For
almost a decade, the Silicon Valley behemoth known for charming us with
colorful doodles and once-innocuous search engines has been under the
microscope, and yet, up until recently, it seemed completely
untouchable.
Google, the eternal golden child of tech, acted as if Congressional
hearings were mere distractions—a great way to exercise the legal team
and brush up on public-speaking skills. Sure, the occasional Senator
would fumble around, barely able to operate the very devices they were
accused of being tools of evil monopolistic practices, but serious
consequences? Google was untouchable. The very idea of the giant having
to answer for antitrust violations was laughable—until it wasn't.We explore this today.
Become a supporter here.
Get the post here.
|
|
Chris
Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble, a video-sharing platform, has escalated his
company's ongoing battle with Google, alleging unfair treatment in
search results. In a series of posts on X, Pavlovski criticized Google
for not listing Rumble in searches related to "Dan Bongino" or "Dan
Bongino Show," despite the show's exclusive live stream on Rumble and
Bongino being one of the top podcasters in the US.
Rumble
only appears in Google's search results when paid for as a sponsored
listing, despite ranking as the #2 result on other search engines like
DuckDuckGo and Bing and on the first page of Google Search competitor
Brave.
|
|
The accusation adds fuel to an already fiery legal dispute between Rumble and Google. Rumble filed a lawsuit earlier this year
against the tech giant for alleged antitrust violations, focusing on
Google’s digital advertising products and practices that Rumble claims
harm competition and consumer choice.
Rumble's
lawsuit, filed in May, 2024, accuses Google of monopolistic and
anticompetitive behavior, specifically within its "ad tech stack." The
lawsuit claims that Google has manipulated the system by owning
companies along the ad chain, representing both ad buyers and sellers,
and controlling the exchange that connects these parties. This, Rumble
argues, is akin to insider trading, as it allows Google to unfairly
dominate the space and impose excessive fees, costing Rumble over $1
billion in damages.
This legal action follows a 2021 lawsuit
in which Rumble accused Google of favoring its own service, YouTube, in
search results. According to Rumble, this pattern stifles competition
and innovation in the tech and media landscapes.
A judge has already ruled that Google engages in monopolistic practices against competitors and has considered breaking up the Big Tech giant as a remedy.
|
Since
you’re reading this, we hope you find Reclaim The Net useful. Today, we
could use your help. We depend on supporters (averaging $15), but fewer
than 0.2% of readers choose to give. If you donate just $5, (or the
equivalent in your currency) you would help keep Reclaim The Net
thriving for years. You don’t have to become a regular supporter; you
can make a one-time donation. Please take a minute to keep Reclaim The
Net going. Thank you.
|
|
The US
House Judiciary Committee's investigation into suspected collusion
between the government and Big Tech to censor speech has been expanded
to include the case involving an FBI whistleblower.
The
whistleblower, Marcus Allen, was interviewed by the nonprofit Catholics
for Catholics in a video uploaded to YouTube last month - only to
swiftly get blocked.
Now
the Committee's Chairman Jim Jordan wants YouTube owner Alphabet
(Google) and its CEO Sundar Pichai to explain what exactly happened, and
why. In a letter, Jordan also noted that Allen was one of the witnesses
before the Committee's Select Subcommittee looking into the alleged
collusion.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
Allen
testified before Congress and managed to get the FBI to restore his
security clearance, which was thought to have been revoked by the agency
as a retaliatory measure.
According
to Jordan, Allen, a Marine, is not only a whistleblower who "detailed
serious misconduct at the FBI" but also a devout (Catholic) Christian,
and one who has expressed that.
For
that reason - and the fact a Catholic organization interviewed Allen -
the Judiciary Committee chief sees YouTube's decision to block the video
as a combination of censorship of both political and religious speech,
and one that he views as "deeply troubling."
Jordan
has been steadfastly trying to unravel the web of suspected
collaboration of some private sector actors with the government to
stifle online speech (like Google, seemingly willingly), but also that
which came under pressure (in the case of former Twitter, and, even
Meta).
In the letter,
Jordan made a point of this new instance of YouTube censorship being of
particular concern "in light of YouTube's previous collusion with the
Biden-Harris Administration and Alphabet's pattern of anti-conservative
political bias."
Jordan's
letter details the contents of the video that YouTube users currently
can't see since it's been censored. In it, Allen spoke of his ordeal as
an FBI whistleblower, and how his faith helped him through. As he spoke,
Allen prayed a rosary.
The block was "almost immediate," Jordan noted.
A
January 2023 leaked field office memo showed that the FBI even included
the Catholic faith as a subject of interest. The memo's title was,
"Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in
Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New
Mitigation Opportunities."
But more documents showed that the memo may not have been a one-off as far as the FBI is concerned.
As
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton noted, "These documents disprove
the FBI’s narrative that the spy operation against Catholics and
churches was limited to one field office. In fact, the operation seems
to have been approved by top lawyers in the FBI."
|
|
In an interview
with Fox News Sunday’s Shannon Bream, Democratic Vice Presidential
Nominee Tim Walz found himself in the hot seat over his stance on free
speech, particularly regarding so-called "misinformation" and "hate
speech." Walz, who has previously expressed a desire to limit certain
forms of expression, gave an evasive and meandering response when asked
to clarify his position.
Walz’s
comments have been the subject of concern, especially following his
assertion that “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or
hate speech” if he and Kamala Harris win the upcoming election.
Related: Walz's War on Words: A Blatant Distortion of the First Amendment
When
Bream pressed him on who would ultimately have the power to define
"misinformation," Walz sidestepped the question. Instead, he launched
into a lengthy discussion about book bans and violent threats, avoiding
the central issue of free speech restrictions.
Bream's
attempt to distinguish between threats and misinformation resulted in
yet another detour from Walz, who again brought up book banning without
offering any substantive answer on misinformation. His unwillingness to
engage directly on the topic of free speech raised further concerns that
under a Harris-Walz administration, the government itself could become
the arbiter of what constitutes "misinformation."
The
implications of Walz’s remarks are troubling for advocates of free
speech. In his convoluted responses, Walz seemed to blur the lines
between genuine threats and dissenting opinions, a tactic that has left
many questioning the true intent behind his push to regulate speech. By
conflating hate speech with misinformation, Walz opens the door to
potential government overreach that could infringe on the First
Amendment rights of Americans.
While
Walz insists that he supports the First Amendment, his reluctance to
differentiate between dangerous threats and controversial speech raises
red flags about the future of open discourse in America.
|
|
Only
those who remember - or are aware of the browser and related tools
landscape in the first half of the 2000's, with Microsoft's embarrassing
IE still ruling the usage statistics the way Google's Chrome does now -
can appreciate what we had when Mozilla Firefox came on the scene.
And then, the magnitude of what has been lost in the meantime.
Without going into the details of how the Mozilla Foundation badly fumbled the ball over the years,
attempting to stretch itself in all manner of directions (remember,
there was a phone once, not to mention wasting money and energy on
politically correct "causes") - there has been at least one "Firefox
offshoot" that made sense.
It's
the Mozilla Thunderbird email clients - but, cynics will say, of course
since it made sense to develop, it eventually became the proverbial
red-headed stepchild of a foundation (company, really) "high" on that
Google Search money, and the "woke wave."
But
after quite a few stop-and-go's regarding the status and future of the
free and open source email client (at one point it was thought that
Mozilla had given up entirely and was looking for other "custodians" to
take care of it - now it's apparently a "community-driven subsidiary") -
the lucky few who still want Thunderbird on their Android phones can
test a new beta.
It comes
two years after the latest "signs of life" from the project - that's
when Mozilla Thunderbird "joined forces" with another Android email
client, K-9.
Recently there was the announcement of a beta
Thunderbird Android app, with the stable version scheduled to be rolled
out during this month.
In late September, the Thunderbird blog
called on faithful users to help test the final development version
before the release, going from beta to RC (release candidate), and then
in late October, the final version is supposed to be available for
Android.
The latest versions are meanwhile available on GitHub, while the beta release is also on Google Play.
|
|
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento