U.S. House committee approves blueprint for antitrust crackdown on ‘Big Tech’

The office of U.S. Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) said in a statement Thursday that the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has formally approved an antitrust report accusing Big Tech companies of buying or crushing smaller firms.

Diane Bartz for Reuters:

With the approval during a marathon, partisan hearing, the more than 400 page staff report will become an official committee report, and the blueprint for legislation to rein in the market power of the likes of Alphabet Inc’s Google, Apple Inc, Amazon.com, and Facebook.

The report was approved by a 24-17 vote that split along party lines.

“Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook each hold monopoly power over significant sectors of our economy. This monopoly moment must end,” Cicilline said in a statement. “Now that the Judiciary Committee has formally adopted our findings, I look forward to crafting legislation that addresses the significant concerns we have raised.”

MacDailyNews Take: Again, as per “Big Tech,” Apple should not be lumped in with the likes of Alphabet/Google which actually does have a monopoly (which is legal, by the way) and is very likely abusing it (which is subject to any antitrust reform remedies).

The fact is that Apple has no monopoly in smartphones, or in any other market, so Apple is incapable of committing monopoly abuse.

Worldwide smartphone OS market share, March 2021:

• Android: 71.83%
• iOS: 27.41%

Worldwide desktop OS market share, March 2021:

• Windows: 75.56%
• macOS: 16.481%

I don’t think anybody reasonable is going to come to the conclusion that Apple is a monopoly. Our share is much more modest. We don’t have a dominant position in any market… We are not a monopoly.Apple CEO Tim Cook, June 2019

Google breakup. Image: Google logoAs for Google, the biggest offender in “Big Tech,” impose any remedies that restore competition to online search and online advertising.

If you haven’t already, give DuckDuckGo a try! https://duckduckgo.com

With this unprecedented power, platforms have the ability to redirect into their pockets the advertising dollars that once went to newspapers and magazines. No one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn’t.MacDailyNews, November 9, 2017

We’d like to see real competition in the online search and advertising markets restored someday.MacDailyNews, March 20, 2019

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]

41 Comments

            1. Appreciate it, we agree on Parlor.

              Regarding “I would hold irresponsible speech accountable under the law” now that’s the hypocrisy question of Big Tech all time. Depends upon your definition of “irresponsible speech.”

              The biggest hypocrite is Tim Cook and his Silicon Valley buddies running Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and others.

              They currently allow all their apps to post Leftist hate speech at will daily, death to Israel, extremists in the Middle East, BLM and Antifa threats and organizing lawless riots. But they are Leftist and protected.

              On the flip side of that coin, you have to agree Parlor is benign by comparison, the only laughable poor reasoning it was pulled, it supports conservative viewpoints and NOT politically protected.

              I’m all about a fair and level playing field, respect freedom of speech whether you agree with it or not, period.

              Until Section 230 is repealed, or the U.S. House issues sanctions — this biased and unequal justice will continue…

            2. Are you ever going to actually read Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to see that it does not do what you seem to think it does?

            3. If you don’t believe me, the Electronic Freedom Foundation has a very good description of “one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet.” Yes, 230 protects free expression. The EFF says “In short, CDA 230 is perhaps the most influential law to protect the kind of innovation that has allowed the Internet to thrive since 1996.”

              https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

              It is simply impossible to imagine how online communications would even be possible if 230 were repealed.

            4. TxUseless, I don’t appreciate you stalking my posts on the same subject. I said my piece and told you over and over no more comments. What part do you not understand?!?!?! Enough! Now F*ck off!…

        1. Goeb, would you buy an automobile that required that ALL future parts, fuel, and repairs can ONLY come from one source?

          Of course you always have the option to buy an Edsel and repair it with any parts you want, but if you drive an iOSCar, you can only have tires and fuel distributed by the iOSCar Store (a lot of which is poor quality junk, by the way).

          If Michelin invents the most perfect tire ever created but the manager of the iOSCar store doesn’t like the fact that these tires have too much unsustainably harvested rubber content, YOU have no realistic means of installing those million mile miracle tires. You can only have the rebranded LG Chem tire in flat alyooominyum or white plastic, nothing else.

          The map on the dashboard— sure, the iOSCar offers a few options today. But what about tomorrow when some new mapping firm comes out with a superior map which might include unsavory business locations that the iOSCar Store manager doesn’t like?

          iOS has always been a gated garden, it’s amazing it has taken this long for the formerly Apple fans to realize the downside of having ANY undemocratic corporation deciding what apps and services the end customer should be able to buy and use from 3rd party hardware and software developers.

          Its one thing to establish basic functionality, security, and quality requirements. It’s over the line to decide what content the end user can create or consume on any electronic device. As soon as you’ve bought a piece of hardware, it should be yours and yours alone to customize as you desire. Exactly like your car.

          1. “Goeb, would you buy an automobile that required that ALL future parts, fuel, and repairs can ONLY come from one source?”

            Apple in the past all repairs for product warranties and Apple gear went to official Apple facilities and later expanded to other outlets.

            That said, please provide a car manufacturer that mandates all future purchases to maintain the vehicle come from the “one” manufacturer source. You cannot, this is a false straw man argument cars and Apps are night and day different.

            “If Michelin invents the most perfect tire ever created but the manager of the iOSCar store doesn’t like the fact that these tires have too much unsustainably harvested rubber”

            Boils down to iOSCar store policy, if there ever is one your FANTASY PROJECTION present day, suspect if the tires meet their requirements, all good. Problem is definition of requirements, leave that up to corporate lawyers.

            “iOS has always been a gated garden”

            An amazing gated garden maintaining security for Apple users for decades.

            “it’s amazing it has taken this long for the formerly Apple fans”

            What are your facts, evidence and verifiable numbers regarding “formerly Apple fans?”

            “to realize the downside of having ANY undemocratic corporation”

            Apple is certainly not an “undemocratic corporation” for my taste they are too Leftist Democrat and should remain politically NEUTRAL.

            “deciding what apps and services the end customer should be able to buy and use from 3rd party hardware and software developers.”

            Disagree. Apple does not decide or dictate what customers buy. 3rd party Apps sometimes violate terms of service and Apple has the right to disallow availability on their platform they maintain and pay the freight. My only beef with Apple Apps is their woke censorship of conservative Apps Parlor the gold standard example, Apple hiding behind Section 230 that protects their censorship of conservatives and grants them immunity from lawsuits.

            “It’s over the line to decide what content the end user can create or consume on any electronic device.”

            Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple has a responsibility to their customers and shareholders to maintain terms of service standards and maintain security in the “gated garden.”

            You LIE when you say “decide what content the end user can create.” Apple is not infiltrating or dictating any creative company creating Apps.

            “As soon as you’ve bought a piece of hardware, it should be yours and yours alone to customize as you desire. Exactly like your car.”

            Interesting thought, but tech devices connected to the internet susceptible to virus infections that would shut them down in a heart beat and steal personal data, do not come close to shopping for better tires on a sunny Spring afternoon…

    1. Ok, for now let’s say no Apple monopolies and not subject to penalties from this committee.

      But Section 230 protections must be removed and Apple needs to compete like every other business, including bein sued. Particularly for their HYPOCRISY and trampling of free speech by conservatives and removal of their apps while allowing hate speech to flourish on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, STIL available on the App Store.

      Guessing that’s what most fair minded citizens are looking for, a free speech level playing field…

      1. Can you explain how repealing Section 230 would benefit Parler’s legal position against Apple? They can sue now, forcing Apple to prove it falls within the 230 exception. Without the exception, the burden would still fall on Parler to prove what legal duty Apple owed to Parler, how Apple breached that duty, and how Parler was financially damaged as a result.

        Safeway does not have a duty to stock every soup brand on the planet, so it cannot breach a duty to any particular soupmaker by refusing to stock their product. Safeway can make its stocking decisions in an utterly arbitrary and capricious fashion for no reason at all. The disappointed soupmakers still cannot win a lawsuit, because they were never owed a duty.

        If Safeway has a reason, it has no duty to make it public. If Safeway gives a reason, it need not make sense to the soupmaker, to a jury, or anybody else–as long as it does not involve discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex. Safeway need not treat all soupmakers alike. If it wants to pick on left handed people or Republicans, there is no legal reason that it cannot.

        Apple is in the same position. It has no duty to Parler and repealing Section 230 would not change that.

        1. No, I have stated my reasons multiple times for two years and many in response to you. Obviously, you don’t remember because you are blinded by a relentless FAKE narrative.

          Not wasting my time AGAIN…

          1. No, you have never once explained WHY you think Section 230 keeps Parler from bringing a lawsuit against Apple that it could even possibly win without Secton 230. You just kept asserting that as a fact as if repeating it will make it true. If there is some principle of law that requires Apple to carry Parler in the App Store, point it out to us.

            You can’t, because no such principle exists.

            1. TxUser…don’t argue with GoeB, he (she, it) spews out crap without SPECIFIC arguments, and instead just calls everyone a name. If you want to understand him (her, it), jut carve out half your brain, only then will you have a chance to understand.

            2. Well, well, well the relentless shameless LIAR is back falsifying my position, AGAIN. I’ve explained my reasons thoroughly on Section 230 for over two years. You can LIE about it all day long till the cows come home, but you can’t change REALITY.

              Understand you don’t like my reasoning or answers, tough beans. Your MO like a spoiled brat with a bruised ego you won’t let it go and feel the need to have the last word. Obviously, I’m not as weak minded.

              Well, enter stage LEFT the sycophant Aussie poodle so desperately feels the need to add something, something, something whatever that is but as usual NOTHING constructive to offer.

              No intelligent arguments here. Embracing cancel culture dogma without critical thinking skills challenge, BOTH blind party apparatchik propagandists the WORST the Leftists have to offer.

              Don’t worry, the Patriots are only getting stronger in the USA day after day…👍🇺🇸🦅🤠

            3. I might like your reasoning and answers, if you ever provided any. You have stated that the repeal of Section 230 would help Parler, but have never told us how or why. You have been repeating that as if it were a fact for two years. We might agree if you shared your reasoning with us, but you have never done so. Not once.

              I have provided “intelligent arguments” for why repealing 230 won’t help Parler. You have provided no arguments at all, only conclusions that you have not chosen to explain.

              As for answers, I politely asked a simple question and you once again refused to provide one. You chose instead to attack and insult me. If you have a better answer, I would genuinely like to hear it.

            4. TxLIAR, pay attention.

              “I’ve explained my reasons thoroughly on Section 230 for over two years. You can LIE about it all day long till the cows come home, but you cannot change REALITY.”

              What part do you not understand?…🤔🙄

          2. You’re the only one who believes fake news and suffers from “white oppression”. Get some reality, dildo. Don’t like what Apple does, don’t buy their stuff! End of argument

            1. Believe fake news, would that be from over 95% of Leftist woke Mainstream Media or the less than 5% of Conservative media. You did not specify.

              “suffers from “white oppression”. How do you know what color I am? No matter, since when did white supremacy change to white oppression? Breaking News alert CNN they will pay you a finders fee for a news tip. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

              “Don’t like what Apple does, don’t buy their stuff! End of argument”

              No, that is the beginning of the argument. Obviously the concept of constructive criticism is not in your playbook and alien to you. I love Apple since my first purchase in 1982. But like a good parent raising children, I don’t agree blindly with everything they do.

              Think about it, you may come around…

      2. suppose i come over to your house for a barbecue, Goeb. i love getting together with real Americans.

        let’s say i have a few too many and i start spouting off intolerable annoying stuff. i insult your wife, terrorize your kids, and hint at unspeakable things one could do to your pets. in short, i turn your pleasant evening into a true shitfest where everyone involved is disgusted and offended.

        question: do you tell your other guests in your home, hey, this is a Free Speech Level Playing Field! ????

        of course you would, mr. principled patriot!!! they can always leave ir they don’t like what i gotta say.

        you would certainly come to defend by freedom of ruining the lives of everyone around me because, of course, the loudest most arrogant assholes should always have the right to take over the airwaves wherever they choose to operate. Ain’t that what Good Ol’ Merica is really all about???

        Hell, next time I get real drunk and disorderly, i’ll bring me a bump stock AR over to your place so we can all have some real fun. Cause The 2nd always trumps any other lesser rights you want to raise against it, that’s what real Mericans like you and me believe. don’t you? Got the point, ASSHOLE?

        1. Except that Apple doesn’t own the device, the owner does.
          Apple doesn’t own 3rd party apps, their developers do.

          GoeB does own his house and would be well within his rights to tell you to leave.

          Need 3rd party app stores, and even though I loathe right wing media, you are indeed censoring them. I would hmmm… allow the to libel and slander, not to mention sedition, how shall I say… “liberally”.

          Let them dig their Trump hole.

          1. You may own the device, but you do not own the operating system. You are granted a temporary license to use it according to Apple’s terms, they can revoke that license at any time for any reason. Similarly apps are required to comply with Apple’s terms if they want to participate in Apple’s store and run on Apple’s operating system.

            1. OSes aren’t as exciting as they used to be.

              Knowing they lost the first OS war, Apple switched to Intel and embraced dual-booting to keep Mac sales alive. All the truly professional apps are native to Windows, and seemingly always will be. It didn’t bring native 3rd party apps en masse back to the Mac, but Apple bought time.

              So Apple decided that it would open up a new front to the war. Instead of making an OS that actually accomplishes more, Apple did the OPPOSITE. With iOS and iphones, they redoubled their efforts on two things: thin high-volume expensive hardware and monopoly app distribution.

              The existence of the Mac proved that a platform can be secure without forcing all app developers to distribute ONLY through one app store which has apparently pissed off the extreme right wingers here.

              So if the righties actually want to defend open markets and freedom and stuff, you would think they would insist that Apple and all other corporations be subject to reasonable antitrust and equal-access regulations for 3rd party developers and customers. But nooooooooooo, greed gets in the way. MDN simultaneously pushes AAPL stock while complaining about corporate decisions that have brought forth the dominant app distribution position. They love the fact that Apple has a monopoly of distribution of all 3rd party applications, while whining nonstop that they cannot appoint their own Orange Mussolini Wannabe to run the show.

              Apple can control the distribution of its OSes all they want. What they should not be able to do is be the mob boss that takes a cut of all 3rd party app makers’ labor and dictate that nobody can sell outside Apple’s garden wall.

              Interesting, MDN caters to allow people to whine about censorship and stuff while these hypocrites keep buying Apple stuff. Pick a lane, already.

        2. No, friend, I sincerely doubt that Goeb understands your post.

          Alt-righties on this forum have spent years issuing personal attacks, notably Goeb, and he refuses to act in a civil manner. Especially when challenged to provide actual data to support his fervent opinions.

          Second, Goeb thinks his favorite amendment of the moment is absolute. He refuses to understand that his freedoms end where my property begins. So for years we have been subjected to MDN posters bitching about Russian-owned Parler not being an iOS app, while they hypocritically and loudly/proudly declare their libertarian views that no private or business entity in America can force another to support it. Yet tomorrow, watch as the usual MDN loudmouths declare that Apple should have their rights overturned, so that uncivil speech from foreign company like Parler can reach the few idiots who are too lazy to use the website.

          At some point, the extreme right posters here are going to have to straighten out their convoluted beliefs. Are they in favor of more regulation to reign in lefty CEOs? Do they finally agree that the federal government should actually have power over corporations that y’all spent the last 40 years lionizing?

          1. I won’t defend GoeB, he can do that himself.
            Though I vehemently disagree with him (or any pro-Trumper) on Trump, I personally find him sincere in seeking the truth, at least on non-partisan matters.

            1. Yes, we both agree we can disagree on politics without being disagreeable and forge common ground on other issues. Thanks, I am indeed a sincere seeker of the truth for ALL, and let’s just say its not as easy today with biased media and Big Tech censorship as it used to be, but we soldier on…

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.