11 ms·
Gab is suing Google for allegedly violating antitrust laws
- sp332 9y agoThey're going to have a hard time arguing that the Play Store has a monopoly when any Android user can sideload any app they want.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jerf 9y agoYou don't have to be a literal monopoly to be a legal monopoly. Microsoft has never literally been the only place to get an operating system, not even the only place to get a consumer operating system (Apple has been there for Microsoft's entire OS run, at varying levels of health, sure, but always available). But they were found to be legally a monopoly in terms of abusing monopoly power anyhow.
- amelius 9y agoWhich makes sense, because otherwise a monopolist would just start a small competitor and be done with it.
- sp332 9y agoThe lawsuit in the US involved bundling IE with Windows specifically to push other browsers out of the market. Google has never really been antagonistic toward other app stores. Lots of phones get sold without the Play Store installed.
- Spivak 9y ago> Google has never really been antagonistic toward other app stores. Sure they have. * You have to convince your users to go into their security settings and check the scary box with the even scarier warning. If Chrome started only trusting Google's CA with no option to add others you wouldn't be arguing that 'it's not so bad you can still click though by adding a security exception'. * 3rd party app stores are incapable of actually installing or updating apps -- they're basically glorified downloaders. There's no way to 'trust' another app store so that it can perform these actions on your behalf unless you root your phone.
- sp332 9y agoI don't remember Samsung or Amazon having trouble with that. Google isn't really the "first party" for most phone because they hardly make any phones themselves, even in partnerships.
- Spivak 9y agoI would make the same argument if we were talking about Samsung/Amazon branded phones as well. The issue is that users can't put app stores they like/want in that same privileged position. In my case I would like to put F-Droid there but unless I root my phone the best it can do is download the APK and notify me to install it manually.
- Spivak 9y agoSure, but the Google Play store has a privileged position on users' phones that can perform actions that a 3rd party app store cannot, namely installing and updating applications. And Google Play only really has that privileged position because they develop Android. I think it's honestly pretty clear cut here.
- sp332 9y agoUnless you buy Samsung phones, which means 25-30% of all Android phones, which come with the Galaxy App store in the same "privileged" position. Or any phone in China, where the Play Store is not available. Also I don't remember having trouble with the Amazon store keeping apps up to date for me.
- bllguo 9y ago> “Google deprives competitors, on a discriminatory basis, of access to the App Store, which an essential facility or resource.” Is this a legally sound statement? Specifically the last part about "essential facility or resource." I'm not at all a law expert. I personally don't believe in the implications of the claim, hence my question
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jelly 9y agoThat could be the most interesting part of this case; if access to an appstore is essential for a service, can Google/Apple forever remain the "Default Providers" while still enforcing their own rules? I have a feeling that the Internet Explorer default-browser antitrust fight will have to be had again, although gab might not get that far.
- randomerr 9y agoYes if you regulate Google as a utility. This maybe like the way that cable companies were forced to air public access television. Google may be force to add them to the Play store but with an 'explicit content' warning.
- stcredzero 9y ago"In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people," Is the same standard applied to Twitter and Facebook? How long does it take for Twitter and Facebook to take down such content?
- donatj 9y agoWhat about Web Browsers? I can use Firefox, which I downloaded from the Play Store to get all sorts of inflammatory whatnot. Should browser's be required to censor the web to meet this standard?
- stcredzero 9y agoShould browsers be required to censor the web to meet this standard? Apple was applying this standard to Web Browser software in iOS in what had the affect of being a deliberate ploy to exclude all non Safari web browsers from the iOS App Store.
- hamitron 9y agoIMO the reason Gab was created was because users kept getting banned / flagged on Twitter. So yes, the same standard applies.
- stcredzero 9y agoSo yes, the same standard applies. So I won't be able to find hate speech, racist speech, and speech inciting violence on Facebook and Twitter?
- marcofatica 9y agoOnly against white American men because apparently that's the only hate speech supported by those platforms.
- MacsHeadroom 9y ago
- Overtonwindow 9y agoWhile I don't think Gab will be successful, I'm glad they're suing. Anything you can find on Gab you will also find on Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and scores of other apps in the Play store. Google is wrong to treat one app differently than the others for what seems to be purely political reasons.
- daxorid 9y agoEdit: Derp. HN needs to bring back the delete feature for total failure to grasp context such as mine.
- minimaxir 9y agoSuing Google will use up the majority of that $1 million.
- maxerickson 9y agoPlus the comment is contextually about the lawsuit, not about the company.
- staticautomatic 9y agoHardly. The case will be taken on at least partial contingency and likely financed by a litigation funding company.
- tryingagainbro 9y agoIs there a chance of actually getting money from Google? The precedent fear will guarantee that Google will fight this tooth and nail. Pro-bono I could see firms taking it, lots of press and the chance of being defined as a top tech-related litigation company. Or Google's many enemies could finance this.
- staticautomatic 9y agoSure. Like most companies, Google settles plenty of lawsuits and only tries them when it has to or believes it has a high probability of winning. Precedent fear guarantees nothing. You could have said that about any number of cases that Google has settled. There is zero chance that a law firm would take this pro-bono, regardless of the perceived marketing benefits, because it's simply too expensive. It will not be financed by Google's enemies. If it's financed, it will be by a litigation financing company like Burford or Bentham IMF or something.
- Danihan 9y agoNon-paywalled link: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech-social-network-gab-files-lawsuit-google/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech-social-... Their attorney: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza
- marksomnian 9y agoBreitbart is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, and I cannot see why you linked the personal Wikipedia article of their attorney.
- marcofatica 9y agoCan you explain to me the difference in reliability of information between the version posted on WaPo and Breitbart?
- jdoliner 9y agoIt's the same reason that posts on Gab are hatespeech while similar content on Twitter isn't.
- marcofatica 9y agoWell stated
- xena 9y agoBrietbart has a very negative reputation for reporting on political drama in misleading ways. Search "liberal" on Brietbart and you'll see what I mean.
- marcofatica 9y agoAnd there cases of WaPo doing the exact same thing against the right, especially towards our President. Those posts are easy to spot and even easier to dismiss. I'm asking about the article specifically - is there something in it that Breitbart is misrepresenting?
- danjoc 9y agoGab could use this as an opportunity to build up an app store of their own. Line has an in app store. Gab could too. Encourage users to side load gab, then you have a dedicated core audience who wants to support your platform. In app purchases could make them a ton of shared revenue. Apps, stickers, MAGA hats. If Gab succeeds in replacing Twitter, they could generate further revenue by front running Wall Street with gabs. I can't imagine how Twitter has money problems when they have the POTUS making market moving tweets regularly.
- stcredzero 9y agoEncourage users to side load Is there a utility that makes side loading easier?
- sp332 9y agoWhich part? I mean you just download the APK and open it and it installs.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoThis is untrue. You first need to disable the block on sideloading in settings which is specifically named to scare users into not unchecking it. I've seen that checkbox as the sole reason someone wouldn't install Amazon.
- Spivak 9y agoYou're also forgetting that for an app store you have to keep that setting off because all the apps that come from that store are still from 'unknown sources' which defeats the purpose of having that security check in the first place. I really could care less about Gab but I would like to mark the packages from F-Droid as trusted and still distrust others.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoGoogle has actually fixed this in the latest version of Android (that nobody has): http://www.zdnet.com/article/android-oreo-google-has-just-made-app-installs-from-unknown-sources-a-lot-safer/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/android-oreo-google-has-just-ma...
- djsumdog 9y agoGoogle could have not been evil by not bastardizing the idea of a package repository. Apple Store/play is not a new concept. It's a closed off, propriety version of a Linux or BSD package repo or ports tree. All either company had to do was allow third party repositories. You get a nice list, choose which companies you trust, have a nice interface where you could download an app.repo file, view it's cert and add it to your phone. 90% of people wouldn't use it, but for power uses and beta testers, it would allow a single easy software update system that could be free for all. I wrote about this a while back in a post I did on OSS philosophy: http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in-community-and-enterprise-software/ http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-...
- gman83 9y agoIsn't this explicitly allowed? Amazon has an app store for android and there's things like F-Droid as well. Also there are many Chinese app stores. If all else fails users can simply sideload the APK.
- paulddraper 9y agoThe Android story is pretty good. As good as it could be, I think, in a reality where 97% of users don't care.
- Spivak 9y agoNot really, Google Play exists in a privileged position on Android phones because it's a system app. Other 'App Stores' are basically glorified downloaders and require a huge amount of manual intervention by the user. 3rd party app stores can't actually install or update applications.
- problems 9y agoOn many Android phones you can legitimately unlock your bootloader and load whatever software you please. F-Droid does support this fully automatic app installs and updates, see: https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/Installing_F-Droid_as_a_system-app https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/Installing_F-Droid_as_a_system... https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/org.fdroid.fdroid.privileged https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/org.fdroid.fdroid.privileged If you say "most people won't bother" - that's true, but most people will gladly tick the unknown sources box too for pre-release or pirated apps already.
- andrewmutz 9y agoI don't think that current anti trust law is a good way to address this. This isn't really a competition question. If we want to protect speech that travels through semi-private networks, I think we need some new laws written.
- jdoliner 9y agoWhy isn't it a competition question? Gab is pretty clearly competitive with G+ and Youtube.
- joshuamorton 9y agoAs far as I know, gab is more closely a competitor of Instagram and Twitter, neither of which is a Google product.
- andrewmutz 9y agoWhat would be the competition angle for Apple pulling the app? The fundamental reason these apps were pulled was related to their content, not competitive.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- koolba 9y ago> In a statement, Google described the lawsuit as "baseless," and said it would defend its decision in court, if necessary. "In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people," Google said. "This developer is welcome to appeal the suspension if they've addressed the policy violations and are compliant with our Developer Program Policies." This is going to be fun. I hope they're forced to clarify what exactly they mean by "sufficient level of moderation". If that's going to be their angle I have to say it sounds wobbly. I'd be more comfortable with a, "It's our platform, get bent!" approach.
- Danihan 9y agoSelective policy enforcement like this are exactly why being a common carrier makes more sense.
- weberc2 9y agoWhile I agree that Google has too much of a monopoly over Android apps to be able to make the "It's our platform, get bent" argument, they also have a lot of products or services where they should be able to regulate the content. In my opinion, it would be a shame if we applied the same rule to all of their services. EDIT: Could the downvoters please explain what they disagree with or why this post is low quality, if only for my edification? Is it controversial to think Google's control over the Android app store constitutes a monopoly, deserving special regulation? Or maybe that we should be nuanced about which services should be regulated as a utility? I'm open to persuasion here.
- majormajor 9y agoYou think an app store should be a common carrier? Should WalMart also, then? Why wouldn't a store get to pick what they carry? Everything they carry affects their reputation and appearance, after all.
- jcriddle4 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kevin_b_er 9y agoGab is probably going to lose. Apple has capricious and inconsistent rules for what's allowed, why not Google?
- revmoo 9y agoIt's pretty easy to argue Google is a competitor. Look at Google+ for example.
- camus2 9y agoI'm not judging if the case has merit or not, I'm not a lawyer, however one could argue that Android is a monopoly, iOS isn't.
- ceejayoz 9y ago> I'm not a lawyer, however one could argue that Android is a monopoly, iOS isn't. Uh... how? They're literally each other's major competitors. Each is good evidence the other is not a monopoly... and Android, unlike iOS, permits third-party app stores like the one Amazon put together.
- factsaresacred 9y agoThe 'hate speech' policy reads: > We don't allow apps that advocate against groups of people based on their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Gab is simply a platform, like Twitter and Youtube. As well as a communication channel, like Whatsapp. Without a doubt more 'hate speech' passes through Whatsapp and Twitter each day than appears on Gab's platform so it's hard not to see this as unjust and inequitable.
- jaydz 9y agoTwitter and Youtube remove such content, Gab has promised it won't.
- factsaresacred 9y agoOn Twitter and Youtube I can find infinite amounts of content that advocates "against groups of people based on their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity." Jeez, you'd probably find all that in a single rap video. In addition to that, have you ever read Youtube comments? There's clearly bias against Gab in this instance.
- aaron-lebo 9y agoYeah, it's complete bullshit. They've got no problem with hate speech against whites (ignoring ethnicity, because the people who like to rant about white people usually don't care about actual backgrounds), people who say hateful stuff about Christians, or people who hate guys because, well, they're guys. You don't gotta feel persecuted or fit into any of those groups to see the obvious double standard there.
- tim333 9y agoDunno - criticise the powerfull but don't pick on the vunerable. It's kind of common sense.
- 9y ago
- guelo 9y agoThis is a meritless lawsuit brought purely for political purposes. My question is who is funding the lawsuit?
- Animats 9y agoProblems like this were litigated in the railroad era. See Memphis News Pub vs. Southern Railway (1903).[1] Could the railroad transport one newspaper, but not another? The Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled, "no". That was even before the US had Federal antitrust law. Railroad law and regulation from a century ago is worth studying when trying to figure out how to deal with monopolies with strong network effects. Railroads had even stronger networking effects. [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=sU0sAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202 https://books.google.com/books?id=sU0sAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=...
- dontnotice 9y agoDifference being that the railway was the only practical mean of delivery back then and is an actual utility. Also one couldn't sideload newspapers to circumvent restrictions. Tagging everything as a "utility" and demanding they be regulated as such is as far removed from the conservative ethos as the altright apparently.
- perseusprime11 9y agoI think Google, Facebook and Amazon have far bigger network effects than railways. Also, the network effects are different making Google and such exponentially more powerful.
- dontnotice 9y ago"Network effects" are people's relationships with their products, which they justly earned. They ran atop the same network that everyone else had access to and achieved, the accurate analog to the railway example is the ISPs and not these companies.
- sandov 9y agoSo, Where do we draw the line between a company rightfully refusing to host inappropriate content and a company "abusing" its network effects?. Where do we draw the line between a company "abusing" its network effects and a company avoiding being abused by other companies? (e.g. Imagine a app store that distributes only free software backed by a big corp, then a small proprietary app maker complains that they don't want to accept their app because its proprietary). Is the size of the company the criteria that decides if they are in the right or in the wrong?
- esolyt 9y agoThey're trying to gain publicity and strengthen the narrative "liberal California is censoring conservatives". I don't think they care about winning this either. The kind of people who use gab would already know how to sideload an Android app or use alternative app stores. Besides, you don't need an app, the website does the job too.
- swack 9y agoXenophobic "news" are not news. Hacker news is 100% behind Google and other progressive corporations. Go back to /pol/, basically.