sufficiently quickly and effectively, and certainly cannot do such a thing fast enough to matter.

The fact that they have billions of dollars, means that even without ideological enemies being part of the issue, opportunists looking for multi-million dollar settlements will tear them to shreds.

Losing platform protection is an inescapable lose condition for the social media giants, pretty much without exception.

loosely translated

bite the pillow

 

[Husky_Khan]

Consumer Action News

Consumer Action: Consumer education and advocacy since 1971

www.consumer-action.org

10 States Attorney Generals Accuse Google of Abusing the Online Ad Monopoly they possess.