House Antitrust Chair Says Big Tech Abuses Gatekeeper Power (bloomberg.com) 37
Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook abuse their power as gatekeepers of the internet, said the head of a House antitrust panel who's poised to propose legislative changes to rein in the technology giants. From a report: "Each platform uses their gatekeeper position to protect their own power," said Representative David Cicilline, who chairs a House antitrust panel that's spent more than a year probing the dominance of the internet platforms. "By controlling the infrastructure of the digital age, they have surveilled other businesses to identify potential rivals -- and ultimately bought out, copied, or cut off their competitive threats." Cicilline, who spoke Thursday during a hearing with experts on competition law, is preparing a final report recommending changes to the legislative and regulatory framework. That report is expected to be released as early as next week, according to people familiar with the matter. Sundar Pichai, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg testified voluntarily in July before the subcommittee. Cicilline criticized their testimony as being evasive and non-responsive and said "they raised new questions about whether they believe their companies are beyond oversight."
Suddenly just before it's the election (Score:3, Insightful)
So, for four years, net neutrality, all the other stuff has not been a concern. No wish to interfere with big business. No wish to stop the billionaire power grab. A few weeks before the US elections, suddenly "big tech most stop being a Gatekeeper". Come back to us if you are still interested in two years time. Come back when it actually matters to us and not just you.
Re: (Score:1)
Conservatives have been screaming about the censorship on social media for over a decade. The Congressman making the statements in the summary is a Democrat by the way.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Conservatives have been screaming about the censorship on social media for over a decade.
More like "flailing their arms wildly about perceived censorship"
The Congressman making the statements in the summary is a Democrat by the way.
Correct - this is the (bi-partisan, I believe) review they've been talking about for a while. But the timing is rather strange, IMO.
Re: Suddenly just before it's the election (Score:2)
It's not that strange. They had recesses for most of April and September, and they aren't in legislative session prior to the election (most of October or November). It makes sense to me that he's trying to wrap it up now, given their schedule (which is publicly available). They make their recommendations and Congress might have time in December to vote on legislative changes before the current congress ends in January 2021.
Re: (Score:1)
Conservatives have been screaming about the censorship on social media for over a decade.
The article is not about censorship, it's about about anti-trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-trust laws are literally about opposing monopolies.
Abusing a monopoly is the opposite of opposing monopolies.
Please stop using words you clearly don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like, fuck those cunts have the power to decide who gets elected, LOOK WHAT GOOGLE DID IN AUSTRALIA (it assumed it was more powerful than the entire Australian government in Australia and Google assumed it could control the sheeple to control the Australian government show it who really had the power (a really, really bad time to pull that stunt whilst they were under investigation for abuse of monopolistic power, a corporation targetting a government with for regime change because Google executives be
Re: (Score:2)
Notice the framing difference. Where's the "Launch anti-tech blitz!" part of the headline, like the similar /. story not long ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey dumb ass, Democrats support anti-trust action against abusive market gatekeepers 365 days a year.
Maybe your information sources have Republican gatekeepers, and that's why you didn't know that?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey dumb ass, Democrats support anti-trust action against abusive market gatekeepers 365 days a year.
Re: (Score:1)
No, fuck you, don't tell me what I said. I said what I said.
You only get to say that stupid shit you say.
Learn about the Law of Identity, upgrade your life.
Re: (Score:2)
No, fuck you, don't tell me what I said. I said what I said.
What you said was recently proven demonstrably wrong, as we did in fact witness every Democrat defend every tech monopoly. Since this happened over multiple days, even on a 366 day leap year that extra day doesnt give them enough room to actually be against abusive market gatekeepers for 365 days a year. Clearly the number of days that Democrat defend abusive market gatekeepers is more than 0.
If we look over all the posts here, will we also find some from YOU defending some of those abusive market gateke
Re: (Score:2)
No, because you have a stupid opinion, does not in any way imply that other people are proven demonstrably wrong.
That just means you don't know what proof is, or what a demonstrable point would be.
And you can't comprehend; what if I myself was personally a Democrat? You're not a Democrat. That means I tell you what Democrats think. You don't even try to tell me, because I'd laugh in your face for not comprehending which one of us me, and which one of us is you.
Re: (Score:2)
Than why are they defending big tech in this very thread? The number of apologist for big tech in this thread is appalling. Start your own Google or Facebook! No censorship on your website!
Re: (Score:2)
Than why are they defending big tech in this very thread?
"I found the DNC, they're on slashdot!"
I mean, you didn't actually think you said anything worth anything, did you? Were you drunk, or is this how stupid you really are?
Re: (Score:2)
So, for four years, net neutrality, all the other stuff has not been a concern. No wish to interfere with big business. No wish to stop the billionaire power grab. A few weeks before the US elections, suddenly "big tech most stop being a Gatekeeper". Come back to us if you are still interested in two years time. Come back when it actually matters to us and not just you.
Suddenly, just before an election, is not the time to start believing the crap spewing forth from some "Representative" of the Donor Class.
This is 100% bullshit. If anyone actually cared about this problem, they would have raised a stink back when they actually had the power to do something about it instead of pretending to give a shit while taking billions from the "evil" big tech that funds them.
Re: (Score:2)
while taking billions from the "evil" big tech that funds them.
Big tech overwhelmingly funds Democrats. When you factor in the all work they did to make sure that Trump does not get re-elected that work is certainly worth billions in "in kind donations". By way of point, the CEO of Google was caught on video saying they planned to do exactly that - and they have.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/1... [cnbc.com]
Without question big tech interference in the election is orders of magnitude more severe than anything the Russia
Re: (Score:2)
while taking billions from the "evil" big tech that funds them.
Big tech overwhelmingly funds Democrats. When you factor in the all work they did to make sure that Trump does not get re-elected that work is certainly worth billions in "in kind donations". By way of point, the CEO of Google was caught on video saying they planned to do exactly that - and they have. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/1... [cnbc.com]
Without question big tech interference in the election is orders of magnitude more severe than anything the Russians ever did or were accused of doing.
And yet with all that power, and all those billions, we have President Trump.
While I am not disagreeing with you at all, I question their actual intent. They're certainly not lacking in political power or manipulative control to effect change, and "they" donate plenty to the GOP too.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they do what they said they were going to do? If they did it they would lose a talking point.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you net neutrality, that's a massive policy mistake that the Republican made. As for billionaires, they have donated overwhelmingly to Democrats. Too many Republicans were unaware of the threat big tech posed to our democracy and that is fair criticism. That does not change the fact that they are by far the biggest threat to our democracy.
duh (Score:3)
Well yeah, they would be abandoning their fiduciary responsibility to their board and shareholders if they didn't!!
That's whey they should not be allowed to get so big that they have this power! Free markets don't stay free - they end up with monopolies. What we want is FAIR markets - not free (i.e., free-for-all) markets.
This rings a little hollow (Score:2)
Time to spend some Karma: This is politically motivated. The extreme right wing has been getting censored as hate speech because it is and their buddies in Congress are going to bat for them.
This will not end well. It certainly didn't for Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd believe we're headed that direction if we ever see anything of real substance when it comes to actions against big business in this era. As it is they'll hold another hearing where they wag a finger at Zuck & Co, ask a bunch of supposedly pertinent but utterly toothless questions, bluster and bullshit, then have a backroom party afterwards with Zuck & Co to take their kickbacks and laugh about how stupid the American public is.
It's political theater at a time when everybody's trying to "l
Only the partisan can deny this (Score:2)
You have to be truly partisan to deny this. This has been a textbook case of the slippery slope at work for years now.
Take hate speech has become a euphemism for right of center speech years ago. Your not free if your in the center though, center speech and values are under attack as well. Your not free if your in the center though, center speech and values are under attack as well. By way of recent example the AP style guide has redefined "riot" to mean protest.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/... [townhall.com]
Terms like t
Re: (Score:2)
All you have to do is go to the AP style guide twitter responses to understand the problem. Point #2 makes it abundantly clear what the goal of
Re: (Score:2)
When even the majority of liberals in this country can recognize the political censorship of tech companies, you know that you are one of the truly partisan ones.
Americans by and large believe social media companies are censoring political viewpoints they find objectionable. Roughly three-quarters of Americans (73%) think it is very or somewhat likely that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints they find objectionable, including 37% who say this is very likely.
Even with that the plural
Re: (Score:2)
Take hate speech has become a euphemism for right of center speech years ago.
You don't get a pass on your hate speech because you claimed it was merely political, don't be a dumb ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Go on, site some "hate speech" of mine - be specific. I've been posting online for over 25 years.
Difficulty, Green Bay Packers don't count - there a football team
Re: (Score:2)
Go on, site some "hate speech" of mine - be specific
It was sited right in your mouth. That's where, specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
As I thought, your idea of hate speech is simply anything you disagree with. You portray the orange man bad persona quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
As I knew, you can't comprehend even simple words, like "site." Even when I respond in a way that should call your attention to your mistake.
You know who you think I am, so you know I'm wrong. You don't have to think, you don't even have to understand what you're saying.
This is why I talk past people like you. You couldn't respond if you wanted to because you've spent your whole life pretending the meaning of words don't matter. So you can't communicate. You can only react and spew.
Re: (Score:2)
The Overton Window would like to have a little chat with you.