BRKG U.S. States Launch Lawsuit to Break Up Facebook for Antitrust Violations

Sicario

The Executor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of U.S. states led by New York will file a lawsuit on Wednesday afternoon accusing Facebook Inc of violating antitrust law, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office has said she will make a major “business related” announcement on Wednesday afternoon. North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein’s office announced a press call about “a technology company.”

The lawsuit will be filed in federal court in Washington, one source said.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has been probing Facebook, as have state attorneys general. More than 40 are expected to join the lawsuit.

If the lawsuits are filed, Facebook would be the second major tech company sued this year. The Justice Department sued Alphabet Inc’s Google in October.

A spokesman for Facebook declined comment on Wednesday.

In congressional testimony this summer, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg defended much-criticized acquisitions like Instagram and WhatsApp, saying that his social media platform helped them expand from small, insignificant companies into powerhouses. He has also argued that Facebook has a range of competitors, including other tech giants.

Facebook settled a privacy probe with the FTC in 2019, paying $5 billion to resolve allegations that it violated a 2012 consent decree by inappropriately sharing user information with the now-defunct Cambridge Analytica, whose clients included President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

LINK - U.S. states to sue Facebook for antitrust violations on Wednesday, sources say
 
Last edited:

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/ftc-and-several-states-launch-antitrust-lawsuits-against-facebook.html

FTC and states sue Facebook, could force Facebook to divest Instagram and WhatsApp
Lauren Feiner
7-8 minutes

The Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of attorneys general from 48 states and territories filed two separate antitrust lawsuits against Facebook on Wednesday. The lawsuits target two of Facebook’s major acquisitions: Instagram and WhatsApp.

Both are seeking remedies for the alleged anticompetitive conduct that could result in requiring Facebook to divest the two apps.

The company’s stock was down almost 4% following the news of the lawsuits.

Facebook said in a tweet shortly after the lawsuits were released, that it was reviewing the complaints and “will have more to say soon. Years after the FTC cleared our acquisitions, the government now wants a do-over with no regard for the impact that precedent would have on the broader business community or the people who choose our products every day.”

FTC lawsuit

The FTC alleges that Facebook engaged in a systematic strategy to eliminate threats to its monopoly, including the 2012 and 2014 acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. It alleges Facebook holds monopoly power in the U.S. personal social networking market.

The FTC alleges that Facebook engaged in a systematic strategy to eliminate threats to its monopoly, including the 2012 and 2014 acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, which the FTC previously cleared. Facebook acquired Instagram for $1 billion and WhatsApp for $19 billion.

As part of the lawsuit, the FTC will seek a permanent injunction that could result in the divestitures of Instagram and WhatsApp, the agency said. Additionally, the FTC will seek to prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions against third-party software developers.

“Since toppling early rival Myspace and achieving monopoly power, Facebook has turned to playing defense through anticompetitive means,” the FTC states in its lawsuit. “After identifying two significant competitive threats to its dominant position — Instagram and WhatsApp — Facebook moved to squelch those threats by buying the companies, reflecting CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s view, expressed in a 2008 email, that ‘it is better to buy than compete.’”

The FTC lawsuits also notes that Facebook tried and failed to buy up rivals Twitter and Snapchat.

“In lamenting that Twitter had ‘turned down [Facebook’s] offer’ to be acquired in November 2008, Mr. Zuckerberg wrote: ‘I was looking forward to the extra time that would have given us to get our product in order without having to worry about a competitor growing,’” the FTC lawsuit states.

A partially redacted portion of the FTC lawsuit states that Facebook’s main blue app has lost users and engagement to Instagram.

“Through its control of Instagram, Facebook has attempted to prevent Instagram from ‘cannibalizing’ Facebook Blue, confirming that an independent Instagram would constitute a significant threat to Facebook’s personal social networking monopoly,” the lawsuit reads.

“Facebook has kept WhatsApp cabined to providing mobile messaging services rather than allowing WhatsApp to become a competing personal social networking provider, and has limited promotion of WhatsApp in the United States,” the FTC states in another partially redacted portion of the lawsuit.

The FTC opted to file its case in federal court rather than before its in-house administrative law judge. In the complaint, the FTC explained that this decision was due to the fact that “it has reason to believe that Defendant Facebook is violating or is about to violate a provision of law enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, and this is a proper case for permanent injunctive relief” within a portion of the FTC Act.

The commissioners voted to file the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a 3-2 vote. Republican Commissioners Noah Phillips and Christine Wilson dissented while Republican Chairman Joe Simons joined his two Democratic colleagues Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in the majority.

States complaint

While the states and FTC cooperated during the course of their investigation, the coalition of states led by New York Attorney General Letitia James chose to file a separate lawsuit.

James said at a press conference Wednesday that while the states are “aligned substantively with the FTC” there may be stylistic differences in the lawsuits. She made clear that the states are “independent enforcers of the law.”

The coalition of states suing Facebook is much broader than that which initially joined the Department of Justice in its suit against Google. Eleven Republican state attorneys general joined the DOJ in its suit. Other states are continuing to investigate Google and could file their own charges and potentially join them with the DOJ’s complaint.

The states suing Facebook include a wide swath of backgrounds, both Democratic and Republican, and include Facebook’s home state of California.

The states’ complaint also alleges Facebooks holds monopoly power in the U.S. personal social networking market, which it illegally maintains by “deploying a buy-or-bury strategy that thwarts competition and harms both users and advertisers.”

It suggests that Facebook was “driven, in part, by fear that the company has fallen behind in important new segments and that emerging firms were ‘building networks that were competitive with’ Facebook’s and could be ‘very disruptive to’ the company’s dominance.”

They claim Facebook kept Instagram and WhatsApp running as independent brands “to fill the void, so they would not be replaced by another app with the potential to erode Facebook’s dominance.”

The states allege Facebook used exclusionary tactics on top of its acquisition strategy to identify competitive threats in such a way that “has chilled innovation, deterred investment, and forestalled competition in the markets in which it operates, and it continues to do so.”

The complaint also describes how Facebook’s alleged monopoly power gives it “wide latitude” in creating the terms on which it can collect and use information from its users. The states allege Facebook can do as it pleases with users’ data to serve its own business interests because users’ have no alternatives to turn to even if they would prefer other data practices.

Facebook harms consumers, advertisers and competing firms through its practices, according to the complaint. Advertisers, for example, are allegedly harmed by being granted limited transparency into the value they receive from their ads as well as brand damage resulting from “offensive content on Facebook services.”

James said the state lawsuit sent a message that “any efforts to stifle competition, hurt small business, reduce innovation and creativity, cut privacy protections, will be met with the full force of our offices.”

This story is developing. Check back for updates.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: How US antitrust law works, and what it means for Big Tech
 

summerthyme

Administrator
_______________
Awwwww... poor babies! Yeah, they goofed big-time when they aporoved those mergers, but Farcebook, et al, hadn't shown their true Commie colors then. Now they have... and it's time for them to be broken up or controlled.

Summerthyme
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
Let's hope Google and Twitter are next.

Google and Twitter are more monopolies than FB. Google even has Google Voice now ... which sucks by the way ... but it is those two that have way too much power in social media. FB is for old farts and kids who like to screw around. College students lean more towards Instagram and Twitter than FB.
 

Bps1691

Veteran Member
Google and Twitter are more monopolies than FB. Google even has Google Voice now ... which sucks by the way ... but it is those two that have way too much power in social media. FB is for old farts and kids who like to screw around. College students lean more towards Instagram and Twitter than FB.

Google is in the top two of the most dangerous of all the tech octopuses.

Besides controlling the vast majority of search access, they have incorporated the google tools (tracking and big data gathering) that is used on a huge number of web sites.

For several years their algorithms have been used to point their search results to specific themes as targets. I have personal experiences where they quickly bury information that is harmful to the perception they are pushing within minutes of its appearance on the web. It becomes almost impossible to find unless you know the specific URL for the information.

They have their tech fingers into just about anything and everything.

IMHO they are one of the key component parts of the NWO and are working with the ultimate PTB to create their new great feudal system.

Amazon is also another huge player. It’s not just their online sales arm either. Their AWS arm controls a huge amount of cloud usage where companies and organizations have offloaded their physical infrastructure and capabilities to a sole source of failure (or control by third party). Add in the other Cloud Sources and you wouldn’t believe the number of core components that serve the business needs of the country that can be monitored (or turned off) in any takeover.

All in all, the huge data lakes and big data analytics that this unholy alliance of tech firms have built in cooperation with the PTB deep state is the core data source for the Beast system that is just around the corner. Tie that in with the Cell phones ability to track your every movement and report it without you knowing about it, the network of cameras (including ring doorbells), the connections into the banking systems for every non-cash transaction and you see the type and shadow of the beast.

It has every bit of the capabilities that the CCP uses to control their people today!

P*ss the State off in China and you can’t buy, sell, travel or receive medical care – and that’s live and running today!
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

FTC and 48 Attorneys General Sue to Break Up Facebook

By Jim Hoft
Published December 9, 2020 at 3:00pm
facebook-fired.jpg


The FTC and 48 Attorneys General filed two separate lawsuits against Facebook on Wednesday. The suit attempts to break up the tech giant into its component parts.

The lawsuit also accuses Facebook of illegally suppressing competition by purchasing rival companies that challenged its dominance.

1607559173357.png

So is Google next?

Gizmodo reported:
Dozens of attorney generals, as well as the Federal Trade Commission, filed two separate lawsuits against Facebook on Wednesday which attempt to break the social media giant into its component parts: specifically, the divestiture of WhatsApp and Instagram.
The lawsuits claim Facebook illegally suppressed competition by purchasing rival companies that challenged its dominance. This includes its purchase of Instagram for $1 billion in 2012, and its $19 billion acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014. Facebook’s aggressive acquisitions of competing companies, which helped bring the company’s total value to more than $800 billion, violates the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, the lawsuits claim.

“Facebook has used its monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition, all at the expense of everyday users,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the effort, said in a statement posted to Twitter. “Instead of improving its own product, Facebook took advantage of consumers and made billions of dollars converting their personal data into a cash cow.”

Deleware Attorney General Kathy Jennings echoed James, comparing Facebook to the railroad and telecom monopolies of the past.
“Whether it’s railroads, telecom, or social media, monopolies undermine our economy’s foundation of consumer choice,” Jennings said in a statement. “Facebook knowingly, openly, and illegally made digital hostages of its users and developers over a decade of unfair acquisitions and mistreatment of developers. We are suing not just to hold this company accountable for its conduct, but to release consumers from a monopoly and to allow Delawareans the choice and freedom they deserve.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Breaking: YouTube Announces New Censorship Rules – Will Take Down Videos Alleging Fraud and Disputing 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Results

By Kristinn Taylor
Published December 9, 2020 at 10:30am

YouTube announced Wednesday it will take down videos questioning the integrity of the U.S. presidential election that millions of Americans, most notably President Trump, believe was stolen through numerous fraudulent actions, lawfare chicanery and computer manipulation.

fraud-biden-election-fraud-600x376.jpg


YouTube says it already has been rigging search results and algorithms to hide “misleading” election videos, describing the censorship effort as, “Limiting the reach of borderline content and prominently surfacing authoritative information.” YouTube says that even though the “misleading” videos account for a miniscule part of viewership, “Problematic misinformation represents a fraction of 1% of what’s watched on YouTube in the U.S,” the firm says, “we know we can bring that number down even more.”

YouTube’s move to censor political speech comes as President Trump is threatening to veto the military appropriations bill over the failure of Congress to repeal the Section 230 law that protects Internet platforms like YouTube from being treated like publishers.

Excerpt from the announcement:

Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.

Complete announcement:

Supporting the 2020 U.S. election
Updates to our work supporting the integrity of the 2020 U.S. election.
Over the past weeks and months, we’ve seen people coming to YouTube to learn more about where and how to vote or learning more about a candidate or an issue. We’ve seen news organizations grow their audience. And we’ve seen people turn to YouTube for the latest election results or simply to follow an historic event with the highest voting turnout in over a century in the U.S.
Our main goal going into the election season was to make sure we’re connecting people with authoritative information, while also limiting the reach of misinformation and removing harmful content. The work here is ongoing and we wanted to provide an update.

Removing content that violates our policies
Our Community Guidelines prohibit spam, scams, or other manipulated media, coordinated influence operations, and any content that seeks to incite violence. Since September, we’ve terminated over 8000 channels and thousands of harmful and misleading elections-related videos for violating our existing policies. Over 77% of those removed videos were taken down before they had 100 views.

We also work to make sure that the line between what is removed and what is allowed is drawn in the right place. Our policies prohibit misleading viewers about where and how to vote. We also disallow content alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election. However in some cases, that has meant allowing controversial views on the outcome or process of counting votes of a current election as election officials have worked to finalize counts.

Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.

Connecting people to authoritative information
While only a small portion of watch time is election-related content, YouTube continues to be an important source of election news. On average 88% of the videos in top 10 search results related to elections came from authoritative news sources (amongst the rest are things like newsy late-night shows, creator videos and commentary). And the most viewed channels and videos are from news channels like NBC and CBS.

We also showed information panels linking both to Google’s election results feature, which sources election results from The Associated Press, and to the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) “Rumor Control” page for debunking election integrity misinformation, alongside these and over 200,000 other election-related videos. Collectively, these information panels have been shown over 4.5 billion times. Starting today, we will update this information panel, linking to the “2020 Electoral College Results” page from the Office of the Federal Register, noting that as of December 8, states have certified Presidential election results, with Joe Biden as the President-elect. It will also continue to include a link to CISA, explaining that states certify results after ensuring ballots are properly counted and correcting irregularities and errors.

Additionally, since Election Day, relevant fact check information panels, from third party fact checkers, were triggered over 200,000 times above relevant election-related search results, including for voter fraud narratives such as “Dominion voting machines” and “Michigan recount.”

Now let’s look at recommendations, one of the main ways our viewers find content. Limiting the reach of borderline content and prominently surfacing authoritative information are important ways we protect people from problematic content that doesn’t violate our Community Guidelines. Over 70% of recommendations on election-related topics came from authoritative news sources and the top recommended videos and channels for election-related content were primarily authoritative news. In fact, the top 10 authoritative news channels were recommended over 14X more than the top 10 non-authoritative channels on election-related content.

Despite these encouraging results, we recognize there’s always more to do. For example, while problematic misinformation represents a fraction of 1% of what’s watched on YouTube in the U.S., we know we can bring that number down even more. And some videos, while not recommended prominently on YouTube, continue to get high views, sometimes coming from other sites. We’re continuing to consider this and other new challenges as we make ongoing improvements.
We understand the need for intense scrutiny on our elections-related work. Our teams work hard to ensure we are striking a balance between allowing for a broad range of political speech and making sure our platform isn’t abused to incite real-world harm or broadly spread harmful misinformation. We welcome ongoing debate and discussion and will keep engaging with experts, researchers and organizations to ensure that our policies and products are meeting that goal. And as always, we’ll apply learnings from this election to our ongoing efforts to protect the integrity of elections around the world.

_____________________________________

Censorship of content:
Dr. Chris Martenson's video was censored for not following state line on COVID 19
War Room Pandemic was censored this morning
Right side broadcasting was censored for a video of the Trump Train rally today
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
Google and Twitter are more monopolies than FB. Google even has Google Voice now ... which sucks by the way ... but it is those two that have way too much power in social media. FB is for old farts and kids who like to screw around. College students lean more towards Instagram and Twitter than FB.

And yet FB did a lot to censor this election, and they succeeded.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
Amazon is also another huge player. It’s not just their online sales arm either. Their AWS arm controls a huge amount of cloud usage where companies and organizations have offloaded their physical infrastructure and capabilities to a sole source of failure (or control by third party). Add in the other Cloud Sources and you wouldn’t believe the number of core components that serve the business needs of the country that can be monitored (or turned off) in any takeover.

Add into this mess their dominance now in the food industry... whole foods, the dollar tree/store, amongst a few other aquisitions and they control the food as well as all of the information.
 

TammyinWI

Talk is cheap
I just see this as another distraction news story attempt, like the Bill and Hil "debacle."

Zuckerberg is one of the deep state, as are the Clintons. There are too many of them, and the are crafty.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

48 States, FTC Unveil Anti-Trust Push To Break Up Facebook

Wed, 12/09/2020 - 14:43

Facebook shares are extending their losses today as US antitrust officials and a coalition of a states sued the social media company for allegedly abusing its dominance to crush competition.



The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general led by New York filed an antitrust complaint against Facebook Wednesday, alleging a litany of actions to thwart rivals and protect its monopoly. The lawsuit also sought a permanent injunction to the unwinding of the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions.



The complaint was filed after a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

New York Attorney General Letitia James today filed a lawsuit against Facebook Inc., alleging that the company has and continues today to illegally stifle competition to protect its monopoly power.


The lawsuit alleges that, over the last decade, the social networking giant illegally acquired competitors in a predatory manner and cut services to smaller threats — depriving users from the benefits of competition and reducing privacy protections and services along the way — all in an effort to boost its bottom line through increased advertising revenue. Attorney General James leads a bipartisan coalition of 48 attorneys general from around the nation in filing today’s lawsuit to stop Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct.
“For nearly a decade, Facebook has used its dominance and monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition, all at the expense of everyday users,” said Attorney General James.
“Today, we are taking action to stand up for the millions of consumers and many small businesses that have been harmed by Facebook’s illegal behavior. Instead of competing on the merits, Facebook used its power to suppress competition so it could take advantage of users and make billions by converting personal data into a cash cow. Almost every state in this nation has joined this bipartisan lawsuit because Facebook’s efforts to dominate the market were as illegal as they were harmful. Today’s suit should send a clear message to Facebook and every other company that any efforts to stifle competition, reduce innovation, or cut privacy protections will be met with the full force of our offices.”
Attorney General James and the coalition ask the court to halt Facebook’s illegal, anticompetitive conduct and block the company from continuing this behavior in the future.

Additionally, the coalition asks the court to restrain Facebook from making further acquisitions valued at or in excess of $10 million without advance notice to the state of New York and other plaintiff states. Finally, the court is asked to provide any additional relief it determines is appropriate, including the divestiture or restructuring of illegally acquired companies, or current Facebook assets or business lines.

This is the second time in less than two months the government has brought a monopoly case against an American technology giant.
* * *
Full FTC Statement:

The Federal Trade Commission today sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. Following a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, the complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy—including its 2012 acquisition of up-and-coming rival Instagram, its 2014 acquisition of the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers—to eliminate threats to its monopoly. This course of conduct harms competition, leaves consumers with few choices for personal social networking, and deprives advertisers of the benefits of competition.

The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp; prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers; and require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
“Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans,” said Ian Conner, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Facebook’s actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook is the world’s dominant personal social networking service and has monopoly power in a market for personal social networking services. This unmatched position has provided Facebook with staggering profits. Last year alone, Facebook generated revenues of more than $70 billion and profits of more than $18.5 billion.

Anticompetitive Acquisitions
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook targeted potential competitive threats to its dominance. Instagram, a rapidly growing startup, emerged at a critical time in personal social networking competition, when users of personal social networking services were migrating from desktop computers to smartphones, and when consumers were increasingly embracing photo-sharing. The complaint alleges that Facebook executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, quickly recognized that Instagram was a vibrant and innovative personal social network and an existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power.

The complaint alleges that Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving its own offerings, but Facebook ultimately chose to buy Instagram rather than compete with it. Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012 allegedly both neutralizes the direct threat posed by Instagram and makes it more difficult for another personal social networking competitor to gain scale.

Around the same time, according to the complaint, Facebook perceived that “over-the-top” mobile messaging apps also presented a serious threat to Facebook’s monopoly power. In particular, the complaint alleges that Facebook’s leadership understood—and feared—that a successful mobile messaging app could enter the personal social networking market, either by adding new features or by spinning off a standalone personal social networking app.

The complaint alleges that, by 2012, WhatsApp had emerged as the clear global “category leader” in mobile messaging. Again, according to the complaint, Facebook chose to buy an emerging threat rather than compete, and announced an agreement in February 2014 to acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion. Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp allegedly both neutralizes the prospect that WhatsApp itself might threaten Facebook’s personal social networking monopoly and ensures that any future threat will have a more difficult time gaining scale in mobile messaging.

Anticompetitive Platform Conduct
The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.

The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.

The lawsuit follows an investigation by the FTC’s Technology Enforcement Division, whose staff cooperated closely with a coalition of attorneys general, under the coordination of the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Participating Attorneys General include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was 3-2. Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson voted no.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Trump Admin, 48 States File AntiTrust Suit Against Facebook


The Trump administration and 48 states announced antitrust lawsuits against Facebook, ordering the social media platform to divest its Instagram and WhatsApp messaging services.

The suits, announced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and New York Attorney General Letitia James, aim to “block this predatory acquisition of companies” and “restore confidence to the market,” according to James.

Facebook “used its monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition, all at the expense of everyday users,” she noted.

The FTC is keen on securing the separation of the two companies from Facebook, noting the social media giant has carried out a “systematic strategy” to eliminate its competition, including the purchase of smaller rivals like Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

At the time of publishing, Facebook did not have a comment on the matter.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
Actually yes 5hey did and they still are censoring.

Sure they censored but plenty of my fam put up stuff that didn't get taken down, nor did it go behind a "fact check wall" of stupidity. It happened but only occasionally.

Twitter and Google on the otherhand did way more damage because they reached the young adults and fed them only what they wanted them to see. That is fueling a serious change in the age group that is coming up on our tails fast. They are the digital dependents.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
Sure they censored but plenty of my fam put up stuff that didn't get taken down, nor did it go behind a "fact check wall" of stupidity. It happened but only occasionally.

Twitter and Google on the otherhand did way more damage because they reached the young adults and fed them only what they wanted them to see. That is fueling a serious change in the age group that is coming up on our tails fast. They are the digital dependents.

Everyone I know was being censored or put in Facebook jail for their posts. I know plenty of young people ising faceborg.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

‘Break Up Big Tech Act’ Sponsored by Gosar, Gabbard Takes on Social Media Censorship

448
Mark Zuckerberg
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
ALLUM BOKHARI10 Dec 2020366

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) have introduced a bipartisan bill that would strip legal immunities from tech companies that censor users without their consent.

The Break Up Big Tech Act would remove Section 230 protections — critical to the business model of the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe — from platforms that “moderate or censor content without an opt-in from users.”

According to a press release on Rep. Gabbard’s website, the bill would also remove 230 immunities from companies that engage in the following practices:
  • Selling and displaying personalized as well as contextual advertising without user’s consent
  • Collecting data for commercial purposes other than the direct sale of the interactive computer service, i.e. turning the user into a commodity or otherwise monetizing the transmission of content
  • Acting as a marketplace in the digital space by facilitating the placement of items into the stream of commerce
  • Employing digital products and designs intended to engage and addict users to the service
“Big Tech monopolies continue to censor and manipulate users without consent or liability. The Break Up Big Tech Act revokes liability protections for bad Samaritans and instead empowers users,” said Rep. Gosar.

“Big tech monopolies like Google and Facebook have made billions of dollars by creating online platforms that monetize our private information, use manipulative and destructive algorithms, and act as publishers choosing what information they want to censor or publish. They undermine our freedom of speech and treat us and our attention as the product, monetizing it to line their pockets with more money without any regard for the damaging consequences,” said Rep. Gabbard.

“This bill removes the legal immunity that service providers have taken advantage of to act with impunity, while maintaining Section 230 protections for those who provide truly neutral social media platforms or search engines without the use of manipulative algorithms.”
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
I was out and about in the car getting things done today, so listening to the radio and hearing that even Guam is complaining about this.
 
Top