States Say They Will Appeal the Dismissal of Their Facebook Antitrust Suit (nytimes.com) 35
More than 40 state attorneys general on Wednesday said they planned to appeal the dismissal of their antitrust lawsuit against Facebook, setting up a protracted legal fight to rein in the power of the Silicon Valley giant. From a report: The states would be pushing back on a decision made last month by a federal judge who eviscerated their arguments that Facebook had obtained a monopoly through its acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 and had harmed competition. The judge said that the regulators' attempts to break up the social media company came too many years after the mergers were approved. "The court is aware of no case, and plaintiffs provide none, where such a long delay in seeking such a consequential remedy has been countenanced in a case brought by a plaintiff other than the federal government," the judge, James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said.
The state attorneys general have 90 days from the date of the notice to file their appeal, including their arguments. Mr. Boasberg also dismissed a similar complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission, criticizing the agency's claims of monopolization, but he directed the agency to rewrite its lawsuit. The F.T.C. is expected to resubmit its lawsuit to the court by Aug. 19. The states' notice of plan to appeal did not include new antitrust arguments and was filed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The state attorneys general have 90 days from the date of the notice to file their appeal, including their arguments. Mr. Boasberg also dismissed a similar complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission, criticizing the agency's claims of monopolization, but he directed the agency to rewrite its lawsuit. The F.T.C. is expected to resubmit its lawsuit to the court by Aug. 19. The states' notice of plan to appeal did not include new antitrust arguments and was filed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Other Argument (Score:5, Interesting)
The more interesting argument the original judge made in dismissing the case was that the state's AGs couldn't nail down a concrete definition of what a social media company is. That is, how is a social media site significantly different than a federated WordPress blog, with comment following, sharing, DMs, etc... Or forum sites with the same features. Or Blogger. Or Tumblr.
Algorithms (Score:2)
The more interesting argument the original judge made in dismissing the case was that the state's AGs couldn't nail down a concrete definition of what a social media company is. That is, how is a social media site significantly different than a federated WordPress blog, with comment following, sharing, DMs, etc... Or forum sites with the same features. Or Blogger. Or Tumblr.
Seems pretty simple to answer I think: algorithms; specifically stuff that's designed to keep you glued to their (Facebook) properties, by sucking in outside content (some of which isn't specifically relevant, and chosen by that algorithm, not a human). This is very similar to TikTok, Twitter (to some degree), and probably some other ones I can't think of.
The other kinds of sites (Blogger, Tumblr, WordPress, etc.) are more 'static', and other content doesn't necessarily "flow in" when on those sites (like:
Re: (Score:2)
Seems pretty simple to answer I think: algorithms; specifically stuff that's designed to keep you glued to their (Facebook) properties,
Well, Slashdot had algorithms to show or not show comments based on various criteria. Granted it's not the world's most sophisticated algorithm but it is an algorithm. And it's certainly intended to keep us engaged by showing interesting content and filtering out junk. So I don't see a qualitative difference between that and what Facebook does.
It's not even that people are upset that some sites are borderline addictive. I have to stay away from Quora because I get way to attracted to seeing whether someone liked my answer or not. For me, it really feels addictive. PornHub certainly tries to make sure you keep coming back. So does the New York Times. Every publisher makes decisions on what content to show you so that you keep coming back for more. Why does that make Facebook different?
The only reason people are concerned about FB/Twitter/Google/Apple is because they're big. If Facebook changes it's algorithm, it affects a billion people. What the AGs need to put forward is an argument for why doing something on small scale is OK but doing it at large scale is bad. Apparently they have not yet done that.
Re: (Score:2)
Strip away algorithms from Facebook (or even TikTok, etc.) and it basically becomes a static blog - nowhere near how it works now.
Strip it out of /. or any blog, and it's basically the same as it was before.
The important distinction is that the algorithms on Facebook properties are specifically designed to keep up engagement, and is the primary function of the whole thing, driven by ad dollars, which cause the increase in disproportionate mid/disinformation being given out to users by those algorithms.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Slashdot had algorithms to show or not show comments based on various criteria
I'm not aware of Slashdot having any "algorithms" for this, or any part of their site (besides perhaps the ads served by the ad network, which I would consider completely separate part of the site's main contents)
The (human) editors decide what stories go up, and only I can set the filter for them, as well as the minimum karma level for the comments to be displayed when I view them.
Re: (Score:2)
Strip away algorithms from Facebook (or even TikTok, etc.) and it basically becomes a static blog - nowhere near how it works now.
Good point, but that's how Facebook worked originally. It would just dump the latest posts on your wall. The secret algorithm sauce didn't come until later. I'm pretty sure that's how Twitter worked originally, too.
So, was Facebook *not* a social media company before it instituted it's algorithm? I don't think that argument would hold up. I think the social media umbrella covers a collection of features making it easy to broadcast ideas to multiple people, and to follow other people's ideas. Recommendation
Re: (Score:2)
So, was Facebook *not* a social media company before it instituted it's algorithm? I don't think that argument would hold up.
As you say, probably wouldn't hold up - but I think they could make the case that it's vastly different now, because of the acquisitions, in a way that is both negative, and could not have been foreseen adequately at the time. Whether a breakup is a proper remedy, or simply better regulations for the future is the proper course of action isn't clear to me (preferably both, but definitively the latter).
Although I haven't looked up the history of it, it seems to me to be similar to the break ups of the teleph
Regulation (Score:2)
I think increased regulation would be the way to go. I'm not sure how you would even start to break up Facebook. Splitting off Instagram and WhatsApp would be small potatoes. It's really one big thing that does, pretty much, one thing. You couldn't even really split off the advertising arm, as it only really sells ads on Facebook. Make it easy to get your data out of Facebook, make it so Facebook can't track you if you are not a user, and make their data collection policies *very* transparent, to the point
Re: (Score:2)
Strip away algorithms from Facebook (or even TikTok, etc.) and it basically becomes a static blog - nowhere near how it works now.
Your talking about MySpace. It had many of the features that Facebook had but never really promoted engagement or actively looked for entertainment for the user. Good or ill, Facebook knows what we want
Re: (Score:2)
Good or ill, Facebook knows what we want
Feels more like it's telling us what we want (much like Apple).
"Curator" (Score:4, Interesting)
Our laws need to make a distinction between three types of hosting:
* Publisher: you create and/or decide what to publish
* Curating Hoster: You filter or rank others' hosted content using staff, other users, and/or bots.
* Simple Hoster: You host others' content without any curating (except extreme cases).
Fakebook is a curating hoster. Then again, so Slashdot.
Curators should be subject to more regulation than simple hosters. As soon as you start curating, you should be liable in ways similar to a "publisher" because curating affects what readers see even if the hoster didn't directly create the content themselves.
A fourth category may be "curating linker", which Google and Bing are. If they rank problem content high, perhaps they should be under the same scrutiny as a curating hoster.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I see it, some people want to make social media companies liable for refusing to host certain content while also making them liable for the content of those messages by removing Section 230.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I don't agree with practicing medicine without a license and promoting coups. If that's bad, shoot me now.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Other Argument (Score:1)
For me, social media are sites or applications whose purpose is to facilitate interactions between people, in a networked fashion (i.e. many to many).
A blog doesn't fit this definition as the communication is essentially one to many, and /. doesn't fit this definition as the primary purpose is disseminating and discussing news articles.
So what's the argument here? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you manage to put yourself in a monopolistic position and nobody reacts for long enough, you're in the clear? What kind of justice is that?
I wish it worked like that for us peons: when I don't pay my taxes or commit a crime, they'll come after me many years after the fact. What makes Facebook so special eh?
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? You never heard of the statute of limitations? Here is an example from New York: https://www.nycourts.gov/Court... [nycourts.gov]
Here is the federal statute of limitations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Re:So what's the argument here? (Score:5, Informative)
If you manage to put yourself in a monopolistic position and nobody reacts for long enough, you're in the clear? What kind of justice is that?
You're in the clear if the government says the WhatsApp and Instagram acquisitions were OK. The government can't say "We've done are due diligence and this merger is perfectly fine." then change their mind 8 years later.
Re: (Score:2)
You're in the clear if the government says the WhatsApp and Instagram acquisitions were OK. The government can't say "We've done are due diligence and this merger is perfectly fine." then change their mind 8 years later.
No so fast, cowboy:
Re: (Score:2)
You're in the clear if the government says the WhatsApp and Instagram acquisitions were OK. The government can't say "We've done are due diligence and this merger is perfectly fine." then change their mind 8 years later.
Not being a lawyer, I suppose they can raise antitrust objections any time they want. Their argument would need to be "Facebook is causing these harms today.", not "we should have objected back then, our bad."
Re: (Score:3)
The government can't say "We've done are due diligence and this merger is perfectly fine." then change their mind 8 years later.
Well then it's a good thing that the government never said that.
You're suggesting there was an affirmative ruling on the validity of the acquisition, which there wasn't. The FTC simply closed an investigation due to lack of evidence. Nothing more. It's functionally no different than when the police close an investigation because they don't have enough to press charges. Just as the cops may re-open the case later if new evidence comes to light, regulators have the same right and responsibility to do so in ma
Re: (Score:2)
I wish it worked like that for us peons: when I don't pay my taxes or commit a crime, they'll come after me many years after the fact.
It does work like that for you. If something is not a crime when you commit it and the government says you're all good, the government can't come after you 8 years later because they changed their mind.
I said this very outcome is exactly what would happen many months ago when this case was first filed. The government is trying to sue to breakup a union that the government themselves sanctioned because the government stupidly got it wrong, and are doing so some 8 years later.
Tough.
Shit happens.
You want to do
Re: (Score:2)
but don't go trying to take back something you gave your very formal seal of approval on.
About that... see my earlier comment [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC reserves the right. You can frame this any way you want, the states have no legal recourse to attack Facebook directly for their government approved merger.
If the States want to do something legally viable then they should sue the FTC. But good luck with that. The FTC retrospectively identifying that a violation did occur would face a HUMUNGOUS uphill battle in the courts to warrant breaking up a company 8 years later. And I'd put very real money betting that the courts would find in Facebook's favo
Trump derangement syndrome (Score:1, Flamebait)
These cases were brought because liberals blame Facebook for Trump getting elected, the rest are just flimsy excuses.
Re: Trump derangement syndrome (Score:1)
It wasnâ(TM)t liberals who were throwing a hissy fit and threatening to veto the military budget if Section 230 wasnâ(TM)t repealed.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have clear evidence for this? Both parties have complained about FaceBook, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit is was brought by 40 state attorneys general. Last time I looked there weren't 40 states controlled by Democrats (or 40 Democratic state attorneys general) so I think your argument just might be flawed.
Non-paywalled article (Score:3, Informative)
https://thehill.com/policy/tec... [thehill.com]
Poor showing (Score:2)
It's pretty bad when a judge eviscerates your case because you didn't do your homework.
Also to the synopsis author, it's Judge Boasberg, not Mister.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is these 40 states filed in Federal court. They should have known better than that. The Federal system is going to slap the case down because its in the best interest of the Federal government to do this.
They should have filed this in State courts in each of their own jurisdictions. Instead of one of failure, there would have been 40 and it would make it so much harder for the federal government to shut the case down.