The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These Acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price-fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that would likely substantially lessen competition. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits the abuse of monopoly power.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
Sure! If we had any honest courts left, they'd win, too.
Winner winner, breadline dinner.
Sir, this is a breadline
Don't worry, fren!
They will soon be behaving correctly. 😎👍
Even if the DOJ wanted to do something about it don’t antitrust cases take like 5 years?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2no1VnhJOjg&feature=youtu.be Nunes mentions RICO here
I had that same thought. Almost like a monopoly in a way. When one does it they all do it.
Problem is.. if a cake maker can turn away business, AWS can turn away business
Idea of a cake maker is close but not quite. Amazon is the building owner or manager. twitter and parler are two stores that make cakes. Apple and Google are services that deliver said cakes.
One day twitter decided that it should be the only cake maker in town and conspire with Amazon, Apple, and Google. Amazon gave Parler and eviction notice, Apple and Google told Parler it will no longer deliver it's cakes to customers, all in an effort to shut parler down and leave twitter with no competition.
And from my understanding, it was this very issue that the antitrust law was created in the first place.
No ... people always misunderstand what the cake case was about and what the supreme court decision means.
The baker can't turn away the cake because the clients are gay ... the baker can refuse to make art on the cake or for an event which violates his religious beliefs.
Immediately after the Supreme Court decision that he doesn't have to bake the cake, this happened: The baker (Phillips) was soon back in court, this time defending his decision to not to bake a special transition-themed cake in 2017. A transgendered activist named Autumn Scardina, who had allegedly also asked Phillips to make “an image of Satan smoking marijuana,” “the Church of Satan,” and “a three-tiered white cake” with a “large figure of Satan, licking a nine inch black Dildo,” lodged the complaint.
Constantly with this "private company" bull shit is costing us to constantly play defense. You can't refuse someone to use your service because you don't like them or something about them ... that is discrimination. You can't say "Get out of my cafe black guy." Likewise they can't force you to create or serve them in a way that you don't want to engage in ... the black guy can't come in and say say "Bring me my coffee while hopping on one foot and barking like a dog."
We already lost the legal system anyway so the point is moot ... but by a strict interpretation of the law NO what is happening now with Big Tech banning conservatives it is NOT legal.
Yup, just bring a lawsuit against the corporate arm of Communism in the Soviet States Of America . . . . that will work.
They could. But someone that is anti free speech and pro corporate oligarchy bought every judicial race in the country
I think some folks are missing stock manipulation. They are publicy traded companies on the US stock exchange and have to follow SEC rules as such. Both companies stock price will go down on Monday due to less subscribers that they purged in unison (another no no) or price fixing. There will be shareholders that will be harmed because of their actions. If I owned one share of those POS companies I would be on my way to my lawyers office as I write this. There is many funds that hold 10's of thousands of shares. Bet they are not happy right now and nor should the people that hold those funds.
Latches! Too late!
Yes
It's called CHA -- "Coordinated Harmful Activities" -- the media all-at-once came up with this terminology, just like they did CIB "coordinated inauthentic behavior".
I suggest we use THEIR language to accuse THEM of the thing THEY accuse US of doing.
Sidney had the idea to remove information from Facebook, Twitter and stop buying from Amazon. Shop at locally owned stores for everything you can. Give them what they are asking for, which is a massive drop in revenue.
Shareholders can file derivative actions for their egregious discrimination and mismanagement.
Apple was sued simply by saying "would you rather charge 10 cents or 8 cents" or something like that and they were found guilty of price fixing for ebooks.
Suing Amazon is a better idea than most would probably think. All of the liberal judges most likely have their campaigns funded partial by Amazon in some way and would be forced to recuse.
No. Because their goal was to suppress the speech of MAGA supporters.
And, as we know, MAGA supporters have no standing in this country.
The supreme court finds you dont have standing in your own case. Case closed.
Nunes on Bartiromo on antitrust, RICO, etc on this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2no1VnhJOjg&feature=youtu.be
Why does everyone keep talking about suing and laws and blah blah blah when they run the elections, courts, and fbi. Google, apple, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, etc. literally acted as laws don’t exist which means they had the green light.
They don't have standing. No one on our side has standing.
They don't have standing.
I would sue...
Antitrust laws are very weak.
Didn't Tim Sweeny (Yes, I know he is a China shill) sue after Apple / Google colluded to remove Fortnite? Tim Sweeny may be a China loving POS but he is 100% correct about Big Tech.
They dont have the money for that hydra
Parler was doing exactly what they are accusing others of doing and banning people, Im a conservative and I was banned by their jury team, no warning, no reason given just rrmoved, so they can whistle dixey, whst comes around goes around, aint that a bitch now suck it up parleywes
Conspiracy to restrain trade
I am hoping the courts segregate Section 230 protections from larger corporate decisions that have nothing to do with internet moderation. Social media is acting like they are the law of the land.
Hence why there would be a legal battle in court. They all could claim TOS was violated but from the sound of it, they never did any investigation to determine if TOS was violated.
Stories was that a mob in Amazon demanded that Parler servers be shut down and hence, it was shutdown.
Google declaring violation of the TOS is laughable as they cherry pick who they want to ban and who they won't.
Apple... apple is trash. They said no to federal authorities in cooperating in cases that involves actual terrorist while they freely restrict the American people that did nothing wrong.
It's a legal battle that I think Parler could potentially win... but sadly I guess one small business against three tech gaint is David vs Goliath times 3
They can sue. But the Supreme Court said the law doesn't matter.
If justice were still a thing, sure, but we are about to see an illegitimate president installed, so I’m pretty sure that justice thing already sailed.
There is a long pattern of this. FB and Twatter are also complicit.
No standing. The courts are irrelevant now. There is no more justice, only “just us.”
"... violates the US antitrust law?"
Law? What's that?
Normally yes. But you know
Yes, and Yes. The more appropriate party would be the Federal Govt though under long established antitrust practices of denying a competitor access to the marketplace.
In a civil society with laws, yes.
this is not ok
It's definitely collusion
There's no law that says that you're entitled to web hosting. In fact, you can host your own servers. Parler will be offline for a few days because they were surprised. If they had known this was going to happen they wouldn't be offline at all because there are options.
If your own company uses AWS, STOP USING IT!!!!! If you are locked into AWS, Amazon might decide that potato is a gender and kick your company off if you disagree. Also, AWS is overpriced.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me thet have а winner. Only deal is if the courts will be fair.
Could Texas sue?
No offense but where were you cucks when Gab, Alex Jones...were deplatformed? You were warned and didn't give a shit until it affected you! SHAME ON YOU ALL!