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

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In the wake of a Senate committee hearing in which top officials from Facebook and Twitter testified, the Department of Justice issued a statement saying that it would be investigating social media firms. "We listened to today's Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Foreign Influence Operations' Use of Social Media Platforms closely," Devin O'Malley, a DOJ spokesman, said in a statement released to reporters on Wednesday morning. "The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms." The DOJ did not further explain by what criteria it would be examining these companies. d Google submitted a written testimony, while Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told the committee that the social media company is continuing to fight misinformation, fake news, and foreign interference. Similarly, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey dismissed any allegations of his company's bias during the testimony.

Comments

"May be hurting competition"

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

[pgmrdlm]

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.

Re:"May be hurting competition"

[Dan667]

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"

[pgmrdlm]

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.

Re:"May be hurting competition"

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:"May be hurting competition"

[DedTV]

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"

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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!

Re:"May be hurting competition"

[St.Creed]

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.

stifling the free exchange of ideas

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> "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

[hey!]

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.

Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas

[hey!]

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

Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas

[hey!]

"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.

Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas

[St.Creed]

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.

Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas

[St.Creed]

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).

Re:stifling the free exchange of ideas

[St.Creed]

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.

About time

[MikeRT]

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

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This isn't about competition

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Howitzer86]

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

[Xylantiel]

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

Nice nothingness

[houghi]

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.

Re:Nice nothingness

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Fake news is from FAKE JEWS (fakebook/jewgle)

[ConceptJunkie]

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

Re:Fake news is from FAKE JEWS (fakebook/jewgle)

[ConceptJunkie]

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

The marketplace of ideas,

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Hurting competition?

[smooth wombat]

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.

Really?!?

[Locke2005]

In Trump World, companies are PUNISHED for being successful! Successful companies make Trump look bad!

Gatekeepers

[BrookHarty]

Remember you can't get Gab.ai on Android or iPhone. Google/Apple are blocking the app and using rules that would also block twitter and Instagram on same grounds. If you think there is no nudity or violent comments on twitter or Instagram, you would be majorly wrong. Hell, even the chan apps are allowed on the 2 major phone markets, and those are the same content that appears on Gab.ai, twitter, Instagram, etc.

But to compare the gab.ai to pornhub app, is a way stretch of rules while allowing preferred apps.

Guess what I'm saying, we have unelected gatekeepers using their monopolistic companies to control what we can see for political reasons that they break their own rules for companies they like. I dont want my ISP to control what I can access, I don't want my phone vendor to either.

Re:Fake news is from FAKE JEWS (fakebook/jewgle)

[St.Creed]

That dude *is* nuts. No ifs and buts about it. He probably thinks he no longer needs his pills now he has seen the True Light or something.