Justice Dept Announces Recommendations for Reform of Big Tech Platform Immunity, Section 230…

Timing is everything…

When NBC published their background conversation with Google yesterday the media outlet made a big legal mistake.  NBC not only outlined the mechanics of a racketeering and antitrust violation, via Google’s power to control on-line ad revenue as a weapon to target NBC’s competition, but NBC outlined the actual collaborative communication.

NBC did the worst thing possible, they published the quotes from Google’s response to them where Google willingly accepted the request from NBC without pause.  The collusion was not only clear, it was self admitted.  What made the issue more explosive was the NBC article explained the motives of both organizations; the targeting was intentional and specific.  The goal was to take-down The Federalist news outlet by removing their revenue. There was no ambiguity of purpose, and Google knowingly agreed with the intent.

Within hours of realizing the consequences of the publication, the legal offices of NBC and Google both activated and attempted damage control.  The NBC article was completely rewritten and the communication between them and Google –as quoted– was removed.  For its part Google published a statement saying no action had been taken, and later they professed no action would be taken.  However, the damage was already done.

NBC’s hubris put both Google and NBC in the sunlight of their own admissions.

Google’s monopoly control of internet ad revenue made their agreement with NBC to target a competitor a transparent, and admitted, antitrust violation.  Without question, that stark admission is what triggered the timing of the DOJ public statement today.

The DOJ needs congress to take action, modify the law, and update the outdated immunity for online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

There are many aspects to the 230 immunity section regarding the responsibility of a platform provider to ensure no criminal activity (child exploitation, sex trafficking, terrorism organization etc.) is taking place; while 230 simultaneously gives the provider immunity from liability if they do not successfully intercept the action.  That was the bulk of intent and purpose of the original law.

Additionally, platform providers have been using the Section 230 immunity to engage in targeted censorship and control over political viewpoints on their services.  That’s the part that gets most of our/user attention…. and if the immunity was removed, people could challenge the platform provider, sue them and force them to justify their action in court.

Both of those prior points are important; the first is really important to the DOJ; but they are not the real epicenter of the issue from the perspective of the provider(s).

Big Tech cares about not being held criminally liable, yes; and Big Tech cares about being able to control ideology, yes. However, neither of those two factors are as important to Big Tech as MONEY.  Without financial control over the internet, Big Tech collapses.

The heart of the Big Tech’s financial issue for Section 230 immunity surrounds this:

(DOJ) …”A third reform proposal is to clarify that federal antitrust claims are not covered by Section 230 immunity. Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few key players. It makes little sense to enable large online platforms (particularly dominant ones) to invoke Section 230 immunity in antitrust cases, where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.”…

As we expected the DOJ wants to target Big Tech for antitrust violations.  The issue surrounds commerce, not speech.  Demonetization of digital platform content providers, in combination with Google’s control of almost all ad revenue in the digital space, is what has opened the door for DOJ intervention based on antitrust laws.

Antitrust intervention is warranted because the content being generated on these on-line, digital platforms, is being arbitrarily valued by the platform agency GoogleAds and not the free market.  When Google devalues content they are ideologically opposed to creates consumer distortions.

The methods, practices and purposeful control of value; through collusion of corporate interest specific to a planned and organized effort to control monetary benefit; is the part of their activity that is quantifiable, discoverable, easily provable, and ultimately unlawful.

The financial distortion of internet commerce is the crack in the Big Tech stranglehold that should afford the DOJ the opportunity to step in.

DOJ Press Announcement Here

DOJ Expanded Reform Proposal Here

Democrats in congress will fight to help Big Tech retain the monopoly.  It is doubtful any legislative action will take place prior to the November 2020 election.   However, if President Trump can win reelection and if Democrats can be defeated in the House and Senate, it’s possible this might finally be addressed…

But remember…. Big Tech will go to the mattresses this year to try and help Democrats. There are trillions at stake.

President Barack Obama joins a toast with Technology Business Leaders at a dinner in Woodside, California, Feb. 17, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

 

This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Domestic Terrorism, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, USA and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

214 Responses to Justice Dept Announces Recommendations for Reform of Big Tech Platform Immunity, Section 230…

  1. Gman1976 says:

    Since the Democrats will prevent legislation to go against Big Tech on monopolistic grounds, the Justice Department needs to fight them on the Constitutional grounds (i.e. free speech) and do it now before the election. Otherwise, the fight will be put off, delayed, and may never happen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Johnny Boost says:

      You have it exactly backwards. DOJ can go after Google on anti-trust grounds right now. Free speech grounds requires rewriting existing law.

      Liked by 4 people

      • I agree with the Anti-Trust action. But it seems to me Civil Rights laws would apply, too. Congress can’t write a law that lets Google violate Constitutional protections. It is also a kind of financial fraud to sign up users you plan to censor and shadowban. And fail to inform advertisers of that fact.

        This presupposes we had a Justice Dept. and a Court system worthy of the name. We don’t.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Ryan Vossler says:

        Kinda funny how Obama still runs DC. Maybe that’s the real Plan

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dan says:

        Every single business that has ever placed an ad via google can file suit against them. There is no need to wait for DOJ.

        Like

    • Vince says:

      It will at least have a chilling effect up until the election.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ziegler von strahn says:

      There is no 1st amendment argument here. That restricts government from restricting speech. Google, as a private entity, can limit speech with it’s tools as it pleases.

      They dont have the right to limit the speech of others in the market place. But that is anti-trust, not free speech.

      You’re not going to stop FB/Twits from censoring speech on their platforms without socializing them and making them a public trust like the Post office or such.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Bob says:

        I disagree, I’ve read about a case where the court decided that a business cannot limit free speech if it operates in the public domain, which google does.

        Liked by 2 people

        • tav144 says:

          Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946).
          —-(briefly)…..
          A state statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town’s sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

          The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.

          The State attempted to analogize the town’s rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership “does not always mean absolute dominion.” The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

          In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties.

          Liked by 4 people

      • Dan says:

        Use of Facebook or Twitter is an exchange of value that is based upon the fraud of them acting as neutral platforms. Users surrender their valuable data and allow tracking, which is monetized by the platforms, with the expectation, promoted by these platforms, that they are neutral. Twitter especially. Twitter used these fraudulent representations to obtain value from their users. One would think some enterprising lawyer would file a multi-billion dollar class action suit.

        Like

  2. permiejack says:

    Just another reason to make your search engine DuckDuckGo. I’ve used it for 3 years now and always find what I’m looking for and possibly even wider choices that Google censors out.

    Liked by 8 people

  3. VoteAllIncumbantsOut says:

    WARNING: you’re going to tear up and get very angry.

    I’m sorry but we can no longer accept this!!!!
    I hope to god you donate and spread this.

    I offered this little girl a paid round trip ticket to come to America and train with my 18 year old daughter who is a 2nd degree black belt instructor in Krav Maga and maybe to help her overcome this mental anguish.

    https://www.tr.news/violent-attack-melbourne/

    Liked by 4 people

    • VoteAllIncumbantsOut says:

      Like

      • nimrodman says:

        Many commenters here have asked and wondered “when will the race war come?”

        Trust me – for this girl, it’s here

        Like

        • Ozzie Bowman. says:

          Some time ago there was War and Famine in the Horn of Africa. Largely Muslims killing Christians. The Government of the day decided to allow “Refugees” to come to Australia. Of course it was mostly Muslims who came. The actual Immigration Minister was against this. He believed they would remain savage lawless criminals for generations. He was attacked en mass by all “sensible” people and the Media. They came. I refer to them as “The tall ones with little heads.” Violent crime started immediately and the second generation is continuing it. Their two favourite activities are gang attacks on individuals and armed burgularys to beat up householders and steal their car keys. They also hijack cars on the road and if seen in a stolen vehicle they deliberately ram Police Cars. These are crimes we did not have before they came. We also now have “Pacific Islander” gangs who sometimes fight them but now more often join them. Many of our “Aborigines” are into crime big time but not vicious or organised. Our O.M.C. Bikies are mostly Middle Eastern Muslims and “Islanders.”

          Liked by 1 person

        • Michael Osmon says:

          My boss is a Mexican man. He’s a cool guy, I like him. Monday we were working in Chicago a few blocks from soldier field and we had to dig a pretty big hole, so we were taking turns. Well I’m standing there for a minute watching Jose dig, and this 75ish rich old man comes up to me from nowhere and tells me that we need to be taking turns and who am I to watch this man (my boss) work, and stood there glaring at me waiting for me to take the shovel. This old rich white dude knew nothing of the situation and just assumed I was a white man taking advantage of a brown man, and chose to speak out (and look like a fool in the process). Someone from my own race trying to shame me because of my skin color….I’d say the race war is here already. We got our hope and change that I for one never asked for

          Liked by 3 people

    • islandpalmtrees says:

      I think this is a generous act.

      Like

    • islandpalmtrees says:

      I think this is a generous act.

      Like

  4. avocadodipp says:

    There is an article on American Thinker about this – the author mentions there is a foreign actor(s) involved, also:
    A vast left-wing conspiracy suppressing conservative voices includes Google, NBC, and a shadowy foreign group
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/06/a_vast_leftwing_conspiracy_suppressing_conservative_voices_includes_google_nbc_and_a_shadowy_foreign_group.html

    Liked by 3 people

  5. viator2 says:

    Chances before the election = 0

    Like

  6. .If you plan a crime on the phone, the phone company is not responsible. If you plan it in the letters to the editor, the newspaper is.

    Google wants it both ways–like every other two-tiered scam today. They’re a utility when that benefits them and an editor when that pleases them.

    There is zero chance of Democrats supporting this change since Google is censoring conservatives only. We’ll have to smash them in the mouth with Anti-Trust, which is separate but related.

    BTW, look for the Professional Liars to frame this as President Trump censoring Big Tech, instead of him stopping Big Tech from censoring you.

    Liked by 6 people

    • David M Kitting says:

      Gipper,
      Big Tech censorship is the result of collaboration between all three branches of a corruptible Federal Government.
      Unalienable(God given) Rights are (EQUAL) for all. ‘Rights’, as well as $$ or anything else given by Government, must first be taken away from someone else(UNEQUAL). If one ‘free’ person has the right to another ‘free’ person’s property/business/labor, then the latter person is no longer ‘free’, but slave.
      Legislature enacts unconstitutional ‘laws’, the Executive enforces them and the Judiciary upholds the unlawful enforcement. Game, set, match. There’s your Injustice Department in a nutshell.
      Solution:
      The Constitution; ‘…it’s only keepers, The People…’ George Washington

      Liked by 1 person

  7. bessie2003 says:

    It will be interesting to see Elizabeth Warren’s response to this opportunity, if memory is serving me right, she likes to rail about monopolies and breaking them up. Given her desperation to become Biden’s running mate she might think taking on big tech would sound good campaign-wise so could create a crack in the Democrat’s normally solid party-line stand.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. MitchRyderDetroitWheels says:

    They have to stop The Donald at all cost in this election. They have the money to pay any fines. If Trump were to lose then it all goes away anyway. Barr have something he can do now without congress because they don’t want The Donald either and that is both sides.

    Like

  9. islandpalmtrees says:

    The proposal to clarify that federal antitrust claims are not covered by Section 230 immunity is a good one, but it depends on Congress, something unlikely to occur until after the election.

    So, it follows that the President must issue a EO until the above proposal is implemented.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. islandpalmtrees says:

    Assuming that Google is controlled by the CIA then I would have a little set-down with the current director of the CIA. Likely focused on a demand to order Google to back off!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. EnoughIsEnough says:

    I am sick about the attacks on our police. I worked in a middle and high school for 24 years. The schools and law enforcement worked closely together, with our liaisons working tirelessly to build relationships with students, many of whom were black. Of course there were some cops who were jerks, but they were the exception, just like any other profession. Most officers would organize basketball games in their downtime, collect money and gifts at Christmas, slip a few bucks in their pockets for necessities, and give single moms their personal cell phone numbers to call if they needed anything. Many students came back years later to thank our officers for giving them a kick in the butt to make something of themselves. Those who attack them should tag along for a few days and perhaps they would have a new respect for these men and women who give so much to their communities.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Merkin Muffley says:

    Probably not a good idea to cop to an antitrust violation on the eve of a House committee investigation into antitrust violations.
    https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/351874

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Sonia says:

    You Tube was awarded top prize by Buzzfeed for the internet site with the worst user comments. Buzzfeed analysis is worth a quick read:

    “YouTube is a comment disaster on an unprecedented scale. All of the worst things that could be said have been said here: YouTube IS the room with the million monkeys and the million typewriters, but they haven’t even gotten half-way though Hamlet yet because they’re too busy pitching feces at one another.”

    “YouTube comments read like gibberish and don’t really seem connected to one another. Content ranges from typed grunts to racist sentence fragments to nonsensical homophobic outbursts. Nothing is off-limits.”

    Hypocrisy on an industrial scale….

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Spooky says:

    “if President Trump can win reelection and if Democrats can be defeated in the House and Senate, it’s possible this might finally be addressed…”

    Yes, and if pigs had wings maybe they could fly. So the point of this article seems to be wait for a miracle to happen and then everything will be OK. I’m not holding my breath waiting for useless Republican surrender monkeys to do anything other than bloviate and sit on their hands while the Republic burns.

    Liked by 1 person

    • joebkonobi says:

      Agree, DOJ should take them to court and let the court clarify Sec, 230 as to immunity from antitrust claims. Congress can’t do anything within five months. Assuming since DOJ wants clarification then Sec. 230 does not specifically refer to immunity from antitrust laws.

      Like

  15. Rj says:

    Just remember the video of the top googoo executives that was leaked about their intentions of never letting PDJT being elected again. It’s beyond time googoo got a gut punch followed by a massive fine then broken down and that should include Eric Schmidt and alphabet.

    Liked by 6 people

  16. convert says:

    These pieces of crap are so arrogant, delusional, blinded by hate of the enemy and certainty of their own righteousness that they bragged about their crime! Bwaahaahaa! This is yet another example of how their extreme partisanship and isolation from diverse opinion has led to a unique form of mental illness that will ultimately be their downfall. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of folks.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. mr.piddles says:

    I read that NBC article last night, and, boy, did they rewrite that thing.

    Notably, they removed the direct reference to “NBC News Verification Unit”… then at the very bottom of the article, that add the following text about the author in TEENY TINY 8-POINT FONT:

    “Adele-Momoko Fraser is a producer with the NBC News Verification Unit.”

    She’s also the one that sent out the “collaboration!” Tweet. Adele was so excited yesterday. Now she’s got some splainin’ to do in court. So sorry for your stupidity, Adele-Momoko Fraser.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. deplorable says:

    Since when has NBC been policing the internet and reporting websites they disagree with to Google for de-monetizing? Could other broadcasters like CNN, CBS, … be doing the same thing?

    Liked by 1 person

  19. FTA:

    “The DOJ needs congress to take action, modify the law, and update the outdated immunity for online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.”

    …and, just like that, this conversation became irrelevant.

    CONGRESS won’t do SQUAT

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Snow White says:

    God is catching the wicked in their wickedness and exposes them for all to see. What a beautiful sight to see these miscreants scramble trying to cover their exposed behinds.

    Like

  21. Mr Pie says:

    if the info was transferred over the internet, they have it sitting in Utah. it don’t work deleting it they save everything. They have Seth Richards communications with Julian…. thanks to the dumbest President ever GWB.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Dan Dan says:

    ICYMI – FYI — Twitter Power-Play…

    Within a few hours, a low-level employee in Twitter’s Washington office contacted some of my aides…

    …the staff of Twitter, who tried to intimidate the senator into deleting several of his tweets…

    that Cotton had to delete the tweet within 30 minutes or have his account suspended.

    …while Cotton’s team opted to play it safe and comply.

    Like

  23. soldiersmom2 says:

    “The DOJ needs congress to take action, modify the law, and update the outdated immunity for online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Congress has been bought and paid for by Google, et al. Congress will talk a good game, but this will go nowhere.

    Like

  24. Cathy M. says:

    “The collusion was not only clear, it was self admitted. What made the issue more explosive was the NBC article explained the motives of both organizations; the targeting was intentional . .”

    Google/NBC: OH SHITE!!!

    ME: BWAAAAAAA,
    oh my sides!
    BWAAAAAAA!, MY Sides, My Sides!
    BWAAAAA

    Like

  25. Here is an another example of what another Big Tech company do to their enemies.

    Ebay went after a Massachusetts couple who publish the online newsletter that was critical of the selling platform and they got busted. You will not believe what they did.

    Here are links to the US Attorney’s video about the bust:

    https://youtu.be/NacqQW-SC7I and

    the actual Criminal Complaint that was filed against the Ebay executives:

    Click to access DOCS.pdf

    Like

  26. Ryan Vossler says:

    Kinda funny how Obama still runs America. Maybe that’s the real Plan

    Like

  27. Erik Heter says:

    This will be a great issue for Trump and Republicans with spines to run on, because I don’t think there is any big love for these tech tyrants in the general electorate.

    Like

  28. MAGADJT says:

    Lukewarm thanks to the DOJ for making this an issue three months before an election. Should have been done three years ago. If this is truly anti-trust behavior, why does the DOJ have to wait on Congress to act? Can’t they take legal action under existing anti-trust legislation?

    Like

  29. OldSaltUSNR says:

    None of this matters. Sundance is talking as if the law mattered. It does not.

    After about 7 or 8 years, if the Justice Department sues these companies, the case will wind it’s way up to the Supreme Court, where Justices Roberts and Gorsuch will join the four Marxist Justices in denying the DOJ’s case, and granting the Big Tech oligarchy continued, lifetime dominance and control of the marketplace of ideas, of the very concept of free speech in the public forums. 6-3, Big Tech wins, and it’s “1984” a few decades late.

    (Or perhaps some of you conservatives out there think that Trump will appoint another “conservative” jurist or two, saving the Constitution and U.S.C./law from the leftist activists who daily seek to turn it into a pretzel, with words meaning the exact opposite of the original legislated, or Constitution written words. Sure, if he manages to win out against the entire US corporate and political establishment, AND the feckless GOP Senate is able to retain control of it’s chamber, Trump will appoint a few more “strict constructionalists and orginalists”, just like Gorsuch and Roberts have turned out to be. If you trust in Trump to “fix” the USSC, you are, unfortunately, a fool.)

    When the country is led by the lawless, how do the people rise up to counter them, without becoming lawless themselves? There is no other way, than to toss the Constitutional baby out with the USSC dirty bathwater, and become lawless in doing so. They have left the American people no other way. Did Gorsuch and Roberts take that into their brilliant calculations, that they are putting this country on a firm, and now inevitable road to civil war? (Was that why they suddenly ruled against every Second Amendment case, or refused to hear and adjudicate them? From the Title VII ruling, it should be clear that Gorsuch and Roberts are firmly against the Second Amendment. The “textual change” that Kagan authored for Title VII could easily be used to define the First, Second, in fact ALL of the Bill of Rights, out of existence.)

    The USSC proved last week, that the “Constitution”, and Bill of Rights that are part of that compact, are meaningless documents. The law matters not. What matters is THEIR stroke of the pen, today, tomorrow, or whenever they wake up with a chip on their shoulder. American is run by corrupt, elected mental dwarfs, who appoint unelected Kings and Princes, to execute the lawless acts in their behalf, while maintaining total deniability and insuring no accountability.

    Anyway, this thread is not about that decision. However, that decision guarantees, at least in my mind, that the DOJ has a “no win” case, in the now 6-3 Roberts liberal Supreme Court. We played a good game, we played by all the rules, and the political left is laughing at us for our naivete, i.e. that the law would ACTUALLY comply with the Constitution. They won; we lost, and when we lost, we lost it all.

    Like

  30. Retired IG says:

    I for one don’t know what’s up or down these daze with the “master minds,” who have taken it upon themselves to censor what used to be an open free speech forum. The Internet was built by USA taxpayer dollars. FACTOID:! The Internet was developed as a communication device between U.S Weapons Laboratories. I was there when it happened.
    And now Bezos, Twitter, Facebook, etc ,actually think they OWN the place this public forum. . The right to censor free speech? On a platform built by USA taxpayer dollars? I don’t think this is going to work out so well for any of them.

    Like

    • jeans2nd says:

      The creation of the inet also involved the universities – ARPANet. You remember – back in the days when universities did not sell all our secrets to China. Good times.
      And well before a U.S. President just gave away control of DNS to communist and Islamist dictators.
      Ah, those were the days.

      Very little-known factoid – we built the first one sans security. That is the one we gave away.
      There is now a second one being built, with safety designed as the first consideration.
      They do so underestimate us, do they not?

      Like

  31. Retired IG says:

    Appropriate song, maybe. These people are going to tie the US in up in our underwear if we don’t stop them.
    Warren Zevon: Lawyer’s Guns, and Money

    Like

  32. Cynthia says:

    Admin – Could you please add Parler to your list of shares? Thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Bigtex52 says:

    “The DOJ needs congress to take action, modify the law, and update the outdated immunity for online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.”

    CONGRESS??? Our ‘Do-nothing, anything goes as long as it is illegal and hurts Republicans Congress’?? Bwahahahahahaha!

    Like

  34. Globalism Google NO matter how Big They are But we the people Stand Together Destroy Them also,

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s