Social Media Site Gab Sues Google For Antitrust Violations Following Ban From Play Store (washingtonpost.com)

The social media site Gab.ai is accusing Google of violating federal antitrust laws when the tech giant booted Gab from the Google Play Store, according to lawsuit filed this week. From a report: 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." Alternative source.

Comments

Re:Monopoly

[Luthair]

Android, unlike Apple has always allowed installation of third party APKs and adding third party stores. Since Amazon operates one its hard to see how Google would be considered a monopoly.

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't anti-trust typically about attempting to use your monopoly in one market to enter another? Doesn't appear to be the case here.

Very smart

[Kohath]

If they lose, they are no worse off than before. But the news coverage gives them lots of publicity to promote their business.

Google is clearly just blacklisting them because Google wants to shut them up. The cult leaders at Google are committed to persecuting nonbelievers and heretics.

Re:Monopoly

[Derekloffin]

Well, the Internet Explorer case shows that having the technical ability to install other products does not negate the anti-trust issues. Also, Google is already in the social media biz so this could easily be argued to be them using their Android position to push out competition in the social media sphere. I'm sure Google will counter argue they carry many other competitors in their store in their defense though. Whether that will hold up though is questionable.

Re: Who is Gab?

[bradley13]

No, it's legit. Their app was in the play store, until some SJW in Google got offended at some post or other. iirc, Google demanded that Gab delete the post, Gab refused, since the only thing wrong with the post was the politics. So Google banned their app.

For those saying that Google's app store isn't a monopoly: tell us, please, what percentage of Android apps are installed from anywhere else.

Re:gab.io

[DNS-and-BIND]

The word "nazi" today more often indicates the presence of a radical leftist (or left-wing propagandist) than it does actual nazis.

Re:Who is Gab?

[spacepimp]

This is the same as it has always been. People need to endure the idiots or give up free speech. you can't have both.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[DNS-and-BIND]

Negative. Christian bakers refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it's against their religion: fined $130,000.

Muslim truck driver refused to deliver alcohol because it's against his religion: awarded $240,000.

Re: Who is Gab?

[AmiMoJo]

Why make up bullshit when we can just google (or bing) the real reason?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

It was removed for ToS violations, specifically not having moderation in place to deal with content that advocates violence or hatred against groups of people.

tell us, please, what percentage of Android apps are installed from anywhere else.

Sadly I can't find any stats, but both Amazon's Appstore and F-Droid have been going for years and seem to be reasonably popular. And there is nothing stopping Gab simply offering the app on their own web site too, or are they complaining that they are not popular enough and need free advertising on Play to survive?

Re:Who is Gab?

[AmiMoJo]

People need to endure the idiots or give up free speech. you can't have both.

Spam/troll filters are not anti-free-speech. They are pro-freedom-not-to-listen.

More over, no-one owes you a soap box.

Re:Who is Gab?

[Kielistic]

You were called out for that exact falsehood 8 days ago and shown to be completely fabricating your "facts" (here). Yet here you are making the exact same lie again.

Do you honestly wonder why people consider you a troll? This is a common pattern of behaviour from you. Make bullshit claim, get proved wrong, disappear, show up elsewhere making the exact same claim. If Gab bans left leaning people then you can prove it or at the very least find a non made-up claim about it.

I don't know anything about Gab nor do I care to and I assume a lot of other people don't either. I assume that is why you feel safe making such brazen lies.

Re: Who is Gab?

[UnknowingFool]

And there is nothing stopping Gab simply offering the app on their own web site too, or are they complaining that they are not popular enough and need free advertising on Play to survive?

I often find that people who complain that other people are "too sensitive" are the first to cry and whine when something doesn't go their way. I believe it's called projection.

Fighting words only exist face-to-face

[Xenographic]

Three points:

• Fighting words must be "face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation."
• Online speech isn't face-to-face.
• There's serious doubt about whether the exemption itself is still valid.

Here's a more complete explanation written by an actual first amendment lawyer:

Trope Seven: "Fighting words"

Example: "There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte." McClatchy.com, May 4, 2015.

No discussion of controversial speech is complete without some idiot suggesting that it may be "fighting words."

In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit "fighting words" — "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the "fighting words" doctrine survives — that's in serious doubt — it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The "which by their very utterance inflict injury" language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law — the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

That's almost always irrelevant to the sort of speech at issue when the media invokes the trope.

Source: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/