DoJ Launches Anti-Trust Investigation Into Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon

a reply to: strongfp

It's not their highways. It's their vehicles, and you only have so many choices to use. They are using methods to shut everyone else out.

a reply to: queenofswords

The burden of proof is all on those who are saying they are swaying the playing field or Conservatives and liberals.

So far, to me, and personally it's a conspiracy theory. Why isn't ATS or 4chan, or 8chan or reddit silienced? There's plenty of conservative YT channels, and twitter accounts. Maybe the ones who have been banned should not post questionable material?

a reply to: strongfp

Your video isn't about tech giants or internet at all.

No, my video is about how you handle stupid questions from people who can destroy you.

When you're sitting in a room full of ignorant people towards a subject and trying to literally teach them how it works, how do you think you'd look?

He wasn't teaching them anything. In fact he feigned ignorance through most of that video. "I think most people use cookies on the internet and it's possible to construct information from between sessions" isn't some genius explaining how the internet works, it's a jackass that is trying to feign intelligence to keep people from getting answers to their questions.

It doesn't matter how he carried himself, the content was there.

And that's where you're wrong. It's always a bad plan to condescend to customers, government or superiors. You make enemies you need not make. And again the content wasn't there, he was dodging questions trying to appear intelligent.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: queenofswords

Oh, it's far worse than that. They disable your car if you disagree with them politically.

Yes. I like that analogy. Or it's like driving along and deciding to turn on the radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh and your car suddenly decides to disable that station. Nope, no Rush for you, but here...listen to this nice progressive pundit.

(If you don't like it, ride a horse???)

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: roadgravel

Apple could only possibly be a monopoly in their app store.

Those 4 I listed are what appear in articles. Twitter doesn't. Just pointing out what is said to be happening.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Isnt it funny how all of a sudden these companys are the 'enemy' once they step on some right wing toes. Huh....

Btw Zuckerberg gave his five hours of pain accept it. He was right they were all wrong, or had no idea what they were talking about. You can make it seem like this or that but bottom line is Zuckerberg isnt wrong, he is an advocate of stricter laws in regards to the internet, not against them. Meaning he has nothing to hide. Which further fortifies that no one listens until it's at the eleventh hour.

This is about trumps campaign and base for 2020. Just like his whole 'fake news' propaganda against the media was for 2016 and forward.

Can the doj punish the cia?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: burntheships

Free enterprise?

Don't like it, don't use it... oh wait.

Don't like what you are hearing on ATS ?

Just cover your ears

Don't like what you see?

Just cover your eyes

a reply to: roadgravel

Those were the ones whose stocks dropped. The actual DoJ announcement says

internet search, social media and retail services

Which I take to mean
Google, facebook, twitter and amazon. Those are the top games in town for those online industries.

a reply to: strongfp

Yes, he did his time in front of congress and he's going to get to do it again. I'm not saying he was wrong, I'm saying he didn't do himself or the shareholders any favors. He's a bad spokesman.

... he is an advocate of stricter laws in regards to the internet, not against them. Meaning he has nothing to hide.

lol, yeah no. not true at all. Being an advocate for more laws does not make you innoncent. If that were the case no politician anywhere would be guilty.

This is about trumps campaign and base for 2020. Just like his whole 'fake news' propaganda against the media was for 2016 and forward.

No, this is about these companies using their size to unfairly hurt consumers and keep competition from cropping up.

a reply to: visitedbythem

That's exactly what has happened here you know that right? How many people who advocate for left leaning of liberal values come to ats and discuss politics in favor of left values?
If they do it gets drowned out.

a reply to: Dfairlite

This investigation will financially damage Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, because the "assets" that make them what they are, are just electronics. very fragile. Not like Airlines, Utilities, etc..

a reply to: Dfairlite

So they are monopolies?

Ok want a foreign company to come in and take them on? Or you want want government to come and take control?

a reply to: strongfp

If any of the Internet providers are found to have edited third-party content or promoted it independently .

They can be found to be a publisher instead of a private entity and are libel .

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:


1: The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."


2: The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.


3: The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

The question I think that would go before a court would be. Is censorship tor a non-harmful reason editing or promoting the providers independent agenda .

Right now they censor conservative views like Alex Jones by claiming they are harmful to the community .


230

a reply to: Fallingdown

Alex Jones was banned because him and his followers fell for the "jew" meme. And insisted hatred towards people based on ethnicity and physical appearances.

While the DOJ didn’t disclose specific company names, it’s launching the review based on “new Washington threats” from Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

The agency will examine practices of online platforms that dominate internet search, social media and retail services, the DOJ said in a statement Tuesday.

www.cnbc.com...

I think the same FREEDOM that allows Google to do what it wants with words/information/ideas, also allows AOC/OMAR/TLAIB/Trump/Patriots to do what they want with words/information/ideas.

a reply to: strongfp

Ilhan omar isn’t banned for stroking and anger towards the Jooooooooooos.

Sure sounds like selective editing/Censorship to me .

a reply to: strongfp

Neither. I'd like them split up. The social media services should be designated as utilities.

People against these sites will not be happy until the government runs a social media site that follows what the 1st allows.

Then they will be upset because people will be able to post words they don't like.

It is an endless circle with some.