Google faces Antitrust suit filed by new social media company Gab.ai.
The legal action is the latest salvo in an escalating battle between right-leaning technologists and leaders against Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook and Google.
Gab alleges in the lawsuit that "Google deprives competitors, on a discriminatory basis, of access to the App Store, which an essential facility or resource."
"Google is the biggest threat to the free flow of information," Gab chief executive Andrew Torba said in a statement. "Gab started to fight against the big tech companies in the marketplace, and their monopolistic conduct has forced us to bring the fight to the courtroom."
Gab has published its court filing.
Related Stories
[...] might have been surprised when headlines began appearing last year suggesting that Google and its fellow tech giants were threatening everything from our economy to democracy itself. Lawmakers have accused Google of creating an automated advertising system so vast and subtle that hardly anyone noticed when Russian saboteurs co-opted it in the last election. Critics say Facebook exploits our addictive impulses and silos us in ideological echo chambers. Amazon's reach is blamed for spurring a retail meltdown; Apple's economic impact is so profound it can cause market-wide gyrations. These controversies point to the growing anxiety that a small number of technology companies are now such powerful entities that they can destroy entire industries or social norms with just a few lines of computer code. Those four companies, plus Microsoft, make up America's largest sources of aggregated news, advertising, online shopping, digital entertainment and the tools of business and communication. They're also among the world's most valuable firms, with combined annual revenues of more than half a trillion dollars.
In a rare display of bipartisanship, lawmakers from both political parties have started questioning how these tech giants grew so powerful so fast. Regulators in Missouri, Utah, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere have called for greater scrutiny of Google and others, citing antitrust concerns; some critics have suggested that our courts and legislatures need to go after tech firms in the same way the trustbusters broke up oil and railroad monopolies a century ago. But others say that Google and its cohort are guilty only of delighting customers. If these tech leviathans ever fail to satisfy us, their defenders argue, capitalism will punish them the same way it once brought down Yahoo, AOL and MySpace.
[...] There's a loose coalition of economists and legal theorists who call themselves the New Brandeis Movement (critics call them "antitrust hipsters"), who believe that today's tech giants pose threats as significant as Standard Oil a century ago. "All of the money spent online is going to just a few companies now," says [Gary Reback] (who disdains the New Brandeis label). "They don't need dynamite or Pinkertons to club their competitors anymore. They just need algorithms and data."
Related: Microsoft Relishes its Role as Accuser in Antitrust Suit Against Google
Google Faces Record 3 Billion Euro EU Antitrust Fine: Telegraph
Antitrust Suit Filed Against Google by Gab.Ai
India Fines Google $21.17 Million for Abusing Dominant Position
Google's Crackdown on "Annoying" and "Disruptive" Ads Begins
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:37AM (7 children)
What about this? [theverge.com]
I haven't used gab so I don't know about it, however, I think it's pretty weird how all these takedowns happen all at once, kinda like how everybody who backed Antifa literally turned against them overnight, as if all decisions were made by one entity (the Jews, as a possible example*) as a decree.
I read the dailystormer post about the dead protestor which was supposedly the cause of controversy. It was written in the usual humorous racist style associated with Tom Shelly, with puns and bad jokes, but I wouldn't call it "hateful" and definitely not as bad as some of the daily drivel you see on sites such as niggermania and chimpmania (referring to a Negro as "it" is when my stomach starts to turn).
* A probable example
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday September 16 2017, @02:59AM
Antifa is being stripped of its police protection and forced to obey laws against rioting in masks for one reason only. The focus groups and polling show it is a loser. Even against Nazis the best they can get is a "pox on both of them" tie. When they are trying to burn down Berkley to get at Shaprio, Milo, etc. it ain't even close, there are STDs more popular than Antifa. Congress is more popular than Antifa.
Always go with the simple explanation, no need to resort to "Da Jews!" for every sparrow who falls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @03:49AM (5 children)
From your linked article [theverge.com]:
What a wonderful idea. Let these sub-human scum have their racist, libertarian fantasy world playground all to themselves. And good riddance to bad garbage!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @04:12AM (3 children)
Actual I'm finding companies like Google lately not only to be sexist, but specifically cissexist [wikipedia.org].
Careful now. I've formatted the link so I'll know which knee jerk responses to this comment didn't click it and don't know what that term means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @09:04AM
Pictures (or in this case, search results) validating your claim or it didn't happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:10PM (1 child)
You formatted shit, you dipstick. "copy link address" gives me this - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cissexist [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @03:03PM
How does it feel being a sucker? Couldn't afford the ticket price for the plane that just wooshed overhead?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:34AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:45AM (6 children)
Google executive Eric Schmidt worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Having the power of Google to influence people is a temptation that he can't resist.
At least a half dozen conservative web sites have an unusually low portion of their search referrals coming from Google. In other words, Google blacklists conservative web sites. When you search with Google, you are being denied to most relevant results in order to push an agenda. Sometimes those sites have what you seek, but it is hidden from you.
Eh, switch to duckduckgo maybe? Keep an eye on them too though.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:49AM (4 children)
Duckduckgo sucks big, fat donkey balls for relevancy of results. I'll stick with Yandex. The Russians don't give a shit what I search for since they can do fuck all about it even if they did. And they give pretty fair quality results.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 16 2017, @02:35AM (3 children)
Alright, so where do you find their search plugin for English? There are plugins and addons for Yandex all over the place, but I invariably get taken to the Russian version of their page. Which seems odd - the English version is a separate site?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 16 2017, @02:46AM (2 children)
Never mind - I'm using Palemoon, click the search tab, in the dropdown, select "find more search engines" which takes you to Palemoon site. Select Yandex, "add to search selections", or words to that effect. I now have a working Yandex search in English.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @07:37AM (1 child)
Thanks for making Russia stronger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:11PM
And, thank YOU for being a douche!! Everyone needs a good douche now and then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @11:52PM
Google has been censoring left-wing websites too.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/04/goog-a04.html [wsws.org]
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/goog-j27.html [wsws.org]
The one pattern that fits has nothing to do with left or right as they are commonly known: the censorship is always in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. The sites that are being censored don't like Hamas, don't like ISIS, or just don't like censorship. The sites that aren't being censored are the ones promoting Linda Sarsour and CAIR, and their people can get away with doing or saying anything no matter how many people are offended.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:46AM (6 children)
I used it for a bit but I'm not agreeing to an EULA to use a website. A website can put whatever they want in their ToS and give me the boot if they like but I'm not going to be contractually bound to a damned thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday September 16 2017, @02:54AM (5 children)
Pretty much every site has a EULA now. Not one here but it is the exception. Anyway, read it before flaming; it is pretty reasonable as EULAs go. And since the banning wars are only starting it is probably a good idea to have a backup account somewhere that is making NOT banning people a cornerstone of the operation.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 16 2017, @03:49AM (4 children)
Their EULA, at the time of introduction, would have had them able to sue us as a site and me in particular for using a script to post SN stories instead of doing it manually. It may look reasonable at first glance but it's a piece of shit and I'm not accepting a contract to use a site. Ever.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday September 16 2017, @04:54AM (1 child)
Their early EULA was probably just copypasta. Still has some oddities in it but it gets better, you aren't the only one who has raised issues with em and they have iterated it in response to feedback which is a positive sign. Don't see anything in the current version that would prevent automated posting of new story headlines into a soylent account. Spamming OTHER accounts with a script would probably be problematic and get ya banned. Don't see where they have a published API to make it easy either.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:11AM
Banned I could give two shits about. With an EULA they could sue us though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @12:00AM (1 child)
I'm not sure I follow. You wanted to quote gab.ai pages in story submissions to SoylentNews?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 17 2017, @12:51AM
No, I was considering the possibility of setting up a SN account on Gab.ai and syndicating our headlines and links there like we do on Twitter and Facebook. I haven't returned since they put up the EULA though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @02:18AM (1 child)
So basically the problem is that the provider/operator of the service is also the moderator of the users of that service.
It's understandable for people to expect there to be separation between these two activities.
After all, if such separation is good in government, between those who make the laws and those who enforce them, then it's understandable for people to expect such separation in the private sector as well.
It's reasonable to expect such standards to apply at a site like Slashdot, or even at this site.
There has been some speculation in the past that Slashdot's admin/editors also moderate comments there, and might not be constrained by the limits imposed on normal moderators.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happens here, too.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 16 2017, @03:59AM
Yeah, it'd be possible except none of us agree on anything except the site. And coffee. You've got everything from unarmed, socialist Europeans to me on staff. It's a fun old time when Deucalion/Juggs and I both happen to be drinking at the same time and decide to talk politics on IRC.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:10AM
I'm just enjoying the irony of a far-right organization running to the Big Government to intervene in the free market when they aren't getting their way.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Saturday September 16 2017, @07:42AM (5 children)
Gab saw a market opportunity, and came into existence, because Twitter was (is) censoring posts that don't fit the progressive narrative. Gab wanted to position themselves as a "we will never censor" platform. That's a laudable objective, but there are problems.
The first problem they have is that they are based in the USA (specifically Austin, which is a metastasis of California). The tech industry in the USA is dominated by Google, Facebook, Twitter & co - all of which are dedicated to the progressive agenda. Disagreeing with the narrative is obviously evil. Gab's industry is against them, and their concept, and that's the real reason that Google nuked their app.
The second problem they have is that they are based in the USA, which is a Western country that has laws about things like defamation. Gab apparently thought that they could run with absolutely no censorship, even when the posts cross this legal line. They've even pissed off Vox Day (a well-known alt-right figure), who ought to be one of their biggest fans [blogspot.ch]. They either never thought about these issues, or they got lousy legal advice, despite this being a core issue to their mission.
The third problem is that the Gab founders are just generally naive. They did a round of public investment on StartEngine [startengine.com]. The investment document (at the bottom) is a laugh: The (unaudited) figures show total assets of $16k and gross income of $59k. Based on this, they claim a valuation of $9.90 million, because "this reflects the opinion of the Company". Seriously?
The world does need a social media platform that is politically neutral. Twitter once had that potential, but has clearly failed to fulfill that role. Gab's initial statements said all the right things, but - geez - are they being dumb.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @09:50AM (3 children)
Is that why they basically elected Trump as president?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Unixnut on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:24AM
I thought Trump was elected despite them, which is why when the entire media and "intellectual class" had already decided the election a foregone conclusion, even referring to Clinton as "madam president" way ahead of the results, until they got completely slapped in the face by the voters?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @12:50PM (1 child)
Just how far to the left are you if you think they supported President Trump?!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @04:25PM
Enough left I first look at the evidence before I draw conclusions, e.g.
https://soylentnews.org/politics/article.pl?sid=17/09/09/0044209 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by n1 on Saturday September 16 2017, @04:58PM
They are far from politically neutral when the majority of their activity appears to be using their official Twitter to post memes in support of the Donald Trump white house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:59PM
I think many don't realize how potentially revolutionary this lawsuit could be.
I don't think it would particularly controversial to say that companies like Google and Twitter are engaged in discrimination based on political views. However, in some states where political views are a protected class - such action would already be illegal. Fundamentally that is the same as the gay cake case where it was unlawful to refuse to create a cake based on the sexuality of the individuals ordering it. But even if it were legal, Google obviously do not want to actually state what they're doing. Google is going to have an incredibly difficult time showing that they're not discriminating based on political beliefs since for every possible explanation they offer, the plaintiffs will be able to show countless apps on their store offering similar content for years - without any issue.
This should be interesting. I'm hoping it's not silently settled out of court, but I expect there's about a 99% probability that's precisely what will happen.