Should The US Government Break Up Google, Twitter, and Facebook? (siliconvalley.com)

The Bay Area Newsgroup reports: Political momentum for a crackdown on Silicon Valley's social media giants got a boost this week when a state attorney general said he would tell U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions next week that Google, Facebook and Twitter should be broken up. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry wants the federal government to do to the social media firms what it did to Standard Oil in 1911, according to a Louisiana newspaper report Tuesday... "This can't be fixed legislatively," Landry told the paper. "We need to go to court with an antitrust suit." He or another high official from his office will next week present the break-up proposal to Sessions... Landry, president of the National Association of Attorneys General, had spent months with his colleagues probing what they described as anti-competitive practices by Facebook, Google and Twitter, according to the paper.
CNET reports: On Friday, Bloomberg reported it had obtained a draft of a potential White House executive order that asks certain government agencies to recommend actions that would "protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias." The order, reportedly in its preliminary stages, asks US antitrust authorities to "thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws."

Comments

This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

All of these sites depend on pure mass to be useful to users. They don't want to have to be members of four different Facebook analogues. Break them up, and users will eventually flock to one site, and we are back where we started.

And how will this work? You get assigned to FB1, your wife to FB2, etc? Will you be allowed to leave one site for another? It is just unworkable.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Bradmont]

They would more likely break Facebook into Facebook proper, messenger, instagram, whatsapp, etc. Though the best case scenario would be to break it into several Facebook.com-like networks and legislate interoperability and open federation standards with any other service that wants to connect...

Re:This won't work long term.

[Zocalo]

I expect the idea is to break up the business units into separate corporations, rather than a regional "Baby Bell" style split. Google's already part way there with Alphabet, but you could still split search, mail, and Android into separate units. Facebook has also acquired a LOT of other business (71, although not all are still operating), several of which could be isolated from their eponymous social media platform - Instagram, Oculus, and WhatsApp, for instance. Twitter is more of a one-trick-pony though, so not really any obvious opportunities for similar break-ups there - but given their decline in popularity and financial issues, it may just be a matter of time anyway.

And, as others have noted, why do the likes of Apple and Microsoft that also leverage big data from multiple business units get a pass?

Re:This won't work long term.

[hey!]

You could be a member of four different Facebook analogues and not even know it, if they all used the same content syndication standards.

Re:This won't work long term.

[novakyu]

The workable solution would be a vigorous enforcement of antitrust regulations. Government does routinely prevent mergers and acquisitions on antitrust grounds; it should not be too hard for them to bar Facebook and Google from gobbling up new start-ups in order to nip nascent competition in the bud.

Re:This won't work long term.

[SirCowMan]

The greatest benefit would probably be to separate out their advertisement and marketing arms.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about people vote with their actions. FB is just another myspace. FB is not the Internet. Why do people need government intervention, when people can vote by leaving FB.

I dont know a single IT professional in my network that uses FB. It is a website for mind control of the 9 year old army.

Re:This won't work long term.

[jordanjay29]

Break them up, and users will eventually flock to one site, and we are back where we started.

Which is exactly what happened to AT&T. Most of the Baby Bells have been rebundled into what is now Verizon. Breaking up monopolies only works if the government routinely intervenes in business acquisitions to avoid new monopolies from forming.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't really leave Facebook. They track you whether you like it or not. Either through photos that they can recognise you in, or tracking scripts/cookies on 3rd party sites.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

What needs to happen is to shut down the collection and selling of people's data...totally, and by ANYONE including government agencies!

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

And do the same to the telcos while they are at it.

And TicketBasterd, too.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an interesting talk about the subject: Scott Galloway at Business Insider's 2017 IGNITION conference

At the very end of it, he hints at the companies into which he thinks Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google should be broken up. His reasons are not those of a petulant orange child but deeply market oriented.

Re: This won't work long term.

[donstenk]

Facebook could be split into Facebook, Whatssapp and Pinterest to begin - 3 companies. Their advertising section be a different company too.

Google could easily be split into a mail provider (paid), a search engine with advertising and a mapping company etc.

It would reduce the reliance on single platforms with an extensive tracking reach.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is how you split up Twitter. You divide all its employees into groups of 140, and each group becomes its own separate company.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a problem if we have standards and not proprietary bullshit. That's why when the next messaging app du jour comes out and everyone predicts the end of email I just roll my eyes and laugh.

Have interoperability and it won't matter how many of these things there are.

Of course that's exactly what FB et al don't want. They'd actually have to intice people to stay with them and not be hated by half their userbase who just stick around to keep in touch with family and friends.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is what they want. It gives the right wing a chance to buy up the smaller providers and eventually control the "digital narrative".

If these companies are broken up, strong legal measures need to be put in place to prevent anyone from gain majority market share again. But that wont happen.

Re:This won't work long term.

[helpfulcorn]

That's true unless you are of the mindset that only governments create monopolies. This tends to be a mindset that unless it's a 100% pure monopoly, that's not a monopoly and should be left alone to bully tiny competitors and so on... but since there are tiny competitors, there's no monopoly and it's all anti-capitalist propaganda or some shit.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, create a new standard protocol for social media: all of them are essentially hosting RSS feeds whose individual items are enclosures with an image(s) or video, comments added by other users, etc, and multiply linked lists of friends. Make the various companies come up with APIs to exchange that information with any other hosting company that wants to interact, so that Google Plus, Twitter, Facebook, Gab, et. al. all talk to each other, just like the Baby Bells all interacted on the same POTS after the breakup of Ma Bell. Then, people can choose what hosting company they want to use for their social account and still talk to friends on other hosts.

Re:This won't work long term.

[jwhyche]

This is the first thing I thought about when I read the title. If you just broke them up they would eventually reform under a new name a decade later when nobody cared. Instead of breaking them up it would be better to just regulate them as a public utility.

Granted, having a bunch of senile old farts attempt to regulate something like google or facebook appeals to me about as much as having a blind man shave my ass with a bolo knife.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you understand? In the 3.3 trillion-dollar per year US healthcare industry, government regulation is an abomination because the marketplace should decide. But, the 32 billion dollar per year social network advertising business absolutely needs government regulation because Trumpie got his feelings hurt. Who could argue with that logic?

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true unless you are of the mindset that only governments create monopolies.

Well people who are of the mindset that only governments create monopolies are complete morons who have not even study the most basic aspects of economic theory. Sadly, that's most the adult population. It makes me think that microeconomics should be required curriculum in high school.

Re:This won't work long term.

[rtb61]

There should be an equivalent government service, as an essential service to allow citizens to communicate with each and government, a to create a legitimate public record. An anonymous service using avatars but the users should be registered and identified and that record protected by law requiring search warrants to access.

Beyond that, social media fads. Social media sites are only as big as they market themselves to be, fake users, barely active users, fake clicks, fake responses, straight up fabricated data. So Facebook, Google and Twitter all opposed trump and wanted the corporate whore instead and they fucking lost to trump, what are they really worth in social marketing terms, fuck all. Now on their networks people communicating with each other 'DOMINATED' the communications channels, nothing Google, Facebook or Twitter did, altered that in any significant way, except to accelerate or slow down the spread, they certainly could not change it.

When it comes to the beliebers, those just in, to significant thought, they will tend to believe what suits them the best, so they believe, it can be pretty much anything and it takes real psychological effort to shift that, a shock to their belief structures. The influence is from user to user not the media platform to user, which is was the media platforms sells to attract advertising dollars. Google bought finnacial transaction data, why. To try to prove it's advertising was working, they shut the fuck up about it for two reasons, one it was extremely privacy invasive and honestly those involved should be prosecuted and two yeah proved their advertising was shit and they had nothing to sell (they serve so many different ads, the effectively water down the ads to fuck all, completely destroy saturation advertising and turning it into nothing). The single main focus of their marketing is themselves, making themselves seem relevant, making it look like they have control of the consumer market, making themselves look essential to sales, convincing the people who make the decision on ad placement to spend or in reality waste money with them.

What needs to be done with them, make them fucking choose, either they are a public utility and do not control the content on their platforms beyond legal requirements as put out by a court or they are fully liable for all content put out by their site, every slander, every false advertisement, 100% legally liable, choose and perish.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

And how will this work? You get assigned to FB1, your wife to FB2, etc? Will you be allowed to leave one site for another?

Well, you could forbid people from leaving for X years. Then the FBs broken up would either have to create open communications protocols (open to others by law), or risk having everyone go to some other site. Then let people start moving back and forth, so they compete.

Alternatively, you could break it up so FB, Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram, etc. are separate companies. Or, you could break it up other ways. I mean, in any case like that, you'd have computer scientists advising a judge on what was possible, etc.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

And, as others have noted, why do the likes of Apple and Microsoft that also leverage big data from multiple business units get a pass?

They're not as good or prevalent at it. Same reason why auditors will raise a one hundred million dollar discrepancy, but not a hundred dollar one.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget SBC *bought* AT&T. but SBC's name had developed lots of baggage, so it changed to "AT&T".

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is exactly what happened to AT&T. Most of the Baby Bells have been rebundled into what is now Verizon.

Actually, only 2 of the 7 Baby Bells ended up in Verizon. There are 4 of them in what is now AT&T (after SBC bought out what was left of the old AT&T and started using the name again).

Regional Bell Operating Company

Re:This won't work long term.

[J-1000]

Breaking up monopolies only works if the government routinely intervenes in business acquisitions to avoid new monopolies from forming.

35 years later we're still better off than we were. Seems like it "worked" to me. Even if it entirely goes back to what it was, it was a good run. Just repeat the process.

Now someone tell me why we shouldn't break up the banks.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like someone suffering from TDS.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, that's a funny proposal.

On one side it makes perfect sense. These projects have reached a scale where they are practically infrastructure and it makes little sense if not everyone, metaphorically speaking, are on the same boat.

Meanwhile, there are no way you're going to get anywhere near that amount of people on board the "CommieNet", for all kinds of reasons. These range from the ideological to the practical, like are we fine with giving the government all this information? Information is power, and sitting on the the equivalent of Facebook is an immense amount of power. What about people who post crap that actually needs to go away? Suddenly it's the government that takes it down.

On the whole I can't say I like your idea. It's too much of an opportunity for people with totalitarian ideas, of which there unfortunately is no shortage. And, no, the commies are not the problem, it's the fascists who loves to rant about "leftists", as well as the absolute nutter SJW's which are also out there. Both are equally hate filled, power hungry and intolerant. They'd be over such a project like a swarm of flies in no time.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't get past your TDS, even when President Trump is executing public policy you favor.

Re: This won't work long term.

[datavirtue]

Just requiring friction free integration is how you break up tech. These are not industrial companies.

Re: This won't work long term.

[datavirtue]

But the only reason for a startup is to generate buzz and sell out to the deep pockets of the monopolies. Imagine if people built stuff again.

Re: This won't work long term.

[datavirtue]

Nope. I use that host file thingy advertised on Slashdot comments.

Re: This won't work long term.

[datavirtue]

Require that data be democratized through free and open integration. That way everyone competes on merit.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

TDS, the hot new reality TV show starring our future.

Re:This won't work long term.

[thegarbz]

No the problem is ultimately that the government doesn't have the slightest interest in this. We are talking about breaking up Facebook now, but only 4 years ago greenlighted a huge mega billion dollar acquisition of WhatsApp. That went through the regulator at the time, as does every merger and acquisition.

The government most definitely can already with the existing regulations prevent these mega companies from forming monopolies, but they just don't do it. Facebook has acquired 3 companies this year alone with zero opposition. What makes anyone think they will be broken up?

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

âoeAnd, as others have noted, why do the likes of Apple and Microsoft that also leverage big data from multiple business units get a pass?â
They get a pass because they get caught shutting down opposing viewpoints a lot less.

Re: This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Monopolies are not defined by their level of profit.

But you knew that. You're just really fucking bad at arguing.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't gobble them up then they just assign a small team to clone all the functionality and let the small business die in the courts when they attempt to sue Facebook or Google for anticompetitive practices that destroyed their business model. Either way, Google and FB need to go away. But so does AT&T...didn't we just do that one though? To many Republicans in office let this happen and the only reason why Republicans would be against the tech boys these days is because left leading CEOs are in charge of them.

Re:This won't work long term.

[jwhyche]

What makes anyone think they will be broken up?

Honestly, not a thing. Everything you have pointed out is truth. Over the past decades they have had plenty of opportunity put a stop to the baby bell merging and facebook/google getting so big. The real truth is they just have no interested in doing so. To much money flowing in one direction and they don't want to kill that tit.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or make each site accessible from the outside, just like it was done for the ISP monopoly in Germany for example.

Or like jabber or email or diaspora or gnu social. Get an account wherever and connect to everybody.

Each small provider is then only allowed access to the private data of its slice of users and there is no pressure for users to flock to any one provider.

Re:This won't work long term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Government offers a free service to connect users, keep in touch, share news and photos etc. No one trusts them with the service, figuring without a doubt that they're using it to identify terrorists, sympathizers, wrong-thinkers, and malcontents. Soon enough, use of this service is mandatory for anyone wanting to cross a border or get a job in any company that deals with government contracts.

Re:This won't work long term.

[dddux]

Long term it would be best if mergers were prevented/banned all together. If a company is having financial difficulties, it should go bankrupt. Also, if a company is doing really well, it shouldn't be possible for it to expand by merging with another company. That's how you prevent monopolies. Quite simple, actually.

Re:This won't work long term.

[eclectro]

We are talking about breaking up Facebook now, but only 4 years ago greenlighted a huge mega billion dollar acquisition

In other words, under a very Democratic administration.

Re:This won't work long term.

[slashdotwannabe]

There's no need for government involvement at all beyond issuing personal identification certificates after verifying identity. There's no need for the Federal government to do it either; all 50 state governments are currently charged with issuing identity documents, so there's no reason they couldn't also offer a trusted cert to people when they get a driver's license.

Once that happens, whether or not someone chooses to reveal their identity by electing to include their "Government Verified Person" badge is up to them. If they want to be taken seriously in an adult conversation, they will. If they want to troll on 4chan, they can use the same pseudo-anonymity that we currently use today. How much they reveal about their identity is entirely up to them, but readers will know that whatever they reveal will have been verified by the government.

It seems like a good balance between the need for anonymity and the need to verify you aren't being trolled by a foreign government's PsyOps program.

What about Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

They gave them a pass so I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for these

However, *should* they is a different question, and I'd say they should have broken up MS as well. They just didn't, against all common sense.

Re:What about Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has a disgusting number of Government applications being hosted on Azure. Make no mistake, Amazon may dominate public but Azure is pushed to the point of extortion in Government. It's guaranteed year over year profit.

Re:What about Microsoft?

[jordanjay29]

If you're going to complain about Microsoft's government contracts, I suggest you also look at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin. Defense contractors have a massive stranglehold over government operations.

Re:What about Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft's behavior, however bad it was, would have been rather worse if they had not been made to be continually concerned with fending off anti-trust challenges.

Re:What about Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. One thing to remember however is there's a very real push toward breaking up companies in the interest of foreign entities being able to enter those markets. There's no way in hell I'd ever be OK with that and yes you can call it Nationalism or whatever you want.

Re: What about Microsoft?

[astrofurter]

Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are PART OF the government. It's pure legal fiction that says they're "private" companies.

Lets start with ISPs and cellular companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a direct conflict for a cable company to be your ISP. So lets split that up first since there is a clear line

Social networks have no honor, so need a right to privacy bill to protect the users and ban ghost tracking of those who dont use it

Re:Lets start with ISPs and cellular companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a direct conflict for a cable company to be your ISP. So lets split that up first since there is a clear line

This^^^.
Few people need Facebook and Twitter in the way that we need Internet access.
By allowing ISPs to own the content creators, we will have vertical integration in what is nearly a natural monopoly. The anti-competitive characteristic of vertical integration was one of the main reasons for the anti-trust breakups in the past.
What is coming is that we will have the fees for Internet Access (a natural monopoly outside of major metropolises) supporting the costs (to the ISP) of ESPN, Shopping channels, Broadcast TV re-broadcast rights, etc. Prices will never go down after the big ISPs buy up all the studios, so we must break them up now along business unit lines.

Re:Lets start with ISPs and cellular companies

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't know already, cell networks have MVNOs which is basically what you're describing (separating service from infrastructure).

In fact, Comcast/Xfinity has their own cell service since they created Xfinity Mobile. It runs on Verizon's network.

Why Twitter?

[UnknownSoldier]

I can understand Google and Fecesbook but why Twitter?

IMHO a better solution would be stop allowing "de facto" common platforms to censor people that goes against their political ideology. Business should be free from politics. (Yeah, I know, a pipe dream, but we need to start somewhere.)

Breaking them up won't solve anything. Your data will *still* be sold. Instead of 1 company selling it, it will be ~3x more.

Re:Why Twitter?

[panja]

What authority does the gov't have in stopping "common platforms" from censoring people as they see fit? The 1st Amendment does not cover private companies.

Re:Why Twitter?

[drinkypoo]

Breaking them up won't solve anything. Your data will *still* be sold. Instead of 1 company selling it, it will be ~3x more.

This. What's needed is regulation backed up with action, not splitting things up.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Exactly. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to use my printing press to exercise it.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Bradmont]

What they really ought to do is force them all to interoperate. That's why customers of different phone companies are able to call each other ; if it hadn't been legislated, I imagine we'd each hive seven or eight phone numbers the same way we have seven or eight instant messaging and video chat apps to keep in touch with our different contacts...

Re:Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO a better solution would be stop allowing "de facto" common platforms to censor people that goes against their political ideology.

Your suggestion means that they have to pay for the resources needed to distribute messages they don't agree with.
Pretty sure you need to get rid of the first amendment to accomplish that.

How would that work for other companies? If I want to place Nazi propaganda in the local grocery store windows, should they not be allowed to remove it?
Can I require that they hand out my flyers to their customers?

Breaking up companies in monopoly position is the only reasonable approach.

Re:Why Twitter?

[qbast]

Unless you happen to belong to a protected group. Then any attempt to deny you a service might be grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

Re:Why Twitter?

[arbiter1]

It doesn't but these companies are claiming protection under communication's decency act that they can't be sued for what someone posts but they are actively censoring people's like a publisher which means they can't claim immunity. So as much as they can censor people's speech they can't claim immunity from liability which they do.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

With companies that control the digital public square, they should be forced to uphold the protections of the First Amendment, meaning they can't kick people off or censor what they say without other criminality involved. Simply being a neo-Nazi or a conspiracy theory lunatic should never be grounds for the type of un-personing we're seeing happen to, say, Alex Jones. I propose a Constitutional amendment to require this.

Re:Why Twitter?

[arbiter1]

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda... Other issue is you look at 2016 and how these companies use their massive power and reach to influence election's like they tried to do in 2016. Everyone will look at "the russian interference" which lets be real did next to nothing compared to likes of google messing with its search to benfit the leftist democrat's while putting labels on GOP's picture calling them a nazi. Then you got most recent news from likes a twitter saying conservatives are scared to voice their opinion's in a very hostile liberal work place. We can also look at how Facebook and Cambridge analytic's story where all you heard about was how it helped Trump but never how Facebook data was used by Clinton and Even obama in 2012 which facebook found out later about but let them keep the data which was illega campaign contribution and like would be charged as if they looked at it. All and All these companies as posted above are using their power and reach to influence people's vote in 1 person's favor and we all know that is in favor if the liberal democrat's.

Re: Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why anything.... The websites mentioned in the article are all part of the "look at me" generation. Dopamine addicted children looking for their next hit, when someone subscribes or likes them. This is not how to do society. Dont like FB or Twitter or Slashdot, tell them to fuck off. None of these companies put food in your table or shelter over your head. They exist to sell advertising and collect your metrics for resale.

Re:Why Twitter?

[wyattstorch516]

It's called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. If you want to fight that in the court the go right ahead, it's been settled law since 1890. Saying that somebody has the right to censor you on their common platform is the same as censoring somebody from using their common railroad if they said something the railroad owner found objectionable. Funny how people have no problem with censorship these days as long as it means censoring the other side.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

What authority does the gov't have in stopping "common platforms" from censoring people as they see fit?

Well, the gov't paid for them to start censoring in the first place...

Unless you're going to tell me that the US State Department is not the government and neither is the royal family of Saudi Arabia that holds stock in Twitter.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless your printing press is a cake and icing.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't but these companies are claiming protection under communication's decency act that they can't be sued for what someone posts but they are actively censoring people's like a publisher which means they can't claim immunity. So as much as they can censor people's speech they can't claim immunity from liability which they do.

What you’re saying can’t possibly be true, or moderated forums wouldn’t exist. Membership requirements to a forum or message board or chat rooms can be regulated in any way the operator wishes, and the content can be restricted, muted, altered, owned, not owned, any way the operator sees fit.

You wouldn’t be able to do a simple swear filter if what you’re saying was true. It’s like you’ve never seen the internet before... liability, what liability where???

Re:Why Twitter?

[reboot246]

Censoring one side over the other can also be considered a contribution in kind to the favored side.

Re:Why Twitter?

[alvinrod]

I don't think it really matters. Companies that try to pull shit like that ultimately end up destroying their own credibility and brand more than they can actively do anything. If anything, these companies are probably bad for the Democrats as they're much further left than the party as a whole and will push agendas that aren't politically palatable outside of far-left circles. I almost wonder if we're going to get a Tea Party-esque situation where there's a splinter faction within the Democrat party and a need for the mainstream party to distance themselves from the more extreme-end.

Re:Why Twitter?

[jaa101]

Unless you happen to belong to a protected group

And everybody does; at least everyone who has a race, sex, age, etc.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bake me a cake.

Oh its different when its YOUR side affected. Rules only apply to people you don't like. I see, you are an asshole.

Re:Why Twitter?

[jaa101]

Unless your printing press is a cake and icing.

Cake icing shops are free to censor their output. They're not free to choose their customers based on sexual preferences. Admitedly there is some cross-over, in that refusing to make a wedding cake showing two men holding hands amounts to discrimination, unless they also refuse to make such cakes with bride and groom toppers.

Re: Why Twitter?

[dnaumov]

This is getting really old: for the 637236th time - different rules apply to a business deemed to have a monopoly or a near-monopoly position in the market they operate in.

Re: Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatâ(TM)s twitter? Iâ(TM)ve survived so far without ever reading a single âoetweetâ.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Vinegar Joe]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell

Re:Why Twitter?

[DRJlaw]

It doesn't but these companies are claiming protection under communication's decency act that they can't be sued for what someone posts

47 USC 230(c)(1)

but they are actively censoring people's like a publisher which means they can't claim immunity.

47 USC 230(c)(2)(A)

I'm missing the part that says "you may choose only one."

So as much as they can censor people's speech they can't claim immunity from liability which they do.

Yes, they can. It says so right in the very act that you're discussing.

Re: Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because queers are better people, so they get the special right to force artists to perform for them. We had a word for that a century ago, "slave". But, that word triggered snowflakes, so it's been censored.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Cyryathorn]

I see a lot of people make this claim, but it simply isn't true. It's directly contradicted by the black-letter text of the law in question:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. [...] No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [...] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Do read the whole thing yourself, if you suspect me of nefarious elisions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Note especially, it even goes out of the way to say it covers censorship of any material that is "otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". The provider simply has to deem something "otherwise objectionable" and they're clear of any civil liability, and explicitly so regardless of any free speech status of the material (the poster is of course free to speak, just not free to make use of someone else's platform without their consent).

Re: Why Twitter?

[ShoulderOfOrion]

Every time the debate on Slashdot gets political these days it seems the average IQ of the participants drops 50 points.

Re:Why Twitter?

[sg_oneill]

What authority does the gov't have in stopping "common platforms" from censoring people as they see fit? The 1st Amendment does not cover private companies.

They don't , and these sorts of bills won't last 10 seconds in front of a judge, as they are straight up bills of attainder and expressly forbidden under the constitution.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

What authority does the gov't have in stopping "common platforms" from censoring people as they see fit? The 1st Amendment does not cover private companies

Between Apple, Facebook, Twitter and Google, you've got 95% of social media, vlogs, podcasts, etc., so if the act as one and ban "unsavory" people, then it's monopolistic in nature and vulnerable to an antitrust lawsuit. Beyond that, these platforms have effectively become the public square for discourse, so the 1st Amendment may well apply. When you take into account that officials from these companies visited the White House hundreds of times up until January 2017, it's possible that the government pressured the social media platforms to act in a certain way, which may well be de facto 1st Amendment violations.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

If 3 company own 90% of all the printing presses, and printing presses are only rented, never sold, and all 3 printing press providers work together to ban ONE dissenter, then yes, that is severely hurting freedom of speech.

Stop making excuse for tyrannical behavior, simply because the tyrant is a corporation and uses contracts instead of laws.

If it is as big as a state, and if it behaves like a tyrant, then it *is* a tyrant.

Google + Apple + Facebook + Microsoft + Visa + Twitter + PayPal together have a market capitalisation far above and beyond most states of the world - and they have conspired to ban ONE person. No matter what you and I think of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, there is no denying that all these companies have banned him, pretty much at once, in a clearly coordinated effort. And it is only a matter of time before his hosting provider and DNS name server etc. are shut down and then he is forever gone from any part of the Internet.

If that is "not tyranny but free market" then we're done as a free society because these companies will then effectively rule the world. Dissent, and you're demoted to working as a janitor.

Re:Why Twitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses should have a right to not allow calls for genocide and outright quackery on their platform. Considering the only right leaning voices that have been banned from ANY platform have been exactly those, it doesn't sound much like discrimination to me. Besides, they have their own twitter/facebook for those messages. And their utter lack of users has shown the free market working it's magic.

Facebook and Google, probably. Twitter though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter is the least of the three by so far it shouldn't even be on that list.

Should The US Government Break Up ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They should not.

We live in a representative republic.

If a company hasn't done something wrong, the government has no business doing anything to them.

Stop using the force and power of government because of your stupid 'feelz'. If you don't like some random company or person, boycott them, or stop hanging out with them. Stop trying to deprive them of life, liberty, and/or property because you think your feelings and morals should be enforced at the point of the government gun.

Re:Should The US Government Break Up ?

[blahplusplus]

If a company hasn't done something wrong, the government has no business doing anything to them.

Sorry to burst your bubble but companies can get around the law or engage in lawless behavior before policies of the state can catch up leading to all sorts of disasters. Right now technology has undermined american dogma's like accountability in markets. The videogame industry being a prime example, the internet allowed US videogame companies to steal videogame software because their customers cannot reach these companies. So they can forcibly defraud users without their consent because users would need physical closeness to the business to have any market power at all. So the internet has created total market failure in videogames since customers have zero power to influence the behavior of these companies.

New terminology is going to have to be invented for what the internet has done to society and it takes a while to do the necessary research. Old free market ideology does not describe what is happening in society anymore, that's the reality on the ground.

Re:Should The US Government Break Up ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding videogames.
Could you give some specific case?

Re:Should The US Government Break Up ?

[blahplusplus]

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding videogames.
Could you give some specific case?

In the 90's, pre internet, game companies had to give you all the files - the complete software when you bought a game. So in the late 90's CEO's came up with a fraudulent scheme to get naive and irrational public used to the idea of buying games you don't own or control because they knew most people were computer illiterate. Like how they took Ultima rpg's in development and reballed them Ultima online, to get the subscription money, aka paying monthly for a game you never own. MMO's were the plot to take regular PC rpg's and move them out of gamers hands and into the control of developers/publishers, now this couldn't happen without the internet. Where they chop up the software into two chunks and only give you one piece.

Good examples are diablo 2 vs diablo 3, diablo 2 you fully control the single+multiplayer on a machine, aka if blizzard ever goes out of business you can still play the campaign and the multiplayer with friends. Diablo 3 PC is fully controlled by blizzard with bizarre streaming tech that introduced single player lag because of authentication checks. Any game where you have to "login" = you don't own it, means your being taken for a ride. AKA they can pull the plug at any time and your software goes bye bye, even though you paid for it. So before high speed internet penetration was everywhere you got complete games after they are basically committing fraud by producing games in a hostile manner, they got with this because customers are 100's of miles away. AKA the internet made it trivial to steal software by simply NOT releasing the whole software and keeping a part of it on corporate computers inside their offices.

Re:Should The US Government Break Up ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC here. Now I know what you're talking about. Thanks for the write-up.

It reminds me of Quicken discontinuation policy which disables on-line services three years after the release date. And it's not really on-line services that they are disabling, it is that Quicken will not accept any input other than manually typed, it won't accept data input from a file either. At least it's not totally dead like server based games would be. And now the 2018 version is a yearly subscription that goes read-only if you don't pay up.

The powers that be have always wanted a world in which they own everything, and the rest of us rent from them everything we need.

Re:Should The US Government Break Up ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots. Don't rent them then.

Re:Should The US Government Break Up ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The market is over, there's no accountability when a software company is 100 miles away in an internet enabled society. So free market theory is false, sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:Should The US Government Break Up ?

[ShoulderOfOrion]

Tell that to Adobe users.

Re:Should The US Government Break Up ?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I didn't buy diablo 3 too. (diablo 2 was a huge chunk of my life),
But majority didn't see it this way.

Individuals have no power, I wonder why we bother with democracy.

Break them up!

[McFortner]

And why not, it worked with AT&T.



... Oh, wait....

Re:Break them up!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It did work on AT&T. Prices dropped dramatically.

Re:Break them up!

[AmiMoJo]

And when they say social networks are too big and need to be broken up, are they really including Google Plus in that category.

I mean, I'm sure the Google Plus guys and their 3 users are flattered, but three is an odd number and can't be broken up fairly. I bet they didn't think of that.

Re:Break them up!

[jedrek]

It worked extremely well. Competition skyrocketed, prices dropped. If the government actually got off its ass and fulfilled it's mandate instead of being corporate lapdogs and kept them from re-merging, you'd have a lot more than 4 major telcos in the US... which is still 3 more than you had in 1983.

Apple should be at the top of the list.

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking up Apple would be a net benefit. Mac OS and iOS should be available on third-party devices, not just ones from a single company. iOS users should allowed to install apps from third-parties (without requiring a Mac and a developer account).

In comparison, the other three only need to be regulated to keep them truly open platforms. (If they claim to be open to the public, that means accepting all viewpoints.)

Re:Apple should be at the top of the list.

[giggleloop]

But the software isn't a product. It's just an OS that comes with the computers. It's no different than buying a router and having that company's firmware locked in to use it. As for iOS and unsigned apps... perhaps, but then they would sacrifice device safety, privacy and integrity and you'd lose a ton of functionality (or have to lock out all unsigned apps from being able to access absolutely anything on your device.

Re:Apple should be at the top of the list.

[dryeo]

You could have a setting that by default only allows apps from the Apple store but if you want you can load from other stores.

Re:Apple should be at the top of the list.

[Anonymous Coward]

iOS has this today with enterprise certificates. This is how companies deploy internal applications.

Re:Apple should be at the top of the list.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple controls at most 20% of the smartphone market and 15% of the desktop computer market. They aren't a dominant player.

Break up Twitter into what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter is extremely annoying, but it's not a particularly massive operation.

Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, nothing less than our democracy is at stake. They have shown time and again that they will use their power to support their political views. Their ability to manipulate the flow in information and influence or squash public discourse is unparalleled in history. Unfortunately they have matched their ability to manipulate information with a willingness to do so for the right political (progressive) results.

They cannot be trusted. Time and again they claim they don't manipulate results, yet time and again the victims of Silicon Valley group think are those that disagree with progressives. Our democracy cannot be left in the hands of a few kingmakers in the technical industry.

They should become government TLAs

[Anonymous Coward]

They should become government three-letter agencies. After all, their primary purpose is data collection gift wrapped with a friendly interface.

Not monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they're the most popular platforms doesn't make Google, Facebook, and Twitter monopolies. The barrier to entry to their markets is incredibly low. A teenager with a few bucks and some time can make a Twitter. The hard part is convincing people to use your new low userbase platform over theirs.

Monopolies occur when there are large barriers to entry to a market and large companies that take anti-competitive practices to make it even harder. When users have limited choice in suppliers for services. There are subsets of these large companies where you can have arguments for that, but these aren't the parts of the business people on the right are complaining about. They're mad they're getting banned from twitter or facebook.

Well, facebook and twitter aren't the internet. There are other platforms out there which you can access as easily as typing a different address into your browser. Not to mention YOU CAN JUST MAKE YOUR OWN SITE. Decentraliation of internet services is a good thing and bitching and moaning that facewittoogle kicked you out of their private club is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

Re:Not monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

Moxie Marlinspike's talk Changing Threats to Privacy explains the problem with not using things like Facebook, Twitter, a cell phone, etc. The crux of the argument is that you are free to opt out of these services, but in doing so you're also opting out of society, ultimately placing yourself in social exile. "Making your own site" is fine, but the problem is that you can't just bring all of the people on other sites along with you, so you can play in your corner of the playground but it'll be alone and without friends, family, business networking opportunities, etc.

These companies are a threat to sanity

[alternative_right]

If we could break up Microsoft in the 1990s, and AT&T in the 1980s, we should break up these large monopolies who have shown that they act as political organizations and market manipulators as much as service providers.

People use these sites for the "network effects," meaning that if everyone you know is on Facebook, you will use it to be in contact with them. However, the centralized model is not healthy because your data is directly controlled by firms with too much influence, who have shown a willingness to discriminate against non-Leftists.

They very fact that we are having debates about "fake news" and blocking terrorist content on these sites shows that they are dangerous. They have too much power and influence to remain private entities, and are acting more like governments.

Maybe if we break them up, people will stop being glued to their cell phones in a "fear of missing out" fugue of frenzied exploration of vapid drama and ego-promotion that leaves no one feeling good about life. These companies are a net negative for our society, and in self-defense we can remove them.

Re:These companies are a threat to sanity

[Gravis Zero]

If we could break up Microsoft in the 1990s

Didn't happen.

People use these sites for the "network effects," meaning that if everyone you know is on Facebook, you will use it to be in contact with them.

The difference is that everyone has real options now. Just because many people are ignorant of this fact doesn't make it less true.

However, the centralized model is not healthy

This is actually something I agree with. A little regulation could ensure that social networks provide an inter-platform interface which would likely be great and horrible at the same time. Then again, we've heard about how the far-right feels about regulation.

because your data is directly controlled by firms with too much influence, who have shown a willingness to discriminate against non-Leftists.

I find the cognitive dissonance of the far-right to be absolutely amusing.

Maybe if we break them up, people will stop being glued to their cell phones in a "fear of missing out" fugue of frenzied exploration of vapid drama and ego-promotion that leaves no one feeling good about life. These companies are a net negative for our society, and in self-defense we can remove them.

If it were any other company/website then you would be screaming about the "nanny state" at the top of your lungs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is alternative_right.

Re:These companies are a threat to sanity

[dryeo]

We really need to force churches to allow different religions as well the non-religous equal time at the alter or whatever the priest stands at when preaching. Think about the network effects of churches and why should they be able censor, especially since the government gives them tax breaks just for existing.
Once we force the churches to preach what they don't agree with, we can move on, perhaps to schools and allow communists lots of time with the children.
Eventually we can get to private businesses and force them to carry messages they don't agree with. True freedom

So much for your freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

You free to do what you want, as long as you obey us and don't defy us.
These are companies that are defying every bullshit the US government is doing against the free and open internet, they hate that.

No.

[Gravis Zero]

Betteridge got it right, again. Facebook, Twitter and Google all have viable alternatives that are easy to access, the fact that few use them is irrelevant. Also, there is little standing in the way of people setting up their own alternatives to all of these platforms. There are things that need investigating at Facebook and Google but I know of nothing warranting breaking them up.

Before you condemn me, I hate Facebook, think social media is scourge on society. However, it seems like more than anything else that this is just sour grapes over how these private businesses conduct themselves. There is an argument to be made for the social good but it defies every argument put forth by Republicans over governments interfering with businesses. If you want to do what's best for society then you also need to behave consistently.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Jeff Landry.

Re:No.

[DogDude]

At least in the "smart" phone market, there is no alternative to Google or Apple (although I still use my Windows Phone). That's kind of a problem for somebody who needs to use a "smart" phone (caveat: most people do not need to use a "smart" phone).

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is. Android is open source. There are alternative OSes out there. Blackberry still exists for Christ's sake. People like you are the problem. You refuse to acknowledge competitors.

Re:No.

[ArylAkamov]

Facebook, Twitter and Google all have viable alternatives that are easy to access, the fact that few use them is irrelevant.

Not when the big three constantly attack the alternatives and prevent them from being accessed. Just look at Gab's app on iphone and android. Their funding. The threats of them being shut down.
The alternatives never get a chance

Re:No.

[dryeo]

Well one thing that should have been done is stopping them from buying up the competition, something that Facebook seems to do a lot and the others too much.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

The search indexes definitely need to be broken up. Google has been using its index in an EXTREMELY disruptive manner to disrupt competitors.

Re:No.

[Gravis Zero]

Gab is just one of many alternatives. Nobody is stopping them from existing, they just aren't helping them to exist because they are violating their ToS for their various services. There are many other social networking apps in their app stores.

Re:No.

[Gravis Zero]

I don't disagree but a Republican congress did nothing to prevent any of this. Their objections are entirely new which seems to indicate sour grapes rather a genuine regulatory objection.

Re:No.

[AmiMoJo]

The best solution would be to mandate data sharing and portability. If my friend wants to use Facebook and I want Bookface then they should talk to each other and we should be able to communicate.

Make it like email, where you can choose your provider more or less freely.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

What alternatives to Google Search are there in the English market - besides Bing?
Every other "search engine" uses either Google or Bing for most of their searches. Even DuckDuckGo has only indexed about specifically chosen 400 sites (like StackOverflow). Everything else goes to Google or Bing.

Re:No.

[swb]

Remember when application protocols were defined by academics in public RFCs?

For one, they started out the idea that there was no globalized central data repository -- that there would be multiple data repositories, requiring both client-server and server-client protocols. And that there would be multiple software implementations, so just define a protocol and let people implement it as they saw fit.

Now it's all designed for central monopoly data storage and a single source for software from the same people that control the data storage. Thanks, corporations.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Betteridge got it right, again. Facebook, Twitter and Google all have viable alternatives that are easy to access, the fact that few use them is irrelevant.

I'd actually be more interested in breaking up television, newspaper, and radio consolidation. Sinclair owns a great deal of the first, and I believe the others have similar concerns.

We might also need to consider slightly propping up independent newspaper and radio at least with respect to news with appropriate checks to insure accuracy and independence. There is a reason republicans have gone after public radio over times. They don't like voices they don't control.

Re:No.

[thegarbz]

If you want to do what's best for society then you also need to behave consistently.

You can do both by looking at everything in front of you case by case objectively rather than painting it with the red or blue brush. That is not hypocrisy, that is the government working, something that hasn't happen in a while.

Re:No.

[AmiMoJo]

Someone who knows more about this than me should write an RFC for social media data interchange.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blackberry makes Android phones and the company's products have less than 1% of the Android market. For all mobile phones, not only smartphones, Android represents 99% of the market. Apps drive people to these platforms and there are only two platforms with any significance, Android and iOS.

Re:No.

[dryeo]

That I agree with.

Re:No.

[Gravis Zero]

You can do both by looking at everything in front of you case by case objectively rather than painting it with the red or blue brush.

I agree. With each decision a pattern of behavior emerges which is exactly why this sudden departure is completely inconsistent with past decisions.

That is not hypocrisy, that is the government working, something that hasn't happen in a while.

Based on their ideological rhetoric, it's obvious this is not the new normal but rather that is being exception made on the basis that it is inconvenient in a partisan manner. You can pretend that they have changed but it doesn't make it true.

Re:No.

[Gravis Zero]

The best solution would be to mandate data sharing and portability. If my friend wants to use Facebook and I want Bookface then they should talk to each other and we should be able to communicate.

I am not 100% sure about mandating data sharing/portability but I do know that data sharing/portability would be superior to the current situation. You would also need rules about inter-social-network communication to avoid an onslaught of spam like we're seen happen with email.

It's definitely an idea worth exploring.

Re:No.

[cwatts]

The best solution would be to mandate data sharing and portability. If my friend wants to use Facebook and I want Bookface then they should talk to each other and we should be able to communicate.

Make it like email, where you can choose your provider more or less freely.

Wait, a minute ago we wanted to STOP data sharing and portability.

We can't hide our cake and eat it too...

cw

Re:No.

[PJ6]

Facebook, Twitter and Google all have viable alternatives that are easy to access, the fact that few use them is irrelevant. Also, there is little standing in the way of people setting up their own alternatives to all of these platforms.

This is incorrect for Facebook - social networks are natural monopolies.

There is a less obvious natural monopoly dynamic going on with Google, too, since they utterly dominate their market.

It doesn't necessarily follow that they should be "broken up", but you got to get your theory straight.

Re:No.

[AmiMoJo]

It's about control. Data sharing is good as long as the owner of the data, i.e. you, controls the process.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

This. i'll let my kid have Twitter on her phone. I can't let her have Gab, because every third message is a screed to ethnically cleanse the mud people or some such Nazi drivel. It's like 4chan without the anonymity.

It is great fun to email a Gab user's employer with their post history though. Many Nazis have been fired using that method.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is definitely the part of the story that everybody seems to be missing. Does this have anything to do with that "I hate Google, so it's time to regulate them" tweet that Trump put out a week ago?

Re:hahaha, Louisiana attorney general

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight, the attorney general from the state of banjos and "Deliverance Country", complete with swamps and gators is going to take down multi-hundreds of billion dollar companies.

yeah right. dream on.

The biggest lawsuit of all time was took place in Mississippi. That was the take-down of the tobacco companies.

BTW, Landry is from Louisiana, Sessions is from Alabama.
Banjos and Deliverance took place in Georgia.
Burt has been dead for only two weeks. How could you get this so wrong?

Re: hahaha, Louisiana attorney general

[Anonymous Coward]

Your bigotry is leaking. I'm sure their puppet politicians on the coasts will protect your right to not be subjected to right wing thoughts.

Disney

[Rik Sweeney]

Disney needs breaking up.

Re:Disney

[Gravis Zero]

So do banks, ISPs and other giants who have abused their position.

The current governing party has increasingly abdicated it's responsibilities and blocked others trying to perform their own for the last 40 years. Time to vote them all out.

Re:Disney

[sls1j]

Political parties should also be broken up.

Re:Disney

[gtall]

Certainly the largest banks should be broken up. There was talk at the beginning of the Great Recession that they posed too much of a systemic risk. The Feds never did anything about them and now Trump is their lapdog...my apologies to the honorable dogs.

Re:Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

The current governing party has increasingly abdicated it's responsibilities and blocked others trying to perform their own for the last 40 years. Time to vote them all out.

There is actually more than one party currently governing the United States. While Republicans have certainly had their turn as the "obstructionist party", I won't assume you are referring to the Republican majority since you could just as easily be referring to the Democratic minority who have been the ones most recently abdicating their responsibilities (at times refusing to even show up to work), and engaging in a significant if not unprecedented level of obstruction, not just with the most recent confirmation spectacle.

Regardless of which party you are referring to voting out in favor of the other, I would like to counter your suggestion by saying.. Don't be herded like cattle! Think for yourselves!

Audit their data

[Alain Williams]

I am coming from the perspective of abuse of collection/collation (they know things about us that we do not know that they know) and then how they use that data (often to someone else's advantage). These are aspects of privacy, but more than is generally understood by the term 'privacy'.

The audit would need to be carried out by people who are: trusted, independent and not bribeable (I wish). Their audits should be made public. The audit could mean one or more of:

• * the database schemas. This will tell us what kind of things that they hold and how they link/relate the data items. (I am aware that much of it is not in SQL type databases)
• * the data itself. Have a look at some sample of the data about some people; maybe some statistics (eg how many people, how many items/person, how much financial info, ...)
• * how they get this data; maybe from their own servers, maybe from other organisations.
• * how this data is used internally by Google/Facebook/...
• * how this data is shared with other organisations, how often, ...

Once we know this we might be in a position to decide what we do with these Internet giants.

No need

[nospam007]

Meemaw and peepaw are on Facebook, mom is on Pinterest, the kids are on Instagram and great-granddad is on Myspace and his girfriend on 2.Life.

Better idea

[wyattstorch516]

Instead of breaking them up the government can simply put them out of business by passing privacy laws with some teeth. When they can't sell your info then their biggest revenue stream goes right down the drain.

Re: Better idea

[astrofurter]

Here here!

There are actually three issues at play here. The most serious issue is the mass surveillance on which these companies base their business model. That, as you said, should be outright banned. It's a direct threat to democracy and the American way of life.

Then there is the economic issue of how Google abuses their control of Android to stifle competition. This is basically an economic issue - it's bad for the economy when innovation is either killed off or swallowed up by a megacorp. For this reason Google should be broken up - Android, at very least, should bea separate company.

There is also the issue of the big companies buying up all their competitors. This does warrant anti-trust action. But it's not clear that they ought to be broken up, not to that extent. Perhaps forced to divest some of their subsidiaries and controls placed on new acquisitions.

Lastly there is the issue of corporate censorship, arbitrary & capricious deplatforming, search results bias, election interference, and similar issues related to freedom of speech. These are very serious problems, but they are not particularly related to anti-trust law. The obvious right answer is that the internet's public square should not be censored, neither by the state nor by corporations the state charters. But the devil is in the details. How do we draw the line between "random website" and "internet equivalent of the town square"?

Of course not!

[Anonymous Coward]

They merely provide content and a semi-open platform. Nobody is forced to use them.

The market that should be pried open is service provision. We need real competition, though ad hoc networking would be better to render the ISP obsolete and make control by the state impractical.

Dreaming on...

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight, the attorney general from the state of banjos and "Deliverance Country", complete with swamps and gators is going to take down multi-hundreds of billion dollar companies.

yeah right. dream on.

Yes, and when he does the bits and pieces of those multi-hundreds of billion dollar companies will just by accident happen to end up in the hands of his christian conservative bible thumping fundamentalist friends and long time sponsors of the Republican party who want to take the world back to the 11th century. That would make them gate keepers, supreme hegemons and god appointed censors of the most important communications network in history. I'm sure you'd all love living in that world.

Re:Dreaming on...

[iggymanz]

nope, them thar are Romanc Catholics in that state, Trump's Bible thumper will tell you they're going to hell, along with all the men with pointy white hats that led them. And those priests that love altar boy bunghole too.

Re:Dreaming on...

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, them thar are Romanc Catholics in that state, Trump's Bible thumper will tell you they're going to hell, along with all the men with pointy white hats that led them. And those priests that love altar boy bunghole too.

I said it once and I'll say it again: You catholics have serious metal issues.

Revised Fairness Doctrine

[RogueWarrior65]

Just resurrect the Fairness Doctrine and apply it specifically to these companies.

just relocate

[Patent Lover]

Perhaps they'll just relocate to a certain emerald isle kind of like a certain fruit-themed company did.

Re:just relocate

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Perhaps they'll just relocate to a certain emerald isle kind of like a certain fruit-themed company did.

Which is why we'll need an EU-like agreement to prevent companies from running to the weakest jurisdictions.

Simply require them to hold to the law

[Karmashock]

My understanding is that they cite themselves as being publishers under the law in some contexts and effectively communications companies in other...

and as is typical they change their identification depending on what is most convenient for them.

Publishers for example are responsible for their content and communications companies have "safe harbor".

Publishers can police their content and communications companies cannot unless there is a legal violation.

So if Google is a publisher they are liable for all content on their service personally and cannot cite safe harbor.

If Google is a communications company then they cannot remove content from their services unless it violates the law.

Simply doing that would solve most of the current shit show.

Google would reflexively be forced to be a communications company because the publisher condition imposes too much overhead to be practical. That would remove the concern that google is biasing content. End of argument.

Literally just apply the law and don't let them change their identification. They can choose whichever they like. Totally their choice. And then then apply the law. Done.

Re:Simply require them to hold to the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Publishers can police their content and communications companies cannot unless there is a legal violation.

What is a radio station then? They are certainly communicating a message, and they are certainly deciding what message that is.

Re:Simply require them to hold to the law

[Karmashock]

radio stations are publishers and are liable for content... obviously.

Re:hahaha, Louisiana attorney general

[iggymanz]

oh yeah, let's talk about that tobacco that isn't around any more. Latest news about R.J. Reynolds,

" In January 2017, Reynolds American agreed to a $49.4 billion deal to be taken over by British American Tobacco." -- wikipedia

120 billion dollar market in the USA last year. Yeah, "took down tobacco" HAHAHAHA!

It's still "deliverance country", it's a few states.

Yes and no

[PopeRatzo]

Yes to Google. They've got their hands in too many pies. Force them to be broken into the search engine/Gmail, Android & Chrome, YouTube, and all the other shit they do. No to Twitter and Facebook, because all they do is their websites. If they get into anything outside of that, then force them to spin off those other units.

Generally, I'd say that any large corporation ought to be broken up if they are involved in multiple connected enterprises. But if their business is just one thing, then no.

Re:Yes and no

[dryeo]

According to https://tech.slashdot.org/comm..., Facebook has bought up 71 other businesses including competitors such as Instagram, Oculus, and Whatsapp. As long as they're buying up the competition, they're too big.

Re:Yes and no

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes to Google. They've got their hands in too many pies. Force them to be broken into the search engine/Gmail, Android & Chrome, YouTube, and all the other shit they do. No to Twitter and Facebook, because all they do is their websites. If they get into anything outside of that, then force them to spin off those other units.

Generally, I'd say that any large corporation ought to be broken up if they are involved in multiple connected enterprises. But if their business is just one thing, then no.

So you are also in favor of breaking up Microsoft?

Re:Yes and no

[PopeRatzo]

So you are also in favor of breaking up Microsoft?

Absolutely. Should have happened a long time ago.

No. Just make TAKING private info illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Just make TAKING private info illegal. Tracking people online needs to be illegal.

Since anything you post to any of those platforms is public, even if marked private, the world is full of idiots, nothing provided freely by the person can be considered private.

Re: No. Just make TAKING private info illegal

[aaronb1138]

I'm lately seen value in just barring online platforms from targeted advertising. This makes the collection of private data useless. Concurrently it immediately halts the issues with proven violations of Equal Employment and Equal Housing rights.

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

[mykepredko]

If you're looking for anti-competitive and customer intrusive behaviour, you don't need to look any further (and they've been convicted of it besides).

Krishnamurti... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a PROFOUNDLY SICK SOCIETY..." Krishnamurti

* ... & IF you can't do it on your own, minus "networking" (the province of the weak)? You ARE the bullshit.

APK

P.S.=> Of course I do something about the bullshit - myself (especially from Fakebook & JEWgle) & it works (better than anything else, more efficiently & natively) https://it.slashdot.org/commen... ... apk

Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the only way to be sure.

Thank God!

[Ol Olsoc]

We need The Government to get involved in all forms of media!

I would suggest that all posts on Facebook and Twitter be funneled through a trustworthy group of House of representatives members, and they who know what is good and right can stop anything that they know is not good from ever being posted, and on repeat offenses, exercise a second amendment solution on the guilty party.

But Americans - this is not enough. Our dear leader tells us every day about the terrible lies the media tells about him.

We must extend the telling of only the truth to all forms of media, and merciless crushing of those who would bear false witness, and God will reward America once again.

Even better, shut down all media liars immediately, and set up a Government run Ministry of Truth..

Oh......what.... hold on...

Re:Thank God!

[dryeo]

Please don't give them ideas.

Re:Thank God!

[AmiMoJo]

Did you make this same argument when they wanted to break up AT&T? Did it work out that way?

I suppose to be fair the government does listen to your phone calls via the NSA, but only secretly and illegally and they do it to all social media as well already.

Re:Thank God!

[Anonymous Coward]

The current US administration already has that. Hence everyone is "fake news" except "fox news entertainment".

Re:Thank God!

[Ol Olsoc]

The current US administration already has that. Hence everyone is "fake news" except "fox news entertainment".

You forgot Infowars and Breitbart.

Re:Thank God!

[Ol Olsoc]

Please don't give them ideas.

Dear Leaders continual rants against "Fake News" shows that he and his toadies, the Republican Party already have designs upon the first amendment and the destruction of the fourth estate. The third estate dissolution is nearly finished.

Re:Thank God!

[dryeo]

Sadly true and spreading to other countries besides America.

Re:Thank God!

[Ol Olsoc]

Did you make this same argument when they wanted to break up AT&T? Did it work out that way?

I suppose to be fair the government does listen to your phone calls via the NSA, but only secretly and illegally and they do it to all social media as well already.

Do you actually think I believe what I wrote? Wasn't even trying to Poe anyone, That's why I posted waitwhat. The problem with these folk who demand to control media is they think it is all awesome and great when they are in control. Because they think their cause is just. They never seem to get that the evil party (whichever the one they are not in) might get into power and control it in whatever way the evil party finds justified.

You're from GB, IIRC. Are you implying that M16 never listens in?

Re:Thank God!

[AmiMoJo]

It's mostly GCHQ listening in...

Re:Thank God!

[Ol Olsoc]

It's mostly GCHQ listening in...

Well, speak nicely of them!

Google yes, Facebook maybe, Twitter no

[gman003]

What would a broken-up Twitter look like? They only have the Twitter network itself, and Periscope, and 99% of the company is Twitter. Splitting them up would still leave Twitter being just as big and problematic. Trying to split the Twitter network won't work - everyone will just switch to one of them. Even if you try to do it on national or regional lines, half the accounts I follow are foreign so I'd end up using them (or more likely, an aggregation service), and then you're right back where you started.

Facebook has some more substantial products besides their core Facebook. There's WhatsApp, Instagram, Oculus... I'd love for Oculus to go independent, the main reason I refuse to buy their hardware is that they're owned by Facebook and are thus guaranteed to turn evil at some point. A breakup here would actually do something. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's not completely unproductive like a Twitter breakup.

Google is too big. Search, GMail, Android, Chrome, Chromebooks/ChromeOS, Youtube, Drive, Docs, Pay, Play, Plus, Blogger, AppEngine/Cloud, Waze, Project Fi... the network effect is huge and it's clearly anticompetitive - and I didn't even list Alphabet's separate holdings, which include Waymo and Google Fiber. They need to be broken up. They're already anticompetitive as hell.

Re:Google yes, Facebook maybe, Twitter no

[Patent Lover]

Trump would shit a brick.

Re:Google yes, Facebook maybe, Twitter no

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is too big. Search, GMail, Android, Chrome, Chromebooks/ChromeOS, Youtube, Drive, Docs, Pay, Play, Plus, Blogger, AppEngine/Cloud, Waze, Project Fi

No one is forcing you to use any of Google's services. There's more than one alternative that you can easily access for each of the ones you listed.

Re: Google yes, Facebook maybe, Twitter no

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is forcing Google to do business in America.

well,

[Anonymous Coward]

the government should just impose media control and manage the information the people see, like they do in china. if one hopes for social order and stability, we will soon bury media 'freedoms' the same place we've buried democracy a while back.

And then what happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is Facebook Main then starts developing WhatsApp2, Messenger2, Instagram2, etc. The "problem" is not solved.

just strip them of legal protections

[ooloorie]

Google, Facebook, and Twitter currently enjoy legal protections against copyright infringement, defamation of character, and other kinds of legal issues because they claim that they are just redistribution information with no editorial control. Obviously, that is a sham.

The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites.

No breakup needed, the problem will take care of itself with a few lawsuits.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[Anonymous Coward]

... will take care of itself with a few lawsuits.

First, corporations have free speech, so saying something anti-social and destructive is allowed. Second, corporations are designed to avoid liability. Combine that with the editorial nature of social networking, that is, an absence of relationship (with the author) invoking responsibility, and no lawsuit will win.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[DRJlaw]

The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites.

The person criticizing the EU for "criminalizing speech" earlier this week is now advocating for criminalizing speech -- so long as it is merely the courts destroying mechanisms for distributing speech at the whims of private interests.

You truly are an idiot.

Hint: remove legal protection from those companies and you must remove them from all companies. And then you can kiss your ability to post insanity like this goodbye. Nobody will be willing to pay copywriters and attorneys to review your material, so the internet will turn into an electronic version of a newspaper -- usatoday.com -- minus any comment mechanism.

And it will be glorious... /s

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: remove legal protection from those companies and you must remove them from all companies. And then you can kiss your ability to post insanity like this goodbye. Nobody will be willing to pay copywriters and attorneys to review your material, so the internet will turn into an electronic version of a newspaper -- usatoday.com -- minus any comment mechanism.

And it will be glorious... /s

So what you're saying is, if we follow his (idiotic) plan, we would never have had to read his (idiotic) plan in the first place?

Maybe the plan isn't so idiotic after all?

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[Oligonicella]

saying something anti-social and destructive is allowed

Liable is not. All three of those companies produce output that is not 'customer' created.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[Oligonicella]

It's also problematic that they censor user commentary. This creates a clear (although one sided) relationship with their 'authors'.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[Oligonicella]

Nobody will be willing to pay copywriters and attorneys to review your material

Yes they will, and they do it now. They're called algorithms. That's the crux of this issue: they weigh their algorithms. Don't weigh the algorithms and you're providing a public forum. Weigh them and it's no longer public. Tweak the system to actively hide users while fooling them into thinking they have posting abilities and it becomes propaganda.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[J-1000]

Google, Facebook, and Twitter currently enjoy legal protections against copyright infringement, defamation of character, and other kinds of legal issues because they claim that they are just redistribution information with no editorial control. Obviously, that is a sham. The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites.

That's a heck of a double edged sword there. Small sites would never get their comment systems off the ground. Most wouldn't be able to handle even one lawsuit. It's a great way to make sure no one ever speaks their mind on the internet. The only sites hosting user content would be the behemoths who have a pile of cash for paid moderators, advanced algorithms, and all the world's lawyers. Sounds like a nightmare.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[DRJlaw]

Yes they will, and they do it now. They're called algorithms.

No, they don't. They're called immense staffs of human reviewers. If you're lucky, an algorithm automatically flags a subset of material without so many false positive that you overwhelm your Phillipino workforce.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[ooloorie]

Small sites would never get their comment systems off the ground.

As long as they don't exercise editorial control, they'd enjoy the same protections as they do now.

The problem with Google etc. is that they exercise editorial control yet still demand protection from lawsuits.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[ooloorie]

The person criticizing the EU for "criminalizing speech" earlier this week is now advocating for criminalizing speech

No, merely opening them up to civil lawsuits.

Hint: remove legal protection from those companies and you must remove them from all companies

No, I'm merely suggesting implementing what is already law: you enjoy those legal protections if you don't exercise editorial control.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter should lose those legal protections because they have started exercising editorial control.

Nothing changes for anybody else.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[Anonymous Coward]

If you knew that it was "libel", and not "liable", I might be more inclined to listen to your opinion.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[Arzaboa]

Yes, it is a fine line.

Most people on the planet think that Google, Facebook and the like, are the internet. From that viewpoint, these companies are nothing more than the common park square in the middle of any city. Anyone can post anything they like, just like an ad for a band, or maybe an obscene flyer on the lamppost. Sometimes offended folks remove it.

What we are seeing play out is a world in which everyone that is on the internet, needs to be literate. Where writing used to be only in the realm of the rich and powerful, now anyone that has an internet capable device that can press some buttons or speak to it, can post anything.

If you use these services as an example of what really works for people, the youtube model works. The google model works. The facebook model works. It completely changes how many industries work.

The law is a different thing. Now, as we try to define the digital medium these things are getting parsed out for sure.

I hope that there can be some middle ground found, because now that the internet is the medium for what used to generally be verbal gossip, these rules aren't what the general public even think about.

--
"Good Grief" - Charlie Brown

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[DRJlaw]

No, merely opening them up to civil lawsuits.

Which is exercising state power, which is an authoritarian interference with free speech. Try again.

No, I'm merely suggesting implementing what is already law: you enjoy those legal protections if you don't exercise editorial control.

I love how you have the temerity to judge whether or not I am a lawyer, based upon your own, incorrect understanding of the law.

47 U.S.C. 230(c) gives them legal protection from civil liability even if they exorcise editorial control.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter should lose those legal protections because they have started exercising editorial control.

That's not the law.

Nothing changes for anybody else.

Because? Oh, right. Because you want to punish entities that you disfavor regardless of whether it violates what you claim to be your principled stance in favor of free speech and against European-style regulation of speech via those same platforms.

A nicely illogical, self-inconsistent mess that you've created. Idiot.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand what a civil suit is, do you?

"exercising state power" by applying an established law on publishers is hardly authoritarian. Especially, when the suit or "authoritarian" control is other citizens petitioning the courts for non-criminal damages from another private entity/citizen. A civil suit does not need the government involved as either plaintiff or defendant.

Try again.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[ooloorie]

47 U.S.C. 230(c) [cornell.edu] gives them legal protection from civil liability even if they exorcise editorial control.

That applies to "private blocking and screening of offensive material", not to politically motivated blocking.

Idiot

Your signature.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[ooloorie]

Because? Oh, right. Because you want to punish entities that you disfavor regardless of whether it violates what you claim to be your principled stance in favor of free speech and against European-style regulation of speech via those same platforms.

Europe criminalizes speech. "Criminalizing", in case you didn't know, means that a prosecutor can put you in jail for saying or publishing things that the government doesn't like.

I'm saying that private publishers in the US should lose their protection from civil liability when they exercise editorial control based on political views. Civil lawsuits require actual damages, require a private party to initiate, and don't result in jail time.

Ask a competent lawyer to explain the difference to you if that is still too difficult for you to follow.

And those protections are a special exemption from civil liability; since free speech is already guaranteed by the 1A, these special protections obviously don't protect free speech; what they protect is the ability of companies like Google to grow very, very big and not worry about certain lawsuits.

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[micahraleigh]

Huh? If I pick up the phone and call my friend and play some music over the phone ... should Sprint get sued for copyright infringement?

So all Sprint has to do is invent some algorithm that identifies and intercepts all that?

And that's going to add how much to my bill? And slow things down how much?

Re:just strip them of legal protections

[ooloorie]

"Criminalizing", in case you didn't know, means that a prosecutor can put you in jail for saying or publishing things that the government doesn't like.

I recognized after writing this that you may not understand hyperbole, so let me put this in plain English:

"Criminalizing", in case you didn't know, means that government can define categories of speech that allow a government prosecutor to charge you, and a court of law to impose jail time on you, merely for what you say.

About as stupid as it gets.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do you do with "BUFU" or some such nonsense Chinese or Russian site that takes over in its place?
"Hey China! Your crazy sounding website is getting too much power in the US and causing worry.
If you could break the company up that would be great! thanx!"

China's most likely reply:
"FU round eye. End of Line."

I shit you not. My captcha was "chinked". No F'in lie.
The matrix is getting funny now.

Not sure breaking them up will work.

[Chas]

It'll be like AT&T.

Eventually, weak sisters will die off and the remainders will agglomerate back into a whole.

A better option would probably be some form of Internet Bill of Rights, backed by outsized fines where the minimum amounts start at "ruinous" and move up from there.

Re: Not sure breaking them up will work.

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a good second step. Break them up, first.

Re: Not sure breaking them up will work.

[Chas]

Again, I don't think breaking them up will help.
They'll continue the bad behavior.
But now they'll say "See! You have OPTIONS!"
They'll all still be the same authoritarian sociopolitical monoculture behind the screen though.
So NOTHING will change.

Instead of being booted from a dozen different platforms like Alex Jones, you'll be booted from TWO dozen, or maybe three dozen.

Yes, yes they should.

[Anonymous Coward]

See above and repeat. If the EU keeps it up, and I hope they will, we will have no choice, and it is long, long overdue.

And Microsoft and Amazon

[Tough Love]

Why just those three? Microsoft didn't suddenly become a cuddly teddy bear and Amazon is well on its way to full evil too. Or don't break up any of them. Just don't play favorites, and try to serve the greater good.

Re:And Microsoft and Amazon

[mvdwege]

Duh. Landry is a Tea-Party Republican. This is just a way to combat the perceived liberal bias of these companies.

In other words, the Fairness Doctrine was censorship, but this is A-OK because it is in a Republican cause. See how the alt-right idiots right here are lapping it up.

The usual hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see the same leftists who normally love antitrust law suddenly acquire a deep and abiding love for free market principles and government non-interference when antitrust law is turned against the companies trying to tip the scales for their side.

Trump wants more political bias - for him

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony about this is that Trump only wants the companies investigated because they arenâ(TM)t biased to him. Notice he isnâ(TM)t asking Fox News to be investigated. He wants all media to act like his propaganda machines.

Replying to "What about Microsoft?"

[Futurepower(R)]

The U.S. government could "Break up" Google, Twitter, and Facebook? And Microsoft?

I think the government is not well-managed, either. It would be a mistake to think that the government would know what to do to correct the problems. At least that is true of the U.S. government we have now.

Those companies need better management. A long time ago I had a long discussion about Google management with a mid-level Google manager. The manager said that "Google has more money that it knows how to spend". Also, that Google didn't help staff understand what was happening at Google.

Google is EXTREMELY important in my opinion, because of the Google search engine. (People say that Microsoft's Bing search is used to find Google search. Ha!)

However, in other ways, in my opinion, Google has been poorly managed. Android should have been released in a way that allows updates. Now, many web sites use a Google facility, so Google tracks people in a way that is socially offensive.

"Break up" implies destruction. What is needed is better management.

Re:Replying to "What about Microsoft?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Break up" implies destruction. What is needed is better management.

Smaller units with simpler well-defined purposes are inherently easier to manage, compared with a giant corporation with its fingers in everything that also owns/runs lots of smaller corporations.

It's their own fault

[nehumanuscrede]

Being a company isn't the problem.

Once you've become a behemoth of a company who can manipulate popular opinion on a whim, now you're no longer just a company. You're either an ally or an adversary depending on the beliefs of the CEO, or how deep your pocketbook is. The Party in power loves these platforms as long as they are useful to them. Once they're not, we start seeing calls to break them up because of how much influence they wield over the population.

This is why it's dangerous to allow media giants to consolidate. You're putting an awful lot of power into the hands of too few people. In effect, we're letting a very few subtly influence how the majority thinks. I shouldn't have to explain how dangerous that is.

Here in the US, there isn't any neutral news anymore. They're propaganda channels for Team Red or Team Blue. You absolutely cannot watch the news without some sort of political bias inserted somewhere. ( Which is why I quit watching it at all )

So, yes. There are a lot of companies that need to be broken up and forbidden from ever becoming one again. Media companies, Content Provider / Content Delivery, Telecoms, Banks / Investment Houses, etc.

The problem is these same companies wield an awful lot of influence and money over the very people who should be regulating them.
( Why would I break up a company that will help my team win the next election ? )

Which is why they still exist at all in their current form.

Re:It's their own fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the US, there isn't any neutral news anymore. They're propaganda channels for Team Red or Team Blue. You absolutely cannot watch the news without some sort of political bias inserted somewhere. ( Which is why I quit watching it at all )

This is why I started getting my news from the BBC.

I won't call them unbiased, because I'm not even sure that it's possible for human beings to report without some bias.

However, I do think the BBC strives for a professional journalistic ethics and standards. And it's painfully clear that "we don't always get it right, but we try" is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the "fuck it, don't even try to hide the bias" of US news companies.

Re:It's their own fault

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the very definition of "Regulatory capture".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Re:It's their own fault

[micahraleigh]

What about the implications?

Should companies spend a lot of money to prevent themselves from being 'too successful' so they don't get broken up?

Should the prices and features just not be too good then?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Network Neutrality For Home Servers Matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook, Twitter and Google all have viable alternatives that are easy to access, the fact that few use them is irrelevant.

Not irrelevent, rather the primary cause legitimizing concern. This is a 'network neutrality' (r.i.p.) issue. To quote 10-201

"
Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users and
edge providers (rather than just the significantly smaller number of broadband providers)
to create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and
devices, it maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key
national challenges- including improvements in health care, education, and energy
efficiency that benefit our economy and civic life.
"

I think it is worth investigating if GoogleFiber's prohibition on _commercial_ utilization of home hosted servers on their internet access network constitutes a (what was that famous antitrust law named, i forget) violation related to impeding interstate commerce. If Network Neutrality were ressurrected, and everyone who wanted to could attempt to compete with slashdot, facebook, twitter using FOSS on home hosted servers, I think we would much more rapidly see the demise of their dominance (slashdot not included, lol).

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7522219498.pdf

Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Should The US Government Break Up Google, Twitter, and Facebook?

Absolutely! Google, Twitter, and Facebook should all be separate companies! Let's break them up!

It's the government's job to protect us from giant dumb companies that offer nothing useful, and split them up into smaller companies that offer absolutely nothing at all.

What? Oh... well then there's nothing to be done you retards.

No, WHO they should break up.....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Telecoms are too big as they are. They are the ones that need to be broken up.

Registered /.ers review of the Win64 model

[Anonymous Coward]

Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015

I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015

that APK guy, I use his host file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015

I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017

* Linux model = faster/more efficient

APK

P.S.=> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://www.google.com/search?...

Security pros QUOTED on hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

"classic Windows hosts trick to block the Coinhive or Crypto-Loot domains" - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/a-new-player-joins-coinhive-on-the-browser-cryptojacking-scene/ - BLEEPING COMPUTER

ZD NET http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-a-hosts-file-to-improve-your-internet-experience/ "Hosts files really shine by letting you block ads, spyware sites, malware sites, & tracking sites"

SANS ("A related approach to the DNS issue is to create a hosts file on each system that sends requests for spyware to some place else. Both Ramu and an anonymous reader have suggested this" hosts by myself & RAMU right @ START of "malware explosion" mid 2005 on) https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di...

Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&cid=49747129/

Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491/

APK

P.S.=> See subject: For BOTH added SPEED & SECURITY... apk

Hosts efficacy recently (partial only) alone

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's working: Neville... it's working!" See subject & results from THIS past month alone https://it.slashdot.org/commen... & https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... that's only recently while I've been on Linux (few months now only) & 100's of times vs. MANY other botnets/malwares etc. in the past circa 2006-early 2018 while I was on Windows: CONCRETE VISIBLE UNDENIABLE REALITY (see those links as proof).

P.S.=> ... & that's ONLY what /. reported on (there are FAR more)... apk

Why Twitter?

[locater16]

Why Twitter? WTF would you even break twitter up into? All it has is twitter. That's just Trump getting butthurt that he can't get infowars tweets anymore.

Google makes a bit more sense, but still, what would you break it up into? Would you separate youtube from search, would that really affect things? What about Alphabet as a whole? Regulation and investigation would make more sense.

But Facebook, Facebook is an easy yes. Facebook is trivial to break up into Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp. They're all separate entities that would compete with each other if they weren't all owned by the same company.

They should break up reddit

[Anonymous Coward]

Reddit is a breading ground for extremists and radicalization, mainly because the rules of the website arent followed.

Down-voting is supposed to eliminate comments that don't qualify to that specific subreddit, however most people use it to eliminate opposing opinions. When a person receives a certain number of downvotes, firstly their comments are hidden, but eventually, they become shadow banned. This essentially leads to communities that are comprised only of people who agree with each other.

The most famous example is the main Australia subreddit. The entire subreddit, over a number of years, has eliminated any dissenting view point. You are either in favor of communism, or you are banned from posting in that subreddit.

Even CHINA imitated me (vs. DNS issues)

[Anonymous Coward]

Who did it 1st: China or me? I did - dates are my proof http://theregister.co.uk/2017/... w/ the FACT China rampantly STEALS U.S. Intellectual properties & military secrets!

* IMITATION truly IS the SINCEREST FORM of FLATTERY!!!

(... & proves hosts work vs. DNS faults in tracking you via dns request logs (since you avoid it & resolve FASTER locally using hosts) + DNS being downed OR Kaminsky REDIRECT security flaw misdirected poisoned (or vs. DNSChanger)).

APK

P.S.=> Let me tell you ALL 1 thing: It's NOT EASY being "World-Class" like me (lol - 100,000++ users prove it for me) - enjoy the fruits of my labors for FREE + going FASTER/SAFER/MORE RELIABLY online (w/ a bit more anonymity too via my program)... apk

Try making them a regulated monopoly

[davecb]

Ontario Hydro (the electricity monopoly in, well, Ontario) is limited to doing one of three things: generating (one company), long lines (another) and delivery (a third, sometimes replaced by a local monopoly like Toronto Hydro).

It can't sell you kettles and refrigerators anymore: the old Hydro Store is no more.

Its still something of a pain, due to diseconomies of scale, but it's not actually going to change an election or get you swatted (;-))

Size or monopoly isn't the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that Google and Facebook are political entities rather than the classical companies that just want profit. This is kind of new and the laws aren't up date for this. Correct me if I'm wrong about political companies being a new thing. They openly censor political views which I think they have the right to do since they are a openly political search engine.

The main problem is political persecution. Google and Facebook sit on a large amount of information enabling them to identify individuals by political opinion. This information can further be passed along to people who can do the "dirty work". This is really dangerous, DDR system but far more efficient. What we need are laws that protects the citizens against any political persecution and if any tech company encourages or passes along such information other "outsourced mobs", then we need harsh punishments.

Then we have problems with certain services. For example banking and payment systems. Lately Paypal has discriminated some users because of political views. I regard Paypal as a public utility that should be legally obliged to service all regardless of opinion. So we need stronger laws for those companies that provide services like banking, payment services, communications, transportation, water supply etc. that they are not allowed to discriminate.

Paypal should be prosecuted I think. Also citizens needs to be protected from companies like Facebook and Google. Right now governments in Europe are working with them to persecute dissidents. It should be the other way around really, citizens should be protected from persecution from any Government, or tech company.

Not really

[Tau Neutrino]

The more important candidates are AT&T (again!), Verizon, and Comcast.

Yes

[WCMI92]

Next question.

Break them up? Hell no

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut them down. The better but âoeunthinkableâ option.

nationalize server farms?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes google google now is the infrastructure. Some Federal action to prevent software / search / network providers from owning their own racks? Doubtful though I guess doable. Facebook will generate its own competition. Google's real competition is Amazon. I guess Youtube could be split off into a separate org and what would that do?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

True. History has proven the government is unwilling to break monopolies that provide global competition. They are worried about losing significance globally and they think domestic monopolies help compete with foreign companies for dominance with resources.

When its all political?

[AHuxley]

When social media selects to shadowban and remove political discussions? Search engines that rank a side of domestic politics?

"well-defined purposes are easier to manage"

[Futurepower(R)]

"Smaller units with simpler well-defined purposes are inherently easier to manage...

That makes sense to me. However, "break up" is not a good way of expressing "limiting management to divisions that are easier to manage".

Also, I see no evidence that the U.S. government is, at present, capable of a careful, thoughtful arrangement of divisions.

Only Conservative facts should be allowed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking them up isn't the answer the despicable left will continue to push leftish facts violently. Only Conservative facts should be allowed! Only praise for President Trump should be allowed! #MAGA

And Apple & Intel? And Amazon & eBay? Mi

[IHTFISP]

Where does it stop? Why some but not all? Who decides? What is the core legal rationale?

Seems to me like a huge politically driven can of worms... a slippery/slimy slope to oblivion.

Why break them when you can ban them?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we break them up it would be a bad precedent for people who want to start their business in America - no one wants to see their babies being cut into pieces.

On the other hand, we can borrow a page from China - we can BAN google, facebook and twitter.

Just kick them out, and lock them out.

They still can operate like they are, but they ain't gonna make their profits by selling out the privacy of American citizens.

They can continue to sell out the privacy of people living in India or Tanzania or England or Argentina or Turkey or Indonesia - as long as the privacy of American citizens are protected, whatever they do is no longer our problems.

Ontario Hydro is Terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

Ontario Hydro is *NOT* an example for anything. Their billing system took them more than a year to figure out recently, for example--ANY competent business would have gone under and been replaced by something more efficient, and in the meantime they left millions of people up in the air in terms of what they would owe and when they would owe it. They had gross mismanagement and overspending years ago and are still paying back loans. Their power rates keep getting set based on when there's a hue and cry and when the next election cycle is. And their power is expensive despite having really cheap production costs from Niagra Falls.

Also, any of the tech companies we're talking about is maybe four to ten orders of magnitude more complex than Ontario Hydro. There's no comparison.

Re:Ontario Hydro is Terrible

[davecb]

I'm mildly familiar with the power routing and balancing problem, and it's horrible, far worse than problems like finding a valid dependency tree for libraries *. (It's due for another look, preferably by our AI overlords, as humans find it hard (;-))

Over and above being supervised to death, they have the normal diseconomies of scale that big companies have, such as the late delivery of software to do their billing.

What they don't do is negligently threaten people's lives and elections. It's a trade-off.

--dave
[That particular problem is NP-complete]

I dislike these entities, but really?Go home lefty

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't at all like Microsoft Windows in the 1990s. Nobody has to use Facebook. I don't, and I do utilize other social networking platforms. I just got on board with Mastodon and I have refused to do Twitter. I also haven't used Facebook EVER! I'm a "millennial" too. I'm not a fan of Google or Microsoft or Apple either and I largely don't utilize most of these companies products or services either. I do utilize Google search- but not exclusively. I don't use the email or other products. I do utilize a fork of Android.

If you want change like I do- you got to change. Stop utilizing government, threat of force, and violence against peaceful people. Though to some extent all of these companies are doing the same thing- in that they too utilize violence (via copyright law) but the problem is you aren't advocating for the elimination of that power (copyright). Instead you advocate for more violence (breaking up a company via force using government).

It sickens me. I'm probably one of the few people who live around other freedom oriented people who get that government is theft, kidnapping, and violence, and should be used sparingly. Particularly exclusively in self-defense against the same. It took me a few years to make the move to NH as part of the Free State Project but it was well worth it. Been here 3 years now.

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

YES.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Next moronic question?

Expand the list

[Anonymous Coward]

The following should all be broken up:
Alphabet, Twitter, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, 21st Century Fox, Disney, etc.

Break up all corporations that own more than one radio and/or TV station. Break up all corporations that own more than one newspaper and/or magazine. Force every over-the-air broadcaster to stream over the internet free of charge with net neutrality.

Come on, readers, add to the list. List all companies that buy out their competition, and that gobble up startups, which threaten to reduce their marketshare.

Break up the Linux Foundation by project, and limit each spinoff to userspace only. Spin off the Linux kernel with Linus Torvalds at the head of the new Linux Kernel Foundation, the nice, born again Linus Torvalds.

Re:Your Hate = Not My Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

#freedumbs

yasss. because all communications happen only on twitter, just like the only way to get west was rail. mmmhmm,

cry moar buttercup.

USA = shithole cuntry
get used to it

Yes, but not for those reasons

[shanen]

Actually didn't find any insightful comment that addressed the political reasons they are trying it now. Really bad, even dictatorial, reasons.

Anti-trust is a better reason, but I think there should be some improvements in the rationale. Here's my suggestion:

Pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation to make it natural for monopolies to reward themselves by reproducing rather than just growing like insane cancers. Implementation is simple: Progressive taxation of profits based on market share. If a company becomes too dominant, it actually can increase its retained profits by dividing itself into competing companies. The fundamental goal should be to seek at least 3 to 5 competitors to choose from in each market niche.

In the cases of legitimately natural monopolies the high taxes should pay for careful regulation of the monopoly and research to break the monopoly. DSAuPR, atAJG.

Re: Yes, but not for those reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

That's assuming anyone in Washington actually wants to fix the problem and encourage a free market. They make far more money in bribes with the way things are now. This is simply a few conservative Republicans who are mad because their preferred flavor of hate-speech is being censored online.

Re: Yes, but not for those reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many people who legitimately fear the power of these companies, and the damage they can do to society.

Having those concerns does not make you a racist, as you were trying to argue (badly).

Re: Yes, but not for those reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

They can do the same amount of damage that any conglomerate with a large enough market share can do. The real problem extends beyond tech companies and has existed for quite some time before tech companies were around. They've been turning a blind eye to Market consolidation and the rise of the conglomerates for decades, and even this is a targeted attack that's useful only for political reasons. Pull your head out of your partisan ass.

breakup?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about breaking up Comcast instead?

This whole mess would be cured by mesh networking

[Anonymous Coward]

True peer to peer networking required.

You want to host a topic or conversation, then you use your own servers to do so.

enforce Sherman Anti Trust Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting with Telecom, separate the wires and delivery from content. Then on to banking and financial companies. And a bunch of other horizontal industries...

Last would be Facebook, Google, etc. Those only work because they are integrated.

What about Amazon?

[hydrodog]

50% of the country's online sales are concentrated with a single vendor. They can squeeze suppliers mercilessly. They can play favorites, drive companies out of business, essentially whatever they want. That's seems far more serious than search.

The Google "Monopoly"

[multi io]

During Standard Oil's heyday, a consumer wanting to escape from the monopolist's grip would've had to drill for oil himself and build his own refineries.

If you were a Windows user and wanted to kiss Microsoft goodbye, you still had to remove Windows from your hard drive and buy/download/compile all your apps for your preferred alternative OS, if at all possible.

Escaping the Google search engine monopoly, according to my latest information, requires the following steps:

1. launch browser

2. type "bing.com" into the address bar

3. hit "Enter"

This has to be the cutest "monopoly" in the history of antitrust legislation.

Re:The Google "Monopoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

2. type "bing.com" into the Google search bar.

TFTFY

Re:The Google "Monopoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

You are oh so wrong.

Just grab a dns monitor. Now try to go one day of browsing without hitting any google owned servers.

You can't do it.

Re:The Google "Monopoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the search. The search is not the product. The advertising network is. They control vast amounts of advertising dollars, and their search is integrated into android devices by default. They track everything you do, even if you tell them not to. They will sneakily log you into Chrome if you check your gmail from there, even if you don't want it to.
 
This is not even talking about the search itself anyway. Google has grown into a massive do-everything company with acquisitions that tie in to maps, phones, hardware, MEDIA... This is what needs to be broken up. Not their search that you mention, in an effort to ignore the entire rest of the problem. Will you only start to complain when you go to the Google store to pick up your Google prescriptions that the Google Hospital prescribed to you, before you drive your Google car back to your Google-leased apartment?

Re:The Google "Monopoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, all the major search engines I know of use Google's results (Bing still get caught from time to time in honeypot results), so there is a meritocratic monopoly at least :)

Re:The Google "Monopoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I want to communicate with the media or with the politicians who represent me I can log into.... only twitter and nothing else.

Weird that twitter made no profit for so long while being promoted as the "official" communication tool

Re:The Google "Monopoly"

[multi io]

Doesn't really matter. The search engine revenues are what drives (pays) the whole thing. If enough people perform the three steps I described in the OP, the rest of Google's endeavours won't be sustainable at current levels for very long.

I think the government should! But Iâ(TM)m no

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! I think the government should go after these websiteâ(TM)s! But Iâ(TM)m not sure if this will help at all?! The Leftistâ(TM)s can pretty much get away with just about everything today! Including there Mastermind George Soros! ðY"ðY"ðY And I won't mention anymore whoâ(TM)s on this list because thereâ(TM)s quite a few unfortunately.ðY¥ðYðY±

The network effect is the key

[Chrontius]

Then what's the revenue model for the service? Is there one?

There used to be a paid social network with no ads. I can't even remember what it was called.. A social network, true to name, is deeply reliant on the network effect, ie, its value increases geometrically as the number of nodes in the network increases linearly. I honestly don't think it's possible to break into the market for mainstream social networks at this point; the only real approach left now is to find a niche, and increase the signal-to-noise ratio sufficiently to make it compelling - LinkedIn, for example.

Oh - not the one I remembered, but I found something called Vero that offers a subscription-based social network, with its first million-ish members getting free-for-life memberships. I guess such a thing does still exist, but the exception proves the rule, as they say.

Signal to Noise Ratio

[Chrontius]

Small sites not exercising editorial control is a goddamn nightmare. Have you ever been a member of one on the receiving end of the Goon Squad, or worse, advertising bots? If all speech must be allowed and protected, does that include speech facilitated by machine?

Re:Signal to Noise Ratio

[ooloorie]

Editorial control does not mean removing spam postings, it means selecting human-generated content based on viewpoint. So, if you bother to take the time to remove postings containing false statements about Hillary, people expect that you also remove postings containing false statements about your neighbor or your competitors.

And I'm not proposing changing the law, I'm saying that the laws that already apply to the small websites you are worried about should equally apply to Google, Facebook, and Twitter, sites that currently get exemptions.

This is politically motivated

[nerdonamotorcycle]

Based on a narrative that Facebook, Twitter, et. al. are engaged in an alleged campaign to censor conservative voices and opinions, and to suppress news that supports a conservative narrative.

The more cynical might observe that these companies are large contributors to Democratic candidates for office, and that this is an attempt at retaliation.

Re:This is politically motivated

[backwardsposter]

I'm sure it is, but who cares as long as it does the right thing and sets the right precedent? As a moderate, I'd appreciate any step towards improvement, no matter which party does it.

(hint: everything the government does is politically motivated)

Bah! I just tear those arms off their body... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Via APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux/BSD h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p

Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing you hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition loaded w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation!

* ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI 4 Linux/BSD.

(Better vs. Windows model in speed/efficiency/merge)

APK

P.S.=> Protects vs. script trackers/ads/DNS request tracking + redirect poisoned or downed DNS/botnets/malware downloads/malcript/email malicious payloads... apk

Registered /.ers review of the Win64 model

[Anonymous Coward]

Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015

I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015

that APK guy, I use his host file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015

I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017

* Linux model = faster/more efficient

APK

P.S.=> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://www.google.com/search?...

Hosts efficacy recently (partial only) alone

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's working: Neville... it's working!" See subject & results from THIS past month alone https://it.slashdot.org/commen... & https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... that's only recently while I've been on Linux (few months now only) & 100's of times vs. MANY other botnets/malwares etc. in the past circa 2006-early 2018 while I was on Windows: CONCRETE VISIBLE UNDENIABLE REALITY (see those links as proof)!

P.S.=> ... & that's ONLY what /. reported on (there are FAR more)... apk

Security pros QUOTED on hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

"classic Windows hosts trick to block the Coinhive or Crypto-Loot domains" - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/a-new-player-joins-coinhive-on-the-browser-cryptojacking-scene/ - BLEEPING COMPUTER

ZD NET http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-a-hosts-file-to-improve-your-internet-experience/ "Hosts files really shine by letting you block ads, spyware sites, malware sites, & tracking sites"

SANS ("A related approach to the DNS issue is to create a hosts file on each system that sends requests for spyware to some place else. Both Ramu and an anonymous reader have suggested this" hosts by myself & RAMU right @ START of "malware explosion" mid 2005 on) https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di...

Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&cid=49747129/

Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491/

APK

P.S.=> See subject: For BOTH added SPEED + SECURITY... apk

Even CHINA copied me (vs. DNS down/redirected)

[Anonymous Coward]

Who did it 1st: China or me? I did - dates are my proof http://theregister.co.uk/2017/... w/ the FACT China rampantly STEALS U.S. Intellectual properties & military secrets!

* IMITATION truly IS the SINCEREST FORM of FLATTERY!!!

(... & proves hosts work vs. DNS faults in tracking you via dns request logs (since you avoid it & resolve FASTER locally using hosts) + DNS being downed OR Kaminsky REDIRECT security flaw misdirected poisoned (or vs. DNSChanger)).

APK

P.S.=> Let me tell you ALL 1 thing: It's NOT EASY being "World-Class" like me (lol - 100,000++ users prove it for me) - enjoy the fruits of my labors for FREE + going FASTER/SAFER/MORE RELIABLY online (w/ a bit more anonymity too via my program)... apk

break up social media giants

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Yes, Yes, Break up and bust these rotten nests of anti-American, totalitarian, ignorant, snot leftists!
Yes!

Dennis Morrisseau
USArmy Officer
I REFUSED ORDERS TO VIETNAMand
                          I voted for Trump

Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FireCongress.org
LIBERTY UNION founder
Second Vermont Republic, VFM
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT 05775
dmorso1@netzero.net
802 645 9727 9727

So confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook, since they buy nascent competition, obviously should be broken up, with Facebook itself banned from buying any social networks for at least five years, preferably more.
Not sure how Google can be meaningfully broken up. Maybe just spin off the advertising business? But the problem isn't that Google hoovers data -- anyone in the ad business these days does that. The solution is to give people easy access to and control of their data. (BTW: Google's not great at that right now but they're magnitudes better than Facebook, of course.) Probably spinning off Android and fully divorcing it from Alphabet. Other than that, what breaking up would accomplish anything?
And isn't Twitter essentially a one trick pony -- a single entity that can't be broken up?

Don't listen to spamming retard APK

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't listen to spamming retard Alexander Peter Kowalski
Like how he claims the Chinese copied him but can't produce any evidence.
How about when he states that hosts does port filtering but again can't backup his statement which was shown to be false.
There is also his list of "experts" who support him but it turns out they don't say what he is claiming.
This also ignores his out of context quotes he uses to lie by omission.
The problem with APK is that his entire reputation is built upon the lie he told years ago that hosts is an effective security solution. It has been exposed numerous times as being a lie and when exposed APK fails to argue logically and instead will try to deflect criticism, change the subject, move the goal posts, return to a previously disproven statement, demand you prove you did better than his file concatenator, or just call people names. Expect that he will used these tactics to try to deflect from these criticisms. He will continue to lie by stating that he won or "dusted" you while failing to refute anything you said, will never provide real evidence, and generally try to dodge the issue.

Face it APK is one of the most detested individuals here for good reason. When ever his poor behavior, awful logic, over statements, and horrendous writing are called out he has a fit and has done so for years across the internet. He is a spammer, and is an abusive insecure little man who is washed up and never amounted to anything. Until he produces actual verifiable facts supporting his case nothing he says should be taken seriously.

2 questions & China... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & 2 questions you won't answer: 1.) Do hosts stop threats served by hostname (the way threats are done most) by blocking them? Yes. 2.) Do hosts speed you up 2 ways in adblocking (preventing more infection/tracking/slowdown) & via hardcoded favorite sites resolving faster + protecting vs. dns down or redirect poisoned? Yes.

My hosts program's the only 1 that does the latter @ TOP of hosts cached in RAM (for best performance) & only 1 of its kind on Linux/BSD in easy to use flexible configuration GUI form.

(I also did that latter part LONG before the Chinese & 1st http://theregister.co.uk/2017/... )

APK

P.S.-> Have you done work that's that effective doing more for less faster in kernelmode speed (cpu priority) w/ less complexity for exploit + excess overheads vs. solutions KNOWN to be security-issue riddled (like addons (souled-out to NOT work by default OR easily detected & blocked that are BYPASSABLE & EXPLOITABLE), DNS & Antivirus)? No... apk

Security pros QUOTED on hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

"classic Windows hosts trick to block the Coinhive or Crypto-Loot domains" - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/a-new-player-joins-coinhive-on-the-browser-cryptojacking-scene/ - BLEEPING COMPUTER

ZD NET http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-a-hosts-file-to-improve-your-internet-experience/ "Hosts files really shine by letting you block ads, spyware sites, malware sites, & tracking sites"

SANS ("A related approach to the DNS issue is to create a hosts file on each system that sends requests for spyware to some place else. Both Ramu and an anonymous reader have suggested this" hosts by myself & RAMU right @ START of "malware explosion" mid 2005 on) https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di...

Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&cid=49747129/

Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491/

APK

P.S.=> Anyone can read the quotes from their source deciding for themself (you fail)... apk

Hosts efficacy recently (partial only) alone

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's working: Neville... it's working!" See subject & results from THIS past month alone https://it.slashdot.org/commen... & https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... that's only recently while I've been on Linux (few months now only) & 100's of times vs. MANY other botnets/malwares etc. in the past circa 2006-early 2018 while I was on Windows: CONCRETE VISIBLE UNDENIABLE REALITY (see those links as proof).

P.S.=> ... & that's ONLY what /. reported on (there are FAR more)... apk

On ArseHoleTechnica

[Anonymous Coward]

Arstechnica = losers who stalked me (as you do now anonymously unidentifiably) to NTCompatible.com & Windows IT Pro magazine forums to their public dismay in Jeremy Reimer & Jay Little + Jarrett DeAngelis (who posts here on /. until I drove his ass off too) when their websites were REMOVED by their hosting providers in Shaw Canada & CrystalTech (for both email harassing me caught on a tracking ticket + stalking me & posting lies about me on them AFTER I destroyed them both PUBLICLY @ Windows IT Pro on Exchange Servers memory being freed UNHALTING them (which tells you Exchange is HEAVILY POINTER ORIENTED linked list driven, which leads to memory fragmentation that CAN halt a serverware)).

Jay Little the "self-proclaimed 'EXCHANGE EXPERT'" HAD TO CONCEDE IT from MICROSOFT'S OWN DOCUMENTATION proving it FOR me there (where they as usual stalked me AS YOU ARE NOW)

Peter Bright/Dr. Pizza (alias GOITERMAN, lol) can tell you what happened to his IRC server after that (lol).

"The great arseHOLEtechnica" (not) RUN OUT of their own server chatrooms hahaha (by "yours truly").

APK

P.S.=> In effete retaliation they edited my posts & impersonated me on their little playpen of UNDERACHIEVER losers... apk

On Thor SCHMUCK

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask him WHY his false accusation of an old ware of mine was 1st taken down to NO threat & CA sold off the SHITTY antivir he sold (as a paid pawn of theirs) & they are GONE, done. dead... lol!

Lookup "CA Accounting Scandal" on Google - scumbags & THEIR BIRDS OF A FEATHER just go down vs. me everytime!

APK

P.S.=> He's nothing but a BLOATED FAT pig of a lying LOSER from podunk idaho... apk

Registered /.ers disagree w/ you #1/6

[Anonymous Coward]

Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015

I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015

that APK guy, I use his host file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015

I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017

* EAT YOUR WORDS liar!

APK

P.S.=> Tell us, how do they taste? Like your FOOT in your MOUTH?? apk

Registered /.ers disagree w/ you #2/6

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk has the answer for that - really... kill automatic updates by adding a hosts file entry setting updates.steam.com or whatever to 127.0.0.1. You have to find the right hostname for each software you want to block updates on by raymorris (2726007) on Friday July 06, 2018

APK your posts on this and the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error and/or bad advice by BlueStrat (756137) on Wednesday June 21, 2017

I support APK's stand on the hosts file and can't see why it's not used more than it is. My hosts file is 144247 lines long (4,332 Kb) it & a firewall serves me very well - by Trax3001BBS (2368736)

ABP is insufficient as a solid hosts file does everything APK reminds us about fast turtle September 17 2013

You need APK's hosts file - by Teun (17872) on Wednesday August 06, 2014

APK

P.S.=> You EATING YOUR WORDS != GOOD NUTRITION... apk

Registered /.ers disagree w/ you #3/6

[Anonymous Coward]

APK solution STILL relevant Thud457 June 11 2015

Actually, APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience in this context. Of course, your phone has to be rooted, which isn't the case with Firefox + adblock." - by chihowa on Saturday May 16, 2015

In a footnote, I would like to note that I find your hosts file admirable - by vel-ex-tech (4337079) on Tuesday November 24, 2015

APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment - by Culture20 on Thursday November 17

you're right about hosts files - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26

APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop - by nasredin (958927) on Friday June 12, 2015 @03:34PM

APK

P.S.=> Are you ENJOYING the taste of EATING YOUR WORDS yet?... apk

Registered /.ers disagree w/ you #4/6

[Anonymous Coward]

I say the following as a caring human being who agrees with how useful HOSTS files are: Your zeal is to be respected - by dave420 (699308) on Monday September 08, 2014

But I love APK!The power of the hostfile compels you! by ratboy666 (104074) on Friday January 29, 2016

APK was right all along! C:\WINDOWS\HOSTS is the solution ;) - by sabri (584428) on Friday October 21, 2016

No complaints from me, I like APK's spam. Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free. - by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

I'm a fan of apk. Yes he trolls, but he only trolls where it's contextually appropriate. I respect that - by Noah Haders (3621429) on Wednesday July 29, 2015

APK

P.S.=> Those words of yours YOU'RE EATING: You choking on them yet? apk

Registered /.ers disagree w/ you #5/6

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works. - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015

get around to 'installing' a hosts file list, not sure which one, likely the one from someonewhocares.org. If it works as well as what I used for a while about ten years ago, I'll be happy. And grateful to APK for the lesson and the reminder. - by kermidge (2221646) on Wednesday March 27

I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster. - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17

dammit MS, you proved APK right about something by lgw

APK

P.S.=> You still haven't said how EATING YOUR WORDS tastes? apk

Registered /.ers disagree w/ you #6/6

[Anonymous Coward]

the Host File Engine performs exactly as promised - by mmell (832646) on Thursday February 16, 2017

(APK) is still right a hosts file really does work. It even blocked a some of the video ads that were inserted into a stream OrangeTide February 10 2016

I do use APK's host file on all my systems at home by OrangeTide December 01 2017

I've never tried to belittle (APK's work), I've flat out said it's good - by BronsCon (927697) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @06:48PM (#51491263)

APK

P.S.=> YOU'RE OUTNUMBERED DOZENS TO 1 - toss on 100,000++ users of my program worldwide too & SEE SUBJECT: JUST FOR "GOOD MEASURE"... apk

Private businesses can be public spaces

[alternative_right]

If your cell phone company was kicking you off the service for uttering certain words, you might feel differently!

Re:Private businesses can be public spaces

[dryeo]

We're talking about whoever I phoned kicking me off (well hanging up) for using certain words, not the carrier. Do you really not understand the difference?

Yes, but don't stop there

[budsetr]

Any corp with more than 1000 employees

Yes, break them all up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter,
Banks, phone companies (again), ride share companies, Supermarket chains, Sony, Time/Warner, NFL...
But ultimately, we should really reaally look into breaking up The Republican and Democratic Parties.
====
Comment: I believe the current call to break up some of these companies is coming from Republicans, who have convinced themselves that they are victims, too. Warning to Republicans:
after 9/11 we created Homeland Security. And then Obama was elected a few years later. Is that what you wanted? If we break these companies up and install new rules requiring "fairness" in content, this would require ongoing oversight by some entity in government to continue the effectiveness of the "fix."
But, somewhere down the road the reigns of this oversight might be handed over to Bernie, or Beto O'Rourke.
I don't know about you, but as much as I don't like what Google, Facebook, etc. is doing, I'm much more afraid of giving control of content on any major communication outlet to either party, or any other party I can imagine. Even my party.
If successful one result will be total blandness on the internet.
F that!

Stand Internet Protocol and Common Carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

The way people use social media a search, both should be implemented as a standard internet protocol and implemented at the ISP level. ISPs should be given common carrier status. Together, these two things would solve a lot of issues.

Antitrust issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally think that breaking up HUGE companies are not the way to go. We are not addressing the problem, the problem is not the big company but their undue influence (ability to act as a monopoly in the market).

I think a better strategy is to allow there companies to self regulate by taking away the incentives to abuse their monopoly power.

1. For example limiting the way they can apply copyrights or patents (or own patents) both which are monopoly rights.

2. Limiting the amount or types of lobbying they are allowed to do.

3. Super tax based on the ratio of profit vs employee compensation.

These companies are big enough to do the necessary admin and in the process they might be able to do some more good in the world.