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.
(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.