Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Social Networks The Courts

Social Media Site Gab Sues Google For Antitrust Violations Following Ban From Play Store (washingtonpost.com) 164

The social media site Gab.ai is accusing Google of violating federal antitrust laws when the tech giant booted Gab from the Google Play Store, according to lawsuit filed this week. From a report: The legal action is the latest salvo in an escalating battle between right-leaning technologists and leaders against Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook and Google. Gab alleges in the lawsuit that "Google deprives competitors, on a discriminatory basis, of access to the App Store, which an essential facility or resource." "Google is the biggest threat to the free flow of information," Gab chief executive Andrew Torba said in a statement. "Gab started to fight against the big tech companies in the marketplace, and their monopolistic conduct has forced us to bring the fight to the courtroom." Alternative source.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Social Media Site Gab Sues Google For Antitrust Violations Following Ban From Play Store

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Either get rid of the enforcement of any of Google's patents and copyright relating to Android, or let Gab on the platform. I don't want my tax dollars enforcing Google's copyright if they don't want to allow freedom of expression. Fine if they want to ban Gab from their platform, but don't expect me to pay for enforcement of their duopoly with Apple.

    • Re:Monopoly (Score:4, Informative)

      by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Friday September 15, 2017 @01:26PM (#55204299)

      Android, unlike Apple has always allowed installation of third party APKs and adding third party stores. Since Amazon operates one its hard to see how Google would be considered a monopoly.

      I'm not a lawyer, but isn't anti-trust typically about attempting to use your monopoly in one market to enter another? Doesn't appear to be the case here.

      • Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Derekloffin ( 741455 ) on Friday September 15, 2017 @01:38PM (#55204407)
        Well, the Internet Explorer case shows that having the technical ability to install other products does not negate the anti-trust issues. Also, Google is already in the social media biz so this could easily be argued to be them using their Android position to push out competition in the social media sphere. I'm sure Google will counter argue they carry many other competitors in their store in their defense though. Whether that will hold up though is questionable.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The issue in the Internet Explorer case was that IE could not be completely removed or completely replaced with a different app.

          That isn't the case for Google Play. You can run Android without it. You can replace every one of its functions with a different app store. And in this specific case, the ability to side-load apps is definitely not hindered by Play. They can't just make a broad claim about its general nature, they have to be specific about what it prevented them from doing, and to be clear it didn'

          • Most people cannot remove Play though, as it's completely unremovable without modifying the device to allow root access. You may be able to disable it, I've never tried, but that leads to further issues as it has positioned itself as the supplier of GPS location information. Many map apps won't work without Play installed as a result.

            I'm hopeful that "you technically can operate the device without this, if you're willing to jump through hoops and void your warranty" doesn't hold up in court. In the same bre

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              While true, it's also irrelevant. They are not making an alternative app store, so can't use that argument.

              • Default is king. It could be argued that this is an abuse of Google's power as the default app provider. IE got in trouble because it couldn't be removed and was the default available option. You can even use IE to get an alternative to IE, while I don't see Amazon's store or F-Droid in Google Play's listings. Even if they were, it would bank on people knowing that alternatives are possible (which most don't, unlike browsers).

                It's entirely possible that Gab could make this argument, it's not wholly unreason

            • Most people cannot remove Play though, as it's completely unremovable without modifying the device to allow root access.

              That's not Google's doing, that's the doing of the cellular provider that sold you your phone -- and you can avoid it by not buying your phone from such a provider.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Indeed, it's odd that they are not suing Apple since Apple also banned their app. Maybe the far right prefers Android.

        • by AuMatar ( 183847 )

          Look at sales numbers. The world prefers Android.

          • Which sales numbers? For devices, or for apps? There's a big difference there. Despite the fact that android marketshare is almost a magnitude greater than Apple's, iOS app store revenue still wins.

            http://www.androidauthority.co... [androidauthority.com]

            • by AuMatar ( 183847 )

              Well, since I'm saying the world prefers Android and we're not talking about a software company selling apps, obviously the device marketshare. Of course those numbers you showed are useless as the vast majority of Android apps make money via advertising, and those aren't accounted for here. Not to mention its 2 year old data.

              • All true, although I wasn't really trying to go for an all encompassing comparison. I was just trying to illustrate my point, which was that total marketshare may not necessarily account for total mindshare. I'm betting that 50-75% of the people using android don't actually give two shits that they are using an android phone. They care that they were able to get a phone for for cheap, which is a market so alien to Apple that they will never be able to compete, so android wins by default. (The two sweete

      • but isn't anti-trust typically about attempting to use your monopoly in one market to enter another?

        Anti-trust is about abusing market share to your own gain, nothing more fine grained than that. It can be used for entering another market, it can be used for blocking or ruining a competitor in your own market, it can be used to simply screw your customers.

      • by synp71 ( 5024405 )
        Anti-trust does not require an actual monopoly. It's enough to show that Google has market-controlling power, and that is quite believable. Gab is also arguing that Google is using its monopolistic power to prevent them from competing with Google's own social media efforts (Google+) and that of companies it is close to (Twitter). That is a tougher sell, but it's up to the court to decide.
    • A lot of my tax dollars goes to pay for things that I am 100% opposed to. Do I get to pick and choose too?

    • Copyrights are a crime against humanity. They lock up culture and knowledge that rightly belong to all sentient beings.
      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        That's only true for overly long copyright terms. Copyright, at least the version descended from the English version, was meant to promote learning by giving a limited monopoly in exchange for the work going into the public domain. The crime is that the limited time keeps getting extended with the goal of copyrighted works never going into the public domain, basically theft from the public.
        Another crime is that everything is automatically copyrighted for the same indefinite length.
        The original 14+14 year le

  • by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples @ g mail.com> on Friday September 15, 2017 @01:14PM (#55204213) Homepage Journal

    Apart from a few very early devices sold by U.S. carrier AT&T, essentially all Android phones and tablets have an option to allow installation of applications from outside Google Play Store. This means that Gab can use any or all of three options:

    • Submit its app to Amazon Appstore.
    • Make its app available for unknown sources.
    • Publish an API so that the developer of a microblogging application can make a client as free software and submit its source code to F-Droid.

    In fact, Android 8 "Oreo" makes this less monopolistic by letting the user designate any app as a store [androidpolice.com] rather than using the system-wide, all-or-nothing "Unknown sources" setting of previous versions.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      In fact the download link is on the front page of gab..ai right now. You can install it in a couple of clicks on Android just by visiting the site in a browser.

      • by OYAHHH ( 322809 )

        Assuming you do not use Chrome, which doesn't allow it. You first have to download Firefox. At least that has been my experience.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Chrome allows direct installation from web sites. I recently installed F-Droid that way, for example.

    • This assumes people are technically able to do that. The average mobile user wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to do that, and would probably still be afraid to do so even if you gave them detailed instructions.

      And Android O doesn't mean jack to all the people who arn't getting upgrades.

      The fact is, while a technical person can certainly do what you suggest, for the average person the Play Store is no different from the App Store, and so if your app isn't on that store, you've guaranteed to have poor mark

      • Sure if you stopped someone on the street most probably couldn't write down the steps.
        However, the steps are:
        Enter the url gab.ai in browser or google it, click where it says download android app. Android will then guide you thru the rest.

        • Really? Android will guide you through connecting to a 3rd party store? That's new. Course, I haven't touched 3rd party stores since v4 so... *shrug*.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      What i've read about future version of android they are going to force phone makers to only install the default one from google and google is going to disable installation of apps from other sources (something about making it more secure)

      • google is going to disable installation of apps from other sources

        Android 8 "Oreo" does lose the "Unknown sources" checkbox. In its place, as described in the article I linked previously, it offers the user a "this is a store" checkbox for every app installed on a device. If the user has marked a particular app as a store, the app can call the APK installer. This way, the user can set Google Play Store, Amazon Appstore, and F-Droid as stores but nothing else, and no other app can install APKs.

        If you're referring to Android P, I'd be interested to see your source for this.

    • If more than 1 in 10 Android phone users know how to do that, I'd be amazed. Look, I get Android is less locked down than iOS... technically. But, based on personal experience, a greater percentage of iOSes are jailbroken to allow non-AppStore apps than Android's have alternate sources/a second store installed.

  • Who is Gab? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Since the post doesn't mention it, I had to look it up. Gab.ai is claiming to be a "Free Speech" competitor to Twitter. Google banned them for "Hate Speech". A lot of users on that site seem to be Alt-Right types.

    More information
    http://www.businessinsider.com/google-app-store-gab-ban-hate-speech-2017-8

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Since the post doesn't mention it, I had to look it up. Gab.ai is claiming to be a "Free Speech" competitor to Twitter. Google banned them for "Hate Speech". A lot of users on that site seem to be Alt-Right types.

      More information http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

      The same types who told the Dixie Chicks to "shut up and sing"? It's unfortunate that appeals to free speech are becoming a cover for wanting to act like an asshole and not be called on it.

      • Re:Who is Gab? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by spacepimp ( 664856 ) on Friday September 15, 2017 @01:53PM (#55204525) Homepage

        This is the same as it has always been. People need to endure the idiots or give up free speech. you can't have both.

        • Re:Who is Gab? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Friday September 15, 2017 @02:12PM (#55204689) Homepage Journal

          People need to endure the idiots or give up free speech. you can't have both.

          Spam/troll filters are not anti-free-speech. They are pro-freedom-not-to-listen.

          More over, no-one owes you a soap box.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by spacepimp ( 664856 )

            This isn't a SPAM or Troll filter. This is limiting the spectrum of acceptable opinion.

            It is simple... If you don't want to be harassed by trolls don't install the application, don't open it up and create an account and read it. Don't want to be annoyed by someones opinion? Don't install the app. What you are supporting is that the book that is offensive is banned from the library. Once you are supportive of those bannings/censorings/limits on free speech then you are no better than book burners or those

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              What is stopping you from installing the app?

              Nothing. Nothing at all. You can go install it right now in a few taps.

              You are demanding that the library stock the book you want to read, that you want others to read. You want that book on their shelves because that increases the chances of it being read.

              You are demanding to be furnished with a soapbox.

              • I didn't demand shit...

                You are demanding that the library stock the book you want to read, that you want others to read. You want that book on their shelves because that increases the chances of it being read.

                I am saying that you aren't the ethical arbiter of what should be read, heard or seen, nor should you be. The US government is not the ethical arbiter, nor should they be. Google is not the ethical arbiter nor should they be. No one has to get the book out of the library if they don't want to. What y

            • This isn't a SPAM or Troll filter. This is limiting the spectrum of acceptable opinion.

              And no one owes your opinion a soap-box either.

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      One wonders if this isn't just a PR thing to drum up awareness - shame that US courts don't tend to award damages to defendants.
      • Re: Who is Gab? (Score:5, Informative)

        by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Friday September 15, 2017 @01:41PM (#55204447) Homepage

        No, it's legit. Their app was in the play store, until some SJW in Google got offended at some post or other. iirc, Google demanded that Gab delete the post, Gab refused, since the only thing wrong with the post was the politics. So Google banned their app.

        For those saying that Google's app store isn't a monopoly: tell us, please, what percentage of Android apps are installed from anywhere else.

        • Re: Who is Gab? (Score:5, Informative)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Friday September 15, 2017 @02:06PM (#55204641) Homepage Journal

          Why make up bullshit when we can just google (or bing) the real reason?

          https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]

          It was removed for ToS violations, specifically not having moderation in place to deal with content that advocates violence or hatred against groups of people.

          tell us, please, what percentage of Android apps are installed from anywhere else.

          Sadly I can't find any stats, but both Amazon's Appstore and F-Droid have been going for years and seem to be reasonably popular. And there is nothing stopping Gab simply offering the app on their own web site too, or are they complaining that they are not popular enough and need free advertising on Play to survive?

          • not having moderation in place to deal with content that advocates violence or hatred against groups of people.

            And this is the big one. The U.S. Supreme Court has held for decades that the First Amendment does not protect fighting words [wikipedia.org].

            • by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Friday September 15, 2017 @03:43PM (#55205461) Journal

              Three points:

              • Fighting words must be "face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation."
              • Online speech isn't face-to-face.
              • There's serious doubt [thefire.org] about whether the exemption itself is still valid.

              Here's a more complete explanation written by an actual first amendment lawyer:

              Trope Seven: "Fighting words"

              Example: [mcclatchydc.com] "There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte." McClatchy.com, May 4, 2015.

              No discussion of controversial speech is complete without some idiot suggesting that it may be "fighting words."

              In 1942 the Supreme Court held [findlaw.com] that the government could prohibit "fighting words" — "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the "fighting words" doctrine survives — that's in serious doubt [thefire.org] — it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. [cornell.edu] The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The "which by their very utterance inflict injury" language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law — the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

              That's almost always irrelevant to the sort of speech at issue when the media invokes the trope.

              Source: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ [popehat.com]

              • by tepples ( 727027 )

                Which of these cases has struck down 18 USC 875(c) [cornell.edu], which criminalizes interstate threats of violence?

                • A few points:

                  * As part of the US Code, it's still subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The courts have to decide if, in the context of some case, prosecution under that statute would violate someone's First Amendment rights even if the statute itself is considered constitutional in general.
                  * Cases that truly satisfy it would fall generally under the "true threat" exemption, not "fighting words", because as I've just said, "fighting words" are face-to-face rather than "interstate or foreign commerce." Thes

          • Re: Who is Gab? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday September 15, 2017 @02:42PM (#55204939)

            And there is nothing stopping Gab simply offering the app on their own web site too, or are they complaining that they are not popular enough and need free advertising on Play to survive?

            I often find that people who complain that other people are "too sensitive" are the first to cry and whine when something doesn't go their way. I believe it's called projection.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I don't think that's it. They love the drama, it's all part of the victim narrative they are trying to spin. "Conservative" views under attack.

          • by Khyber ( 864651 )

            "specifically not having moderation in place to deal with content that advocates violence or hatred against groups of people"

            And just who the fuck is Google to tel other companies how to run their business?

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Who the fuck are Gab to tell Google how to run their app store?

              • Ami, the problem with toadying up to Google as a monopolist because it suppressed speech that you don't like is that if they get away with it, inevitably speech on your side will get suppressed too.

                It's time to require that major Internet infrastructure companies that handle traffic, domain registration, and search behave as common carriers. This is the only way to implement Net neutrality.

        • by nfotxn ( 519715 )
          No, those nazi punks need to f-off. It's just really fascinating how all these "free speech" ideologues find themselves defending notorious trolls, neo-nazis and criminals. Keep up the good fight!
          • This is very simple stuff. Most people can figure it out by grade school:

            Defending free speech is not defending the asshat on the other end, but their right to say their asshat things.

            If you can't understand why that is different, then please go sit at the kids table until you are ready for the adult world. I don't agree with your simplistic nickelodeon logic, but I will defend to the death your right to spit out ignorant comments like the one I found childishly naive.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          It was also removed from apples store. Now thats a monopoly for sure. At lease with Android you can side load it if you must. No sure freedom in appleland. Now thats a crime.

        • by Luthair ( 847766 )
          Obviously I was referring to the lawsuit, not being removed from the store.
    • Since the post doesn't mention it, I had to look it up. Gab.ai is claiming to be a "Free Speech" competitor to Twitter. Google banned them for "Hate Speech". A lot of users on that site seem to be Alt-Right types.

      More information
      http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

      I thought the Gap was a clothing store, you always have to mind while in London.

  • Walmart won't sell [my product], Walmart is a monopoly.. similar logic.

    Everyone sees google play, but you can download a number of others...
    - Amazon Appstore
    - Getjar
    - Slide Me
    - Fdroid

    There aren't that many but it's easy to create one's one with a little bit of elbow grease and the purchase of some cloud services. Absent of that, social media clout and side-loading applications.
  • Very smart (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Friday September 15, 2017 @01:32PM (#55204351)

    If they lose, they are no worse off than before. But the news coverage gives them lots of publicity to promote their business.

    Google is clearly just blacklisting them because Google wants to shut them up. The cult leaders [businessinsider.com] at Google are committed to persecuting nonbelievers and heretics.

  • by Daetrin ( 576516 )
    Didn't the Supreme Court just rule that you can refuse to do business with someone for any reason you want? In that particular case it was cake makers not wanting to make wedding cakes for gay people and conservatives were all in favor of the idea of not forcing companies to serve people they don't like, but now that it's a conservative group whose custom is being refused they suddenly think it's a problem?
    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      Didn't the Supreme Court just rule that you can refuse to do business with someone for any reason you want? In that particular case it was cake makers ...

      No, that did not happen. Unless you're posting this from the future.

      • by Daetrin ( 576516 )
        Oops, upon double-checking there was a lot of news about the Department of Justice deciding in favor of the bakers, but i wasn't reading closely enough and thought the Supreme Court had decided in favor of them instead. My bad!
        • by Kohath ( 38547 )

          Will you learn from this occasion -- where you were clearly incorrect -- and be less of a snarky know-it-all?

          Also, Google isn't a small town bake shop. Monopoly power matters.

          • by Daetrin ( 576516 )
            It's unclear to me how i was being a "snarky know-it-all". I thought i'd read something about it but i wasn't sure, so i asked a question, which hardly seems like a "know-it-all" to me. And aside from that i believe the rest of the post is still accurate. Certainly a lot of conservative groups are strongly supporting the baker's side. (I have mixed feelings about the issue myself.)

            The question of whether Google should be treated differently is a legitimate avenue of discussion, and perhaps you should have
            • by Kohath ( 38547 )

              Just a little bit. You seem to have the idea that so-called "conservative groups" must all agree on everything and always remain perfectly consistent in a very exacting set of beliefs. Nope. They're just people, like everyone else. No 2 agree on everything.

              Using government to bully mom and pop Christian cake bakers for the benefit of gay marriage isn't popular with conservative groups. Bullying mom and pop cake bakers shouldn't be popular with anyone, but basic humanity and decency is secondary to poli

    • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Friday September 15, 2017 @01:55PM (#55204545) Homepage

      Negative. Christian bakers refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it's against their religion: fined $130,000.

      Muslim truck driver refused to deliver alcohol because it's against his religion: awarded $240,000.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Snopes looked at this: http://www.snopes.com/obama-mu... [snopes.com]

        The issue seems to be that because it was easy for the delivery company to accommodate the religious requirements they should have. In the case of the bakery didn't argue that the burden would be undue, merely that they didn't want to do it because of the message.

        It could certainly do with some clarification, rather than two separate and seemingly (but not actually) contradictory outcomes.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Wow, you are trying to quote Snopes while being deliberately deceptive about what the article actually says, and what the facts of the two cases were.

          The only "false" part in the Snopes article is that Sharia was not imposed on the trucking company; rather the diver exercised his religious views. The company could have had someone else drive - there were alternatives available - but chose not to do so, despite the fact that it was no undue burden. So the driver won the lawsuit.

          In the Christian Baker case,

          • That's two contradictory outcomes. That's bias against Christians.

            Only because you don't understand the difference between a customer and an employee.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          There is no Muslim prohibition on handling alcohol, the only restriction is on consumption.

          The Christian baker is arguing that designing a cake is an artistic endeavor and he should not have to perform this activity indiscriminately. He is more than willing to sell generic baked good to homosexual customers, just not custom designed products. I am curious if you would support a white supremacist wanting a wedding cake from a Jewish baker. Since most racial supremacy ideologies are intertwined with religion,

      • Negative. Christian bakers refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it's against their religion: fined $130,000.

        A business is not allowed to discriminate against customers based on protected classes.

        Muslim truck driver refused to deliver alcohol because it's against his religion: awarded $240,000.

        A case which has nothing to do with discrimination against customers, and everything to do with an employer / employee relationship.

    • Didn't the Supreme Court just rule that you can refuse to do business with someone for any reason you want?

      Sorta, but here's the kicker. Their specific reasons were "Gab allows hate" and then a lot of images showing Twitter openly tolerating hate speech came up. So now Google has to explain why they hold a startup to a MUCH higher standard than Twitter, particularly in light of a lot of people noticing that Twitter doesn't even bother to apply its rules fairly.

      So TL;DR this is now a potential case of collus

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The requirement is not "does not have X on the site", it's "has a policy of not allowing X".

        Twitter's ToS does not allow such this. Even if they suck at enforcing that, the policy exists. Gab specifically allows it.

    • Even if that had happened, and it hasn't, it's unlikely that it would protect Google from abuse of anti-trust laws. They would only have freedom to choose who to do business with while complying with all the other laws.

      By way of example, if you're on trial for assault, you can't justify yourself with a ruling saying that your actions don't qualify as attempted murder, you have to answer for the assault charge directly.

  • "Google is the biggest threat to the free flow of information," Gab chief executive Andrew Torba said in a statement..."

    In other words, you have the freedom of speech but aren't allowed to speak freely, *and* be heard. That is - even if one lives and works in the "most free" country in the world.

  • Feel free to list on Amazon app store or let users download an APK, Google isn't preventing them from getting on Android, they are just stopping them from listing on Play store which is only one option for Android.

  • Alternate Title (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Macdude ( 23507 )

    White Supremacists and other right-wing snowflakes whine when google doesn't want to associate with them.

    • I know Bing and other search engines exist, but at least in the West we're pretty much at a place where Google is the gateway to knowledge on the Internet. There's a reason 'google' is an English verb now.

      I'd be perfectly fine with them developing data mining tools for law enforcement to look for links to items that are actionable at a local level, but when Google drops something from search results, they're acting as a state censor.

      I'm not entirely comfortable with Google doing something other than more-o

  • https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/12/pro-trump-ceo-gets-booted-from-y-combinator/

  • Glancing through the cesspit that is the commentary segments I can't help but point out how many leftist are parroting the 'Gab.AI is full of hate speech' line when in reality Gab's TOS has very clear regulations on what levels of content and speech is allowed. And we have documented examples of them being applied when someone violates them.

    Now if you want to argue that Gab WASN'T following any sort of law or regulation that's documented, then so be it. But always citations will be required. But so far I

  • GOOD!

    I hope Gab takes their lunch money and shits in their cornflakes.

    It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of ideological bigots.

  • If I wanted to keep close tabs on the ultra right, I would make certain that there is a very good App for them to use. Same for the ultra left. Such a strange world. Let them have all the free speech they need to hang themselves.

The only perfect science is hind-sight.

Working...