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

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!]

"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:"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.

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

[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:"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!

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.