US States Plan To Sue Facebook Next Week (reuters.com) 38
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A group of U.S. states led by New York is investigating Facebook for possible antitrust violations and plans to file a lawsuit against the social media giant next week, four sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday. The complaint would be the second major lawsuit filed against a Big Tech company this year. The Justice Department sued Alphabet's Google in October. More than 40 states plan to sign on to the lawsuit, one source said, without naming them.
It is not known what the states plan to include in their complaint. One allegation often made against Facebook is that it has strategically sought to buy small potential rivals, often at a big premium. These include Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has argued in congressional testimony that the company has a range of competitors, including other tech giants. He has defended controversial acquisitions like Instagram and WhatsApp by saying the social media platform helped them expand from small, insignificant companies into powerhouses.
It is not known what the states plan to include in their complaint. One allegation often made against Facebook is that it has strategically sought to buy small potential rivals, often at a big premium. These include Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has argued in congressional testimony that the company has a range of competitors, including other tech giants. He has defended controversial acquisitions like Instagram and WhatsApp by saying the social media platform helped them expand from small, insignificant companies into powerhouses.
Let the games begin (Score:2)
The only winners will be the $30,000 a day lawyers that Zuck will engage. I hope that the states have deep pockets in order to fund this. With any luck, this might be resolved by 2040.
Re:Let the games begin (Score:5, Funny)
The only winners will be the $30,000 a day lawyers that Zuck will engage.
He's getting ripped off. He could get an elite strike force lawyer like Giuliani for only $20k a day!
Re: Let the SWASTIKAS begin - EXTERMINATE Nidi62 (Score:2)
100% Antifa right here. Let's go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only winners will be the $30,000 a day lawyers that Zuck will engage. I hope that the states have deep pockets in order to fund this. With any luck, this might be resolved by 2040.
2040? Please. At the rate we're going, we'll be addressing him as President Zuckerberg before the end of this decade, along with Vice President Kardashian.
Re: (Score:2)
And everyone will have to post their every move on Facebook by law. Shudder.
If we thought that Trump was bad, Pres Zuck would see the end of the USA as a world power. Every other country would ban FB etc the day the election was called.
Re: (Score:2)
Come now. The Zucc is a businessman. Successful, self-made entrepreneur mogul. The not-a-politician breath of fresh air we all need. He'd make a great President. Kanye West like him!
Re: (Score:2)
Every other country would ban FB etc the day the election was called.
And then we invade.
More seriously, I think FB will continue to acquire businesses. It might be difficult for anyone to actually ban them without cutting themselves off from most of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
One day there will be two internets: America and its allies in one, China and its allies in the other.
Re: (Score:2)
we'll be addressing him as President Zuckerberg before the end of this decade, along with Vice President Kardashian.
After what we just went through, we find your offer acceptable.
It's business (Score:5, Insightful)
There are simply too many options for social media for this sort of lawsuit. In my opinion, lawmakers are grasping at straws just to find something to go after these tech giants for. None are critical infrastructure, like an electric company, and people can choose to use or not use them without undue harm. I think this is just a waste of taxpayer dollars. That said, maybe instead of all this grandstanding, our Federal lawmakers should be crafting laws that limit the ability of social media and search engines to catalog and sell personal data.
Agreed (Score:2)
This is a simple cash grab. Lots of money is being exchanged and someone isn't getting their cut. Don't pass the fucking stimulus bill or anything...
Re: (Score:3)
The states' legislatures, AGs etc. don't pass the stimulus bill, that's congress. As such, those things are unrelated. HTH, HAND...
Re: (Score:2)
Well I think we can argue that people who choose not to use social media may be doing themselves. It will be akin to say 30 years ago choosing not to have a telephone, or choosing not to have a place to send letters to. Yes 30 years ago, you could survive without a phone, however you were at a disadvantage, as people would normally would have to make exceptions for you, because you didn't have a number to call, and some may not consider you worth their effort.
Granted Social media isn't as extreme as not
Re: (Score:1)
None are critical infrastructure
Propaganda is critical infrastructure. Loss of control is a threat to national security.
Re: (Score:3)
What are the other sites?
What percentage of users do they have?
Let's say the answers are - random - 6 and 40%.
FB still has 60% of all people; not a monopoly but what percentage would a monopoly have to be?
80%, 90%, 99%?
And how many people do you know, or can find, that go to the other 6 sites?
The Google version of FB even shut down.
And you think electricity isn't critical!
You are using a computer right now, and probably have lights on.
Not everyone has propane or could even use it.
Why can't we get people to use websites? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the Early/Mid 1990's when the internet thing became popular with the masses, and not just a thing for Academics and Governments. People turned to Large BBS's Like Prodigy, CompuServe, and America Online that shortly became an ISP. with many Member Only services such as Instant Messaging and Sites for many popular businesses and organizations. Many people thought AOL owned the internet and that was the only thing that the Internet had to offer.
In the late 1990's and early 2000's we started to get Broadband Internet which was much faster and less busy signals than AOL dialup had to offer. AOL did try to offer its services via broadband, but during this period people found out that they didn't need AOL and they can go to their own websites. At this point Google was just a search engine, but you could use Yahoo and a few others as well. But the bulk of your internet experience was on individual websites (like Slashdot).
Then social media came in, they were a website, but they were mostly designed to connect with your friends and family. But that has grown to a point where these sites are a large part of your internet experience. Just recently I wanted to order food at my Local Pub, being in a pandemic, I would have to order take out, Their Website was down for some reason, but never fear I got it off their Facebook account.
It seems that people just don't like using individual website, but going to one big conglomerate site being AOL or Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
I was more thinking, that browser makers and ISP's find a way to make accessing these individual sites a little easier. Such as better account management, fraud detection, and improved navigation to what you will be looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can get what they want from one place, they will.
Why would having to visit multiple sites be considered a feature by users?
Re: Why can't we get people to use websites? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems that people just don't like using individual website, but going to one big conglomerate site being AOL or Facebook.
Funny you mention AOL. I don't know why this isn't more obvious to everyone, the whole AOL model was very successful and gets overlooked because nerds hate it. AOL=Internet, haha, get your laugh on, it sux, not the real Internet blah blah blah, I hated it and wanted "real" Internet for the longest time.
That said, when AOL went into decline with the rise of broadband, all that did was leave a vacuum. The "real Internet" never did what most people wanted. The Internet has always had chat rooms it seems, b
Re: (Score:2)
That's all correct from an end-user POV, but the business end seems to be very different. AOL sold an internet connection, with ads and a portal bundled in. FB just sells ads and surveillance data. Looking at the types of data being collected and the sheer quantity, there's really no comparison between FB and AOL. I never thought monopoly was a completely sound accusation against these companies, since they are so radically different from what came before. There are aspects of a monopoly, but I kind of doub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, Myspace was both the temporal and technological midpoint between the two. It let you add HTML into certain places of your page, but you still had the rest of the site interface around it, and you could fully utilize the site without ever using HTML.
Also, a lot more emos and scenesters.
WTF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Make it count ... if you do (Score:5, Insightful)
A lawsuit just better be big. Huge. Gargantuan. Epic. "Record breaking all-time" as far as I'm concerned. The silly thing about this is that it just gives good optics in terms of the mass public that something is being done. Fine FB for mere millions? That's nothing to them and their legal team. Fine FB for tens of millions? Nah. How about hundreds of millions? Nope. Better get up in the many hundreds of billions to get some attention and real direction for change to go along with the outstanding complaints in the lawsuit.
Just like the TFA says: they are powerhouses.
I dunno. A lawsuit for unspecified reasons by unspecified states.
Sounds a whole lot like this was put out by a certain defeated President's election fraud team.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit probably is for PR purposes, but if those guys were leading the charge, they'd be shouting it from a mountaintop. Glory is their first priority, and their 15 minutes are about to be up anyway. No point in bringing it out slowly. They only get nonspecific in the election fraud cases when they go before the judge, and not a moment earlier. When they're making a splashy announcement in front of the cameras? As loud as possible.
There are plenty more people in power... 40 out of 50 sounds like a plau
Re: (Score:3)
Zuck: It'd be a shame if something happened to your... girlriend's vacation photos...
Senator: But I don't have a girlfriend! I'm happily married!
Zuck: (typing on his laptop) Strange... according to your Facebook profile, it seems that you do...
Senator: You bastard!
Today in the USASSR (Score:2)
Mr Facebook: Please Mr Government will you approve my purchase of this other company?
Mr Governemnt: Why of course Mr Facebook, we see nothing wrong with this.
some time later.
Mr Governement: That's a nice company you got there Mr Facebook, it would be a shame if someone were to say break it up because you purchased this other company.
I'm not fan of Facebook, not its size, influence, privacy hoovering, or its tendency to gobble up other companies, but wholly shit does the USA look like a mob boss here. When t
They'll fucking laugh. (Score:1)
They're engaged in open treason. You think they'll flinch at a late and halfhearted antitrust suit? That literally all the other big tech companies are also guilty of? This move is at best a symbolic gesture of disdain.