
Gab is suing Google for allegedly violating antitrust laws - zoolander2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/09/15/gab-is-suing-google-for-allegedly-violating-antitrust-laws/?utm_term=.60749afcde63
======
Animats
Problems 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=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=sU0sAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202)

~~~
dontnotice
Difference 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
I 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.

~~~
sandov
So, 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?

~~~
gwenzek
> So, Where do we draw the line between a company rightfully refusing to host
> inappropriate content and a company "abusing" its network effects?.

I don't think the app description of Gab is an appropriate content. Google
seems to assume that the content of the Gab app will be innapropriate. Given
this is about freedom of speech I'm not sure they should be the one deciding
this. Are they also removing Gab from their Google Search results?

------
koolba
> 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
Selective policy enforcement like this are exactly why being a common carrier
makes more sense.

~~~
majormajor
You 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.

~~~
LukeShu
The difference is that many phones come with the the Google Play store on
them, and "Allow installation of apps from unknown sources" locked off. I
don't know what the metaphor would be; if a good chunk of cars were somehow
locked where you couldn't drive to other stores than WalMart, and WalMart were
involved in the production of those cars?

~~~
majormajor
This is a good point, but also suggestive of the needed remedy being something
other than "force the play store open" more akin to "ensure the underlying
platforms are more open."

I have much more problem with forcing someone to distribute things than I do
with forcing them to allow other distribution methods.

~~~
KGIII
To play Devil's Advocate, should a company be forced to bake a cake for gay
people? Should they be forced to serve minorities?

I think we have decided the answer is yes.

~~~
majormajor
There are interesting aspects there, but the idea of protected classes vs
unprotected ones and restricting discrimination based on that isn't one I have
a huge problem with. I don't believe that a cake store having to serve
minorities needs to imply that they have to be willing, say, to create cakes
with arbitrary recipes. Could be an issue that comes up in the future with
food allergy stuff, though, but as it is today that's not protected, and I
feel it would be ludicrous to force shops to be "common carriers" that have to
cook whatever the customer wants—of course, there are significant level-of-
market-control differences here too.

~~~
KGIII
It's not just about protected classes, it's about equal service for all.

Buggered if I have a solution, I just know these sorts of things are problems.

------
Overtonwindow
While 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.

~~~
wallace_f
Gab's founder, the Trump-supporting Andrew Torba, was also kicked out of
Y-Combinator's network. It was because, if not officially, probably also for
his politics.

Recently a popular thread here discussed a child murderer whom had been
admitted to Harvard, but they later renegged. Many people echoed the argument
that: 'if someone isn't allowed to participate in society like a normal
person, then why even let them out of prison, because it only otherwise
encourages them towards crime?'

What should we do about people who are not allowed to participate in society
like normal people, but have committed no crime? If we want to remain
logically consistent, shouldn't we lock up the Trump supporters with the baby
killers?

~~~
tptacek
That is not, in fact, why Torba was removed from the YC network. He was
removed for hostile trolling of other YC founders.

The thread that immediately precipitated his removal is still online; you can
just go look at it:

[https://www.facebook.com/garry/posts/10102671732962523?pnref...](https://www.facebook.com/garry/posts/10102671732962523?pnref=story)

(It's buried under Anisa Mirza's reply).

Unless it's your claim that trolling is a political stance deserving of
protection, in which case we can all just agree to disagree about our
definitions and move on, his support for Trump was not the problem here.

~~~
wallace_f
I can't use your link b/c I don't have a FB account.

>He was removed for hostile trolling of other YC founders.

Precisely, the words used by YC were "threatening and harassing" comments. To
my knowledge this is the exact comment YC cited:

>All of you: fuck off. Take your morally superior, elitist, virtue signaling
bullshit and shove it.

>I call it like I see it, and I helped meme a President into office, cucks.

I certainly see how this speech can be viewed as rude and disagreeable. But I
don't really know how you can say that he made any serious threats or was
honestly harassing anyone.

~~~
tptacek
No, that is not the extent of the thread or the allegation.

It's probably not worth litigating this further, though.

~~~
wallace_f
Ok well settle your case if you wish. But that was what YC themselves claimed,
according to this: [https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/12/pro-trump-ceo-gets-
booted-...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/12/pro-trump-ceo-gets-booted-from-
y-combinator/)

~~~
tptacek
I don't believe that link supports your claim.

~~~
wallace_f
Here is the exact text from the article. It states exactly what I already said
it does:

>While Torba paints this as a free speech issue, YC told BuzzFeed that he was
kicked out for “for speaking in a threatening, harassing way toward other YC
founders” — particularly in this Facebook comment:

>All of you: fuck off. Take your morally superior, elitist, virtue signaling
bullshit and shove it.

>I call it like I see it, and I helped meme a President into office, cucks.

~~~
ekiru
That TechCrunch article cites BuzzFeed as its source for the claim that YC
said that they kicked him out particularly for that comment, but I don't see
that in the linked BuzzFeed article [1]. It says that he was kicked out "for
violating its harassment policy", and that this occurred after the Facebook
comment, but I don't see any statement in the BuzzFeed article that YC
mentioned that comment in particular. I may be missing it, though.

[1]: [https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/trump-supporting-
startu...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/trump-supporting-startup-ceo-
kicked-out-of-y-combinator)

------
factsaresacred
The '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.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Yeah, 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
Dunno - criticise the powerfull but don't pick on the vunerable. It's kind of
common sense.

~~~
factsaresacred
> criticise the powerful

The idea that 'whites' are a homogeneous "powerful" group is as naive is it is
prejudice. The standards apply to everybody or they don't apply at all.

~~~
tim333
I'm a white hetro male. If people have a go at us I'm not fussed it's not
going to achieve much. Things like saying let's gas the jews or beat up gays
are more problematic because those have been problems.

~~~
factsaresacred
Do you have any idea how many 'whites' fled poverty, oppression, and worse, to
come to America?

The measure of offence is not based on how 'fussed' you, an individual, feel.
Nor is it based on a myopic view of history in which 'whites' have never been
victims and everybody else has.

------
stcredzero
_" 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?

~~~
hamitron
IMO the reason Gab was created was because users kept getting banned / flagged
on Twitter. So yes, the same standard applies.

~~~
djsumdog
So it's just another platform. It happens to be a platform people flock to
because they are 'no platformed' in another service.

The big companies are really limiting speech. You can't have separate
black/white bathrooms, in many places your business can't allow indoor
smoking, you can't limit employment based on certain things if you want equal
opportunity employer benefits, yet we have no protection for speech.

Daily Stormer (which is honestly so crazy I couldn't tell if it was a parody)
can't be hosted by any major or minor providers. No one will give them space
to speak. When that many companies gets to control all the platforms, when
Google can fire a guy for a well thought out opinion, they effectively censor
dissenting idea.

I'm not saying I like gab. It's seriously full of voat type users, but they
should have a place where they can speak.

~~~
stcredzero
_Daily Stormer (which is honestly so crazy I couldn 't tell if it was a
parody)_

If you examine the Nazi ideology, it really is at a psychotic level of
cynicism. They don't care if you are a true believer, or if you're doing it
for the lulz, or if you're a psychopath whose incentives happen to align. So
long as you go along, it's fine.

If you go far enough left on the political spectrum, you arrive at the same
place. (The rapists and murderers were made into bosses in the Gulag.)
However, for some reason, speech that is almost as vile from the left is given
a softer treatment.

~~~
hamitron
> If you go far enough left on the political spectrum, you arrive at the same
> place.

This horseshoe theory is widely disputed.

~~~
stcredzero
Both far extremes are identitarian. Both far extremes advocate violence. Both
the Postmodern Left extremists and the Nazi extremists reject logic. Both
extremes are collectivist in that both extremes reject the classical Liberal
formulation of individual rights. All of the above are facts that you can cite
in the writings of thought leaders of both groups.

[http://a.co/7HHLSzp](http://a.co/7HHLSzp)

It's true that it's a false equivalence between neo-Nazis and Antifa. But
crapping on individual human rights in one's political interest is wrong
either way, and both groups do that. It doesn't matter if steam is at 220
degrees or 440 degrees. It's going to scald you either way. It doesn't matter
how bad, so much as that both are bad!

------
djsumdog
Google 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-...](http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in-
community-and-enterprise-software/)

~~~
gman83
Isn'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.

~~~
Spivak
Not 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
On 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...](https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/Installing_F-
Droid_as_a_system-app)

[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.

------
bllguo
> “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

~~~
jelly
That 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.

------
sp332
They'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.

~~~
jerf
You 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.

~~~
sp332
The 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
> 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
I 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
I 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.

------
kevin_b_er
Gab is probably going to lose. Apple has capricious and inconsistent rules for
what's allowed, why not Google?

~~~
camus2
I'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
> 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.

------
danjoc
Gab 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
_Encourage users to side load_

Is there a utility that makes side loading easier?

~~~
Grazester
How can it get any easier than checking "Unknown Sources" in the security
setting on Android?

~~~
Spivak
Easy for people in this forum. Not easy for the general population. Also it's
terribly insecure. It would be much easier to be say 'I trust App Store' and
add it to the known sources and be able to keep unknown sources blocked.

~~~
Grazester
If you're not savvy enough a person to do this then you have no business
messing with this. If you can't easily toggle this then how could I trust you
were even competent enough to get that app from a source that has not
maliciously tampered the app you are installing?

~~~
Spivak
Fine, but if that's the case it certainly ruins the argument that there's an
alternative to Google Play for everyday users.

------
esolyt
They'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.

------
andrewmutz
I 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
Why isn't it a competition question? Gab is pretty clearly competitive with G+
and Youtube.

~~~
joshuamorton
As far as I know, gab is more closely a competitor of Instagram and Twitter,
neither of which is a Google product.

------
Danihan
Non-paywalled link: [http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech-
social-...](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech-social-
network-gab-files-lawsuit-google/)

Their attorney:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza)

~~~
marksomnian
Breitbart 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
Can you explain to me the difference in reliability of information between the
version posted on WaPo and Breitbart?

~~~
xena
Brietbart has a very negative reputation for reporting on political drama in
misleading ways. Search "liberal" on Brietbart and you'll see what I mean.

~~~
judah
Unfortunately, the same can be said of the Washington Post and the New York
Times.

For example, the New York Times featured a piece [0] stating President Trump
will "erase from the annals of life on earth" several species of animals,
including the Hawaiian Honeycreeper, the Joshua Tree, the Horseshoe Crab, and
more. Why? Because President Trump exited a 1 year old environmental accord.

Still other mainstream outlets reported, "Donald Trump will have his own
version of Hitler's Reichstag fire to expand his power and take full control
of the government."[1]

That is reporting on political drama in misleading ways.

[0]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet-
cant-s...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet-cant-stand-
this-presidency.html)

[1]: [http://blog.judahgabriel.com/2017/06/the-sky-is-falling-
docu...](http://blog.judahgabriel.com/2017/06/the-sky-is-falling-documenting-
leftist.html)

~~~
bryanlarsen
Those articles are clearly marked as opinion.

------
guelo
This is a meritless lawsuit brought purely for political purposes. My question
is who is funding the lawsuit?

