DOJ: We Will Examine Social Media Firms That 'May Be Hurting Competition' (arstechnica.com)

"May be hurting competition" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 01:15 · Score: 1

Unlikely to find that they are hurting competition, when they are actively preventing it from competition existing in the first place.

If facebook can't buy it, they will label it "hate speech" and pressure the rest of the industry to crush it.

Re:"May be hurting competition" by pgmrdlm · 2018-09-06 01:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

I was thinking "What competition". There is none. The social media giants are either buying or squashing any that they think might threaten them. I would rather see the "Sherman Antitrust Act" being reviewed and possible used against them.

--
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Re:"May be hurting competition" by Dan667 · 2018-09-06 01:42 · Score: 1

the biggest thing hurting competition is the repeal of net neutrality. I can use a different service, I only have one ISP to pick from.
Re:"May be hurting competition" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 01:44 · Score: 0

No it isn't. How is your ISP damaging facebook's competitors?
Re:"May be hurting competition" by pgmrdlm · 2018-09-06 01:45 · Score: 1

Stay on topic. This is about social media, not your provider. You are right, you can choose what ever social media service you want. But will anyone be there, and how long will that service last before it is either purchased or squashed by the giants filtering it out of any postings. Again, stay on topic. Or join the scare crow and ask for a brain because due to you not knowing the difference.

--
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Re: "May be hurting competition" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:02 · Score: 0

Nothing stopping you from going back to MySpace.
Re:"May be hurting competition" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:52 · Score: 0

It may not yet, but if Facebook and your ISP create a partnership to push all of Facebook's content into the priority lane (and push your chosen content into the "slow" lane), how is this fair? Sure, the ISP is making more money from Facebook, and Facebook users get unfettered access to their content, but all the rest of the content takes a backseat with regards to prioritization.
Re:"May be hurting competition" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:53 · Score: 0

To replace the Facebook use
minds.com
MeWe.com
To replace Twitter use
gab.ai
To replace Youtube use
bitchute.com
real.video
Re:"May be hurting competition" by PopeRatzo · 2018-09-06 03:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was thinking "What competition". There is none. The social media giants are either buying or squashing any that they think might threaten them.
You could say this about any large industry. It's not just "social media giants" who are "buying or squashing" competition, it's an end condition of late-stage capitalism. It shouldn't surprise anyone.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:"May be hurting competition" by DedTV · 2018-09-06 03:13 · Score: 2

I know, right? There's only Facebook, QZone, Tumblr, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube/Orkut/Google, Sina Weibo, Habbo, VK, LinkedIn, Renren, Bebo, Tagged, Netlog, Hi5, Flixster, Classmates, Fixer, Sonico, Douban, Odnoklassniki, Viadeo, Flickr, Myspace, MyHeritage, Last.fm, Xanga, Slashdot, Reddit, Pintrest, Something Awful, Deviant Art and barely 200+ other social media sites with over a million registered users that people can choose to use to connect with other people.

It's absolutely ridiculous that the Social Media giants can squash competition so thoroughly that they barely have a few hundred competitors to worry about. Simply shameful!
Re: "May be hurting competition" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2018-09-06 03:35 · Score: 1

There was a case where a sex offender was banned from social media like facebook. The government said this didn't violate their Constitutional First Amendment rights because they still had access to other social networks like The Paula Deen Network.
If The Paula Deen Network's good enough for the government, there is no anti-trust issue!

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:"May be hurting competition" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 04:27 · Score: 0

inbetween the lines the message is probably:
"you guys control all (private) data. if you don't make it all semi-public and easily accessible for the (few) elected government then we will find ways to make your overall business miserable."
and if you look between those above lines (like a further level down), then it says "afterall everybody uses social media, even your own employees and we need a way in to blackmail and put pressure on your core staff too!"
Re:"May be hurting competition" by St.Creed · 2018-09-06 11:24 · Score: 1

Everyone can tell that this isn't about competition. It's a warning against banning people Trump likes to read. It's like how the Russians will find you guilty of tax evasion after robbing your company, or the Chinese police will lock you up for a while if you are a troublemaker, i.e. if you complain about corruption too loudly.
I can only shake my head at the immense downhill slide the USA is taking. And now this damage is done, it can't be undone.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)

stifling the free exchange of ideas by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2018-09-06 01:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

>> "intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms"

I like the 1990's-era hands-off, anything-goes approach to the Internet a lot better than creepy crap like this:

>> Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told the committee that the social media company is continuing to fight misinformation, fake news, and foreign interference

Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 01:55 · Score: 0

That's because you're a buffoon.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by hey! · 2018-09-06 01:56 · Score: 2

So, in the names of "hand-off, anything-goes" you want the government to regulate private sector use of the Internet when a site owner has an editorial position you don't like.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:06 · Score: 0

>> "intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms"
I like the 1990's-era hands-off, anything-goes approach to the Internet a lot better than creepy crap like this:
>> Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told the committee that the social media company is continuing to fight misinformation, fake news, and foreign interference
Right, because AOL and CompuServe were known for their pure, unabridged views of the 90s Internet.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:14 · Score: 0

Yep no one ever moderated a forum or any other site in the 90's. Its a good thing we have little kids here telling us how the internet used to be since we all forgot.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by Crashmarik · 2018-09-06 02:33 · Score: 0

I like the 1990's-era hands-off, anything-goes approach to the Internet a lot better than creepy crap like this:
Don't we all. Kind of Amazing how the Google/FB/ etc like net neutrality only as long as it doesn't filter them but are perfectly happy with their role in filtering everyone else.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:06 · Score: 0

So, in the names of "hand-off, anything-goes" you want the government to regulate private sector use of the Internet when a site owner has an editorial position you don't like.
If they want to curate user-supplied content based on those editorial positions, then what's wrong with the government taking away their de facto "common carrier" status and holding them accountable for everything that gets posted to their sites?
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:07 · Score: 0

The 90s internet was alive and well outside of AOL and CompuServe and Prodigy and all those walled gardens. Nobody even used those where I lived.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2018-09-06 03:07 · Score: 0

Not quite. Back in the day, people's posts may have been moderated due to asshole-ism/name-calling/commercial-shilling, not the information they were conveying. The creepiness comes in when companies volunteer or invite regulation to start to nanny-izing posts based on the information (e.g., "fake news") they are conveying.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by hey! · 2018-09-06 04:13 · Score: 1

It really doesn't matter how you feel about legal actions they take to maximize their profits.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by hey! · 2018-09-06 04:21 · Score: 3, Informative

"De facto common carrier status"?
You are 22 years behind the times when it comes to Federal law. The Communications Decency Act prevents the government from treating service providers who attempts to police user-provided content as a publishers of said content. The idea was to remove a disincentive for service providers from making good faith efforts to extirpate naughty material, but it also protects providers who make a good faith effort to extirpate what they believe to be bullshit.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 05:04 · Score: 0

AOL and Compuserve were not the internet. Eventually they developed portals to the internet, but they were VERY different things.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by jbengt · 2018-09-06 06:18 · Score: 0

Not exactly 'good faith' anyway, but from the article you cited "proving" a liberal bias.:

Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the omissions as a function of his colleagues’ judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work.

Sometimes, breaking news would be injected because it wasn’t attaining critical mass on Facebook quickly enough to be deemed “trending” by the algorithm. Former curators cited the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris as two instances in which non-trending stories were forced into the module. Facebook has struggled to compete with Twitter when it comes to delivering real-time news to users; the injection tool may have been designed to artificially correct for that deficiency in the network.

In other instances, curators would inject a story—even if it wasn’t being widely discussed on Facebook—because it was deemed important for making the network look like a place where people talked about hard news. “People stopped caring about Syria,” one former curator said. “[And] if it wasn’t trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad.”

Several former curators said that as the trending news algorithm improved, there were fewer instances of stories being injected. They also said that the trending news process was constantly being changed, so there’s no way to know exactly how the module is run now.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-06 06:57 · Score: 0

If there is a bias against conservative views it's because they tend to involve blaming groups or promoting ideas that will hurt them.
The debate over gay marriage is a great example. A lot of the objections revolve around religious convictions, which is fine. Problem is that it very quickly strays into calling gay people perverts or describing it as a lifestyle choice, both things that do real harm to gay people.
The opposing view that it's fine has a lot further to go before it devolves into hating religious people and making their lives difficult, both because it's not based on homophobia and because the religious people being debated are rarely marginalized.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 07:13 · Score: 0

they tend to involve blaming groups or promoting ideas that will hurt them.
Tell us more about #verifiedhate. An account that screen capped twitter verified accounts that promoted racism, hatred, and bigotry was banned and not the accounts themselves.

gay people perverts or describing it as a lifestyle choice,

What is wrong with calling certain acts of sex perverted? How is that in any way "blaming groups or promoting ideas that will hurt them"? Plenty of perverts exist that do not need to be gay.
As a lifestyle choice. Is it? I keep hearing back and forth on this so I don't know what the progressive stance is anymore. If gender is a social construct why isn't sexual orientation? You can choose you gender but cannot choose your sexual orientation. I don't think debating that question is "blaming groups or promoting ideas that will hurt them". If sexual orientation is a choice, so what? So is religion and that is a protected class that cannot be discriminated against. What's the big deal if it's a choice or not and are we certain if it is?
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by St.Creed · 2018-09-06 11:26 · Score: 1

Yes, I liked usenet too. But it was an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. It no longer functions in this age of massed information attacks.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by St.Creed · 2018-09-06 11:36 · Score: 1

If sexual orientation is a choice, so what? So is religion and that is a protected class that cannot be discriminated against. What's the big deal if it's a choice or not and are we certain if it is?
I'll assume you're not trolling and really want to know.
If sexual orientation is a choice, then there may be a point in governments banning gays and lesbians from this choice. After all, they're not going to live unhappy lives - they can just choose less objectionable sex partners. Caning (as very recently in Malaysia) is then an obvious attempt to rectify an incorrect choice that will lead to your damnation/loss of soul. Even killing you may be for your own good and the protection of society, as it will turn others away from this choice and make them heterosexual.
If you are gay, however, or lesbian, it's about as easy to switch as if you're heterosexual. While there is a spectrum where you may be more or less into the opposite or equal sex, I find it just as objectionable to be forced into a homosexual relationship as a gay or lesbian would find it to be forced into a heterosexual relationship. This used to be the norm, and lead to a lot of unhappy people with all kinds of double lives. It is now seen mostly as unwarranted interference of the government in the deepest and most private parts of someones private life.
Now, if there was a standard practice that if you were religious you would be banned from marriage and your kids would be taken away, it would be just as bad. But in general, it's not the case (leaving aside cases where the dominant religion forcibly suppresses another religion, like ISIS in Iraq did, or like the Birmese did with the Rohinya minority that weren't Buddhist).

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-07 01:56 · Score: 0

there may be a point in governments banning gays and lesbians from this choice.

A hypothetical that could happen (and has) but the principled argument against that is consenting adults are free to do what they want. Discussing whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or not does not harm LGBT. Again, religion is a choice and yet it is a protected class. Discussions with atheists and the religious are popular events yet no one claims that by discussing that topic that it "blames a group of people or promotes ideas that hurt them" even if one side is hostile toward the other. Why are lgbt different?
We don't force people into the "right" religion because it's a choice that could be wrong. The same logic should apply to sexual orientation. Majority of people in the west don't care about that these days. Discussing the semantics behind that choice (or not choice) shouldn't be an issue.
Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas by St.Creed · 2018-09-07 09:17 · Score: 1

While I agree with your reasoning, the argument is not hypothetical. It's precisely the argument that is used in places like Uganda, Malaysia and Russia to impose draconian measures against gays and lesbians. Hence the rather vocal opposition to it. Uganda imported this hobby horse from extreme right-wing US preachers. So there is a reason for speaking out against presenting this as some sort of choice that people are free to make or not make.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)

About time by MikeRT · 2018-09-06 01:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Look at how Apple treated Gab's app and tell me that's not a desire to deny them on purely ideological reasons. Hey look, we found something racist, no app for you.

Twitter, meanwhile, gets their app approved despite the fact that they are notoriously pro-racism when it comes from non-whites. You can write the most racist bile all day long about us, get reported and Twitter won't take the posts down. They also get past that same Apple policy enforcement despite being a haven for bigotry and that being a no-no to Apple.

Considering the number of appeals they went through, I refuse to believe that that was a lone employee and uncoordinated. The government is perfectly justified in operating on the assumption that there is massive collusion to keep out alternatives.

Re:About time by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-06 01:45 · Score: 1, Interesting

Can't see conservatives buying it. If they are upset about having to put messages they don't like on cakes they won't like being forced to host the Gab app.
If it happened the next step would be demanding age ratings on apps, except for Bible/Koran apps that are allowed to contain all the violence and sex they like but not get an adults only rating.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:11 · Score: 0

Look at the bright side. Now you have a reason to blame Apple for the fact that Gab is a joke, rather than face the fact that a) these alternative views are annoying and gross to most people and b) the putative Gab crowd is more interested in harassing people on Twitter than building an alternative.
Re: About time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:57 · Score: 0

does the RT in your name stand for Russia Today? you're really making this too easy, _Mikhail._
Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:07 · Score: 2

Ha ha ha.... you think there's going to be consistent logic in their response? They will say and do whatever is politically expedient at the time.
For a little thought experiment: imagine the reaction of conservatives if Obama's former campaign chairman were convicted tomorrow of financial crimes. Compare and contrast with their reaction to Manafort's conviction.
It isn't as if the Democrats aren't hypocritical, but Republicans have raised it to a high art.
Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:23 · Score: 0

So if the other apps outright ban that stuff, it's suppression of free speech. So you'll complain. But they don't block it, and you complain. But then the front page/simple searches of Gab show how vile it is, and still you'll complain.
Search deep you'll find it, but the front page of Gab and basic searches quickly show that its small userbase is a disgusting nest for outright racism.
Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 04:25 · Score: 0

The fact that the supposed competition is a joke obviates the need to take seriously the claim that people laugh at it because of some conspiracy.
It is you who exemplifies post-truth by insisting that people debate a phony controversy because it legitimizes a phony proposition. You are right up there with creationists and their bad faith garbage.
Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 06:52 · Score: 0

The fact that the supposed competition is a joke obviates the need to take seriously the claim that people laugh at it because of some conspiracy.
Whether the topic of competition is a joke or not doesn't change the fact that AmiMojo and friend (I'm not sure if you're the same AC) changed the subject, and changing to one that does little but spread hate and vitriol.
If it's the topic of the story is such joke, why not just ignore the whole thing without commenting?

It is you who exemplifies post-truth by

"I know you are but what am I" is not even post truth. It's just childish schoolyard insults.

insisting that people debate a phony controversy
I didn't insist people to debate. I'm merely pointing out the changing of the subject.
Again, if the controversy is so phony, why even comment on the story? No, AmiMojo and friend just had to use this opportunity to have their Two Minutes of Hate.

You are right up there with creationists
More school yard level insults.

and their bad faith garbage.
Interesting. AmiMojo and friend mocks and insults conservatives slash Republicans, using a topic that is supposedly a joke as an excuse, and you call ME the one with bad faith for merely pointing it out?
Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 08:05 · Score: 0

Allow me to clarify: I am not saying that the topic of competition is a joke. I am saying that the idea that butthurt alt-right trolling could compete for sincere attention absent some conspiracy by liberal mega corporations is a joke.

Who needs social media sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 01:52 · Score: 0

Who cares if there is one dominant social media site? Anyone with more than 2 neurons firing will never use one.

Let them all implode as users delete their accounts.

Re: Who needs social media sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:00 · Score: 0

Exactly. I donâ(TM)t use em. No one needs that crap.
Social media companies = companies that want to profit off of your personal information
No thanks.

This isn't about competition by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

This isn't about competition. As another noted, if they were serious about competition they wouldn't have repealed net neutrality.

This is about dominance and control. Specifically, turning Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. into a propaganda channel for Trump and the Christian Cabal working to put an end to our democracy. "Exercise the editorial decisions we think are proper, or we'll use anti-trust (and whatever other) regulations to break you up into tiny pieces and/or put you out of business."

Why else do you think he's so busy spreading lies about Google "censoring" conservatives (not true, though I wish they'd show a little less Fox News crap in my newsfeed...they seem more prevalent than all the other news sources put together, bit I digress...)? It's a prelude to a hostile takeover by whatever means necessary, and abusing the DoJ to attempt to terrorize them into submission is a pretty good place to start.

Re:This isn't about competition by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 04:30 · Score: 1

You my friend are right on point. This has nothing to do with anti-trust or competition. The US is fast turning into a banana republic. You piss off the Nazi overlords you pay a price.
I don't care what side of the political spectrum you are on, this should be infuriating. The biggest issue we have facing us as a nation is that people are so easily willing to sacrifice any sense of morals they have to support whatever fool the propaganda networks tell them supports their agenda.
Re:This isn't about competition by Howitzer86 · 2018-09-06 05:05 · Score: 1

Goes to show that corporations are people only when it's convenient. It's bullshit otherwise. In any case, I have a hard time worrying too much about them. They'll manage. Instead I'm wondering how slippery that slope is, and when they'll start threatening to break individuals.
Re:This isn't about competition by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 05:22 · Score: 0

That makes zero sense.
Cool narrative but it is bullshit.
Re:This isn't about competition by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 06:42 · Score: 0

This is about dominance and control. Specifically, turning Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. into a propaganda channel for Trump and the Christian Cabal working to put an end to our democracy.
hhahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Re:This isn't about competition by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 06:45 · Score: 0

Specifically, turning Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. into a propaganda channel for Trump and the Christian Cabal working to put an end to our democracy.
I think you forgot to take your medication today.
Re:This isn't about competition by Xylantiel · 2018-09-06 06:59 · Score: 1

Yep. I can't see this as anything other than the first step in the DoJ becoming the Ministry of Truth.

Cannot win by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:12 · Score: 0

How can these companies be asked to remove "fake" news and whatnot, then be told that they're stifling the free exchange of ideas?

I Thought Conservatives Were Against... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:22 · Score: 0

the "Fairness Doctrine". Now they are for it?

Re: Fake news is from FAKE JEWS (fakebook/jewgle) by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:34 · Score: 0

the worst part is, nobody will read it. and if people do, they will just learn to ignore it. meaning whatever bullshit they are spewing doesn't do whatever was their reasoning for doing it in the first place. it's wasted time and energy.

It's really about the cryptowars by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:43 · Score: 0

Meanwhile, back in the White House, the US Government and its Five Eyes allies prepare for the new cryptowars:

The Trump administration and its closest intelligence partners have quietly warned technology firms that they will demand “lawful access” to all encrypted emails, text messages and voice communications, **threatening to compel compliance if the private companies refuse to voluntarily provide the information** to the governments.

If you think these two pieces of news are completely unrelated, you're being naïve.

Nice nothingness by houghi · 2018-09-06 02:43 · Score: 1

I remember when they went after MS for monopoly. They even said they where guilty and then: nothing.
Many people and agencies have been found guilty and/or openly admitted they where guilty and nothing.

If you are not going to hold people accountable, why bother at all? You are not guilty, unless you are held accountable. And if you are not held accountable when people know what you are doing, why change anything? Clearly you have not gone far enough and can do more.

It is also the reason why any 200+ old paper is as meaningless as the 3 laws of robotics. They are just nice pieces of plot device. Hold people accountable and that is the moment they are actually a law in the real sense.

Now they are just "Do not walk around with a pig on high-street on a Wednesday"-'laws'. Utterly and completely meaningless.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:Nice nothingness by drinkypoo · 2018-09-06 02:51 · Score: 1

I remember when they went after MS for monopoly. They even said they where guilty and then: nothing.
[...]
If you are not going to hold people accountable, why bother at all?
There are many possible reasons. You might be under political pressure to mount an investigation even though you don't want to, and succumb on that basis. Or you might want to conduct a sham trial, so that someone else doesn't run a real one later, when you're no longer in power. Or one administration might start an investigation, and another one might sabotage it.
The lack of penalties for Microsoft after being found guilty of abusing their monopoly position in basically every way possible under the leadership of Bill Gates was announced by John Ashcroft, who served in the administration of George W. Bush. Draw your own conclusions.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Nice nothingness by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:15 · Score: 0

I remember when they went after MS for monopoly. They even said they where guilty and then: nothing.
That was just a case of bad timing (good timing for Microsoft).
Microsoft got a lucky break. Before the government could take any meaningful action against Microsoft, George W. Bush was elected and his administration, being all "pro-business", shut down the Microsoft case and did nothing.

I think you're a dickhead by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:47 · Score: 0

But even your foolish rambling should not be banned. Ignored yes. But I don't need Zuck to tell me I can't see your brain-farts, I can filter out myself.

As an extra side note, I think you're a dickhead.

Re:I think you're a dickhead by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:59 · Score: 0

Someone is trying to hide facts in his post nobody can deny which says it all when censorship has to be used to hide obvious truth and fact.

Re:Fake news is from FAKE JEWS (fakebook/jewgle) by ConceptJunkie · 2018-09-06 02:50 · Score: 1

Great, now you've got flecks of spittle over all your screen.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Re: DOJ should be renamed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:53 · Score: 0

privet ivan, kak dela?

Re: Fake news is from FAKE JEWS (fakebook/jewgle) by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 02:56 · Score: 0

Then why minus mod hide and censor it for if what you said is fact and what's in it is not? Who are you deceiving other than yourself?

Obama wins legal election ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:01 · Score: 0

Clinton wins legal election ...

See how that works? The only difference is the Clintons are serious professional corrupt politicians (redundant phrase), Obama had no real agenda besides being the first black President and made what money he made legally selling his book, and Trump is a third rate mob guy who couldn't fix a parking ticket without soiling his shorts so Trump's getting caught. He went bankrupt and flipped buildings for the mob(s) for decades. One look at his taxes and he's looking at the rest of his life behind bars once he's out of office (not long, he's fat) and his entire mostly smoke and mirrors empire being dismantled and sold for scrap.

This would happen to any politician on the national stage regardless of ideological, team or tribal allegiance. Trump's just far, far stupider than all the others. He makes Marco Rubio look like Obama.

Re:Obama wins legal election ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:20 · Score: 0

Losing the electoral college is legally winning. Loosing the LEGAL method for electing a president means you win?
You are mega-idiot.

Fakebook = standard oil by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:05 · Score: 0

Brake up the Facebook and Google like Standard Oil.

Re:Fakebook = standard oil by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 04:37 · Score: 0

Brake up the Facebook and Google like Standard Oil.
Right, because that worked so when AT&T was split up. Making them tiny regional monopolies just kicked the can down the road. Now the phone companies are coalescing back into a giant phone company again. If AT&T and Sprint wanted to merge tomorrow, I seriously doubt the White House would blink an eye. They wouldn't say anything even if AT&T bought out all the competition, because businesses are more agile than government [even if they have a larger organization/bureaucracy than government].

How about by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:09 · Score: 0

Social media companies with over N thousand of users are considered a utility? That way, they cant just delete users posts, etc. Now, they should be able to "hide" posts based on IP that are outside of the country. If some foreign nation buys a VPN and gets an internal IP, well the company that is providing the VPN service is representing their client via proxy.

With that being said, since most people use social media these days; any form of "limiting" on a massive service is a form of censorship. It does not matter if the platform is privately owned; if they have a large enough user base and they can ban/delete/suspend accounts because some random piece of shit in the government whines "fake news" or some asshole at the company goes "oh, i'm offended"; that's a big fucking problem.

It's a shame that the US govt feels like they need to step in; because we all know if they step in it's going to be political and without principle and reflect the values of the current administration; which seems to be blowing nonsense as loud possible no matter incorrect.

Re:Fake news is from FAKE JEWS (fakebook/jewgle) by ConceptJunkie · 2018-09-06 03:18 · Score: 1

I'm not going to try. I think you're nuts.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

The marketplace of ideas, by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 03:22 · Score: 1

Finally conservatives find a marketplace that they want to regulate. The marketplace of ideas.

Hurting competition? by smooth+wombat · 2018-09-06 03:30 · Score: 2

How is it the multitude of anti-social media companies are being investigated for "stifling" competition, while at the same time Verizon and Comcast get away with deliberately and blatantly stifling competition in the broadband arena?

How many stories have we heard where they won't connect an area with broadband, then fight tooth and nail to prevent someone else from connecting?

The only reason for this "investigation" is because the con artist doesn't like it that people can say mean things about him and get away with it. It has nothing to do with not allowing opposing opinions or racist comments to be heard.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Re:Hurting competition? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-07 03:55 · Score: 0

A: wrong scause of the day, sir.
captcha: analyze

Fake news is from FAKE JEWS (fakebook/jewgle) by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 07:55 · Score: 0

Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

Adam Schiff (gosh s

Fake news is from FAKE JEWS (fakebook/jewgle) by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-06 07:57 · Score: 0