3 ms·

As of today there are no legal protection framework for digital services. Banking is heavily regulated , you are protected by hundreds if not thousands of laws

by asien 6y ago

As of today there are no legal protection framework for digital services. Banking is heavily regulated , you are protected by hundreds if not thousands of laws. For digital services ? Twitter and Google can legitimately suspend ALL your accounts because you liked a Trump video on YouTube or Tweeted something « Hateful » to Biden. You can try to go court. You will loose 100% of the time. They are private businesses operating within their own terms, there is not « false » flag or wrong « ban » They’re private businesses offering a free service, they can cease to offer that at any moment that they want.

Isinlor 6y ago
In this case they do not provide a service to the OP. There is no agreement between OP and Google. This is happening on browsers of their customers. And I'm quite sure that if Google hits a company that competes with Google services there must be a law that they will be breaking. There was a big case in Poland where Google blocked a SaaS web shop provider using the same exact mechanism [0]. Polish courts decided that Google claims displayed on block page were untrue. Unfortunately, the suing company did not receive compensation, because Google Poland does not operate Chrome browser. The court indicated that the right party to sue is Google incorporated in USA... [0] https://www.silesiasem.pl/iai-przegralo-proces-sadowy-z-google-poland https://www.silesiasem.pl/iai-przegralo-proces-sadowy-z-goog...
- asien 6y ago
  Aside from abusive dominent position there is no law they would break. When you download and use chrome you ACCEPT the Terms and Conditions of Google. There is no law that prevents a web browser from blocking access to a website or modifying the page . If the TOS stipulate « pages may differ from the original or be subject to third party software » , they are in within their rights and the customer accepted it when he started using the product. Don’t get me wrong. I’m on OP sides and everything , but we have let big tech become too big by giving us free stuff for decades. Now they they decide what’s good for us or not with side effects that often damage small business. But I insist that in 99% , they operate within the law.
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    I'm not a US citizen, but just 5 min of scanning US laws makes me think that there are basis for a lawsuit. Essential facilities doctrine seems to be appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine
    - echopom 6y ago
      Google has already been condemned by UE for this type of issue for 150M. That's literally nothing , at least not enough to hit their wallet. This type of battle take months if not years in court and cost millions of dollars. Google products can be shipped and removed in a few weeks , far beyond the reach of operation of the current judiciary system. Today the problem is GHS , tomorrow it'll be "GSuite Safe Account" or "Youtube Safe Video" etc... There is no point in taking Google to court just for a "one time" condemnation, it's a systematic issue that is tied to Google itself.
      - Isinlor 6y ago
        EU is working on addressing these issues. They specifically want to label companies like Google as "gatekeepers" in The Digital Markets Act. From: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/gatekeepers-face-eu-digital-markets-act-regulation https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/gatekeepers-face-... > In case of violations, the new law would provide for fines of up to 10% of a gatekeeper's total global turnover. Lasseur said: "The fines are high, but they correspond to the usual sanction regime for violations of European competition law." > In the event of a repeated offence, following a detailed market investigation by the Commission, the company could even be broken if the Commission finds that there is no effective alternative to ensure that the gatekeeper obligations are complied with. The fines will no longer be just a cost of doing business, but an existential threat. It may take 10 or 15 years in courts but EU will break down likes of Google for repeated offenses even if the relevant products will no longer exist.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    You ignored the issue of libel, though. Do you have a reason it's not?

by asien 6y ago

Isinlor 6y ago

In this case they do not provide a service to the OP. There is no agreement between OP and Google. This is happening on browsers of their customers. And I'm quite sure that if Google hits a company that competes with Google services there must be a law that they will be breaking. There was a big case in Poland where Google blocked a SaaS web shop provider using the same exact mechanism [0]. Polish courts decided that Google claims displayed on block page were untrue. Unfortunately, the suing company did not receive compensation, because Google Poland does not operate Chrome browser. The court indicated that the right party to sue is Google incorporated in USA... [0] https://www.silesiasem.pl/iai-przegralo-proces-sadowy-z-google-poland https://www.silesiasem.pl/iai-przegralo-proces-sadowy-z-goog...

asien 6y ago
Aside from abusive dominent position there is no law they would break. When you download and use chrome you ACCEPT the Terms and Conditions of Google. There is no law that prevents a web browser from blocking access to a website or modifying the page . If the TOS stipulate « pages may differ from the original or be subject to third party software » , they are in within their rights and the customer accepted it when he started using the product. Don’t get me wrong. I’m on OP sides and everything , but we have let big tech become too big by giving us free stuff for decades. Now they they decide what’s good for us or not with side effects that often damage small business. But I insist that in 99% , they operate within the law.
- Isinlor 6y ago
  I'm not a US citizen, but just 5 min of scanning US laws makes me think that there are basis for a lawsuit. Essential facilities doctrine seems to be appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine
  - echopom 6y ago
    Google has already been condemned by UE for this type of issue for 150M. That's literally nothing , at least not enough to hit their wallet. This type of battle take months if not years in court and cost millions of dollars. Google products can be shipped and removed in a few weeks , far beyond the reach of operation of the current judiciary system. Today the problem is GHS , tomorrow it'll be "GSuite Safe Account" or "Youtube Safe Video" etc... There is no point in taking Google to court just for a "one time" condemnation, it's a systematic issue that is tied to Google itself.
    - Isinlor 6y ago
      EU is working on addressing these issues. They specifically want to label companies like Google as "gatekeepers" in The Digital Markets Act. From: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/gatekeepers-face-eu-digital-markets-act-regulation https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/gatekeepers-face-... > In case of violations, the new law would provide for fines of up to 10% of a gatekeeper's total global turnover. Lasseur said: "The fines are high, but they correspond to the usual sanction regime for violations of European competition law." > In the event of a repeated offence, following a detailed market investigation by the Commission, the company could even be broken if the Commission finds that there is no effective alternative to ensure that the gatekeeper obligations are complied with. The fines will no longer be just a cost of doing business, but an existential threat. It may take 10 or 15 years in courts but EU will break down likes of Google for repeated offenses even if the relevant products will no longer exist.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You ignored the issue of libel, though. Do you have a reason it's not?