SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the mary-is-merry-cause-she's-gonna-marry dept.
White House considering launching an antitrust probe on Google and Facebook:
The growing tension between U.S. President Donald Trump and large internet companies is not likely to peter out anytime soon. A draft executive order that could potentially target Google, Facebook, and other social media companies with an antitrust case is said to be in the early stages of work.
The draft order, obtained by Bloomberg, is meant to authorize federal regulators and law enforcers to investigate the business practices of the internet giants for potential antitrust violations. It is worth pointing out, however, that the draft is not official yet and has not been formed as part of the White House's policy-making process, according to Lindsey Walters, deputy White House press secretary.
Additionally, it has not been reviewed yet by any government agency. But once the draft is signed, specific government agencies are mandated within a month to provide recommendations for actions intended to uphold "competition among online platforms and address online platform bias." It doesn't specify the names of the companies, however.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:50AM (18 children)
Are you sure you meant "censorship"? In the traditional definition, censoring is done by government (or the church, if/when church and state are/were fist-in-glove).
Of course many companies with a web presence choose what to present to their users and attempt to bar/ban certain types of content (often in reaction to a vocal minority of users). However, the material is still out there for anyone that wants to look a little harder. This is something different than traditional censorship that is backed by governmental power.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by VLM on Tuesday September 25 2018, @12:00PM (4 children)
Modern leftism is fundamentally a self destructive religious death cult. No rationality, no scientific method, just blind support of whatever doesn't work long term for the survival of a civilization.
Can you tell the difference between the DNC and the leadership of the legacy media or academia? No, there is no separation. Its a federal election committee regulation problem rather than a simplistic censorship issue.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @12:25PM
> Can you tell the difference between the DNC and the leadership of the legacy media or academia?
Fly off the handle much?
The topic is "...authorize federal regulators and law enforcers to investigate the business practices of the internet giants for potential antitrust violations."
Time to quit talking about censorship and start looking for some historical perspective, for example, was the USA well served by breaking up the Bell Telephone monopoly? Or before that, by breaking up Standard Oil, etc. On balance, I think the answer is yes. The Alphabet share holders might suffer a bit, but if the company was split apart, I think the rest of us would be much happier with Google for ad supported search (only), Gmail as an independent ad supported email service, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @05:30PM
Says the Very Leftist Man.
Sheeeit boy, you done it now! Blackhawks are probably on their way to git you right now.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday September 25 2018, @08:45PM (1 child)
I think you are defining the right here. Leftism as you appear to see it might be against the long term survival of a particular culture, but it is the right and their institutions, be they religious, economic, clinging to a patriarchal society, etc., that is the anchor holding back the advance of civilization.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 26 2018, @01:09PM
Towards what? All I see is planned methodical extinction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @12:17PM
Progressive censorship backed by monopoly power backed by governmental power.
Different all right, but not in a way that matters.
Now, if government decides to withhold its support from the censor-monopolies, that could do some difference.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by noneof_theabove on Tuesday September 25 2018, @12:51PM (7 children)
So, just how did Micro$haft survive.
They should have been split, and we now have the largest monopoly in the history of the planet.
And to me, anti-trust, failed as M$ biggest customer is "government".
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday September 25 2018, @04:56PM
More money spent on lobbyists?
Yeah, they should have been knee-capped.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 25 2018, @05:32PM (2 children)
So, just how did Micro$haft survive.
After they were convicted, GW Bush and the rest of the Republicans gave them a free pass, that's how. "Law and Order" is only for the peons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:12PM (1 child)
Most democrats don't seem that interested in doing anything either. They seem more interested in intentionally failing to implement policies that the American people overwhelmingly support and then blaming Republican obstructionism for the failure, even when the democrats have a supermajority. Hence, no single payer system or even a public option. Thanks, Obama!
That's why we have movements like the Justice Democrats, which seek to replace the corporate democrats with actual progressives who will serve The People.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:14PM
I forgot to mention that Republicans are worse. If I don't say that, some partisan hack will come along and say, "But Republicans are worse! False equivalency!" Even though I didn't argue that they're the same. The tribalism gets old.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday September 26 2018, @01:23AM (2 children)
A big part of that is because the judge for the MS monopoly case talked to the media too much, both during and after the trial. When it went up for appeal, he got blasted for it and the appeal court basically overturned the original ruling as a fuck-you to him for using the high-profile case to get attention and stroke his own ego. As a result, MS got a metaphorical wrist slap instead of being split up Ma Bell-style, like it should have been.
You can find info on it pretty easily, but for a start: Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org] and another source. [barrons.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @02:04PM (1 child)
You have left out the the more likely culprit, which was regime change. The case was opened under Clinton and dismissed under Bush. If it wasn't a backroom campaign promise, I'd be surprised.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:15PM
I left it out intentionally, because someone already mentioned it and, however likely or not anyone thinks it may be, it's still just speculation. Regardless of the underlying reason, his blabbermouth tendencies were openly admitted to be a factor in the decision to overrule the initial judgment. It's well-documented fact and I attempted to present it as such.
Personally, from what I've read of the matter, it seems just as likely that he was being used to send a message, in the same way whistleblower cops get treated by corrupt departments. Fall in line or get fucked: the "snitches get stitches" style of peer pressure. He stepped out of line and it was clear that his colleagues were displeased about it. I think their reaction to him was justified; he was (rightly, IMO) biased and opinionated about the case, but he was also a bit too eager to tell anybody that would listen about it even before the trial ended, which was a bad precedent to set for other judges in the future. It's unfortunate that they used that specific trial to send the message, though, because undoing the judgment and giving MS a wrist slap instead of breaking it up was a bad choice for the health of both the company itself* and IT industry.
* It's well known that Microsoft has had problems with its internal structure over the years. Petty lords over their fiefdoms, in turn managed by executives that decide how and when divisions' products should work together or not. A symptom of this is when pet projects ending up in products they should never be in. This is the kind of thing that shows they would have been better off as multiple companies with the freedom to do what they needed instead of having to work toward upper management's visions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:01PM
https://www.turboimagehost.com/p/39363308/isd_partnerships.jpg.html [turboimagehost.com]
> Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
> Dutch Ministry of the Interior
> European Commission
> Finnish Interior Minister
> German Federal Agency for Civic Engagement
> Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security
> Public Safety Canada
> Swedish Ministry of Justice
> UK Home Office
> US State Department
> China
> Qatar
But it's not the government, it's just Islamic state operatives who are funded by the government! [blogspot.com] So it's all right! Nothing to worry about! Stop complaining you Nazi, do you want a government-trained and government-funded fist in the face? We know where you live!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:19PM
Unfortunately, web companies, coming from the deregulation-fueled disruption tech boom that started in the 80s, have so much power ceded to them by US law that they are now de facto governments themselves. Apple has more cash on hand than most countries. As such, when they take it upon themselves to decide what sort of communication ought to be preferred over others, their stranglehold on the means of communication itself makes "censorship" an apt description.
Of course, the people around here that think Google and the like use this power to further leftist views are horribly naïve. They do what corporations have always done: favor their own profits above all else. They fight to deregulate their own industries, make their labor costs cheaper, make things hard for their competition, and maybe sometimes pick up some political points on popular issues that don't otherwise affect them.
In other words, the politics of these companies has more in common with Reagan than anybody else, but still cannot be reduced to left- or right-wing. And like all true power players, they give money to both sides to keep everybody friendly.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 25 2018, @05:35PM
Are you sure you meant "censorship"? In the traditional definition,
Yeah, he did. It's just that he wants Trump to be the censor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:06PM
The concept of corporate censorship [wikipedia.org] has existed for a good while. Remember that language evolves.