Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:31AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @02:04PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @02:04PM (#740183)

    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

    by Marand (1081) on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:15PM (#740397) Journal

    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.