Google sued under Anti-Trust Laws

Off Topic
#21

Not quite…they have certain liability protections granted by (act of) congress (the fabled “Section 230” of the Communications Decency Act), in return for which they are supposed to be generally content-neutral.

One of the things that astounds me the most is the fact there are so few Twitter-like or Facebook-like alternatives. I know there are one or two…sort of…but if all the conservative types caterwauling about not being treated fairly on these platforms actually got up and did something about it, maybe things would be different for them. What’s-his-name-gay-conservative-tech-guru-billionaire-guy from the GOP convention certainly has enough money and knowledge and experience and influence to move something forward, right?

Of course this would just drive even more echo-chamberism and tribalism and partisanship, but still…why haven’t there been any meaningful free market competitive responses?

#22

The filter bubble is a very real thing, however it’s more likely to be a result of self operant conditioning given the Goog’s interest in maximizing their take from ad revenues which is something like 90% of their revenue.

1 Like
#23

I found this article interesting on how google is preferencing its own content over other peoples content and in come cases “stealing content” to keep your eyes on their webpages and ads. I pdfed it because I thought it might be behind a paywall.

Google’s search results have gotten worse - The Washington Post.pdf (1.2 MB)

#24

Content that’s funneled syndicated through AMP oftentimes does that. I loathe those pages and make an effort to go to the original site.

1 Like
#25

If I had to guess, it would be that while there are lots of people who want other people’s platforms to support free speech, there are way fewer people with the resources to do it and the desire to be the ones to let everyone have a say.

1 Like
#26

Peter Thiel that gay GOP guy has already harvested all your personal information with Palantir for the CIA. He does not need a social network to do it. Plus he is on the board of Facebook and made a sweet Billion selling his interest in Facebook that he bought for $500,000.

They did develop social media networks for conservatives they are Parler, Gab, and TheDonald. I think they will have problems getting mainstream advertising and who wants to be on a network that only half the people you know are on. I mean isn’t the only fun left in Facebook getting angry at the stupid political crap your friends, coworkers, and family post.

2 Likes
#27

Well…GOOG/GOOGL is up about 6.7% - 7% over the last few days of trading since Tuesday’s low that hit when news of the anti-trust lawsuit came out. The NASDAQ was flat over this period at ~0% change. Apparently investors and “the market” currently don’t see this legal action as any huge threat or whatever, assuming it wasn’t already priced in somehow via insider trading-type activity.

So @ESmith may have the right of it, at least for now.

#28

Caught a story on the radio the other day indicating that the statute being used to prosecute them had a cap of $100M damages. Same story also indicated that this was most likely the opening salvo in a series of cases that DoJ and numerous state AG’s were likely to bring.

Thus, for now the markets know the likely damage from the known suit isn’t going to change the company’s financials by much so party like it’s 1999.

#29

Or likely the market sees a breakup as unlikely, but a way to realize more value in the component parts should it occur.

#30

That’s actually fairly perceptive analysis, and, while counter-intuitive (at least to me) could easily explain it, especially when coupled with erik’s point about the $100M damages cap, a.k.a. “walking around money” to a typical modern-day monopoly.

1 Like
#31

Not necessarily true. Creating a monopoly is perfectly legal provided you don’t unreasonably restrain trade/competition in doing so. Once you’ve got your monopoly, you can’t use that market power/position to “monopolize” trade, which essentially means using your market dominance as a club to beat up your competitors or consumers, rather than simply outcompeting others through better products and services.

In other words, size is not a problem. The problem is achieving that size by abusing the rules of fair play or using your size to play unfairly. The goal isn’t to keep companies poor and uninfluential.

Limiting political influence is not the point of antitrust law. You might be interested to know that exercising your free speech rights to lobby the government to regulate your business in ways that unfairly advantage you is one of the court-created exceptions to antitrust law. (See the links below for a deeper dive.)

3 Likes
#32

Interesting…thanks.

#33

David, Google isn’t necessarily being sued because of monopolistic trade practices, that’s just the vehicle the Justice Department is using to pursue them.

Senator Hawley hints at this in his statement "“Today’s lawsuit is the most important antitrust case in a generation,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said in a statement after the filing. “Google and its fellow Big Tech monopolists exercise unprecedented power over the lives of ordinary Americans, controlling everything from the news we read to the security of our most personal information. And Google in particular has gathered and maintained that power through illegal means.”

Hawley is telling us they are pursuing Google for their Orwellian effect over Society. While there is no law I know of to prevent this behaviour, there is always a way to get to somebody through government.

2 Likes
#34

The correct question to ask is who benefits from slapping goggle with antitrust lawsuits. It’s always about who stands to benefit and how.

3 Likes
#35

The issue is that they supposedly offer subscribers a public platform but then they block or censor certain subscribers according to their political speech.

1 Like
#36

That’s not an issue; that’s a feature!

If we want a public platform for speech, the government ought to create its own competing platform at its own expense instead of sorta nationalizing Google/Facebook/Twitter.

1 Like
#37

Federated services are an option. Much like email is federated. People could select a provider (like their own host or a push button service) and then interact however they want and choose the level of filtering they want. The functionally could be based on open standards to provide interoperability.

Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, and other popular social networking sites could all be recreated in aggregate. I don’t think this will happen quickly but I do think it’ll happen eventually.

1 Like
#38

Well it becomes a ‘feature’ if they only censor speech you don’t like. If they censor your speech that’s not a feature. But sure, they can do whatever they want but if they become too powerful and essentially control political speech, that becomes a danger for democracy. Maybe that’s a feature too if one likes virtual one party rule.

#39

Meh… There are other search engines and other ad networks out there. Prove that Google tried to harm them…

#40

Read the lawsuit.

1 Like