Will the EU Use an AI Agent to Automate Fines?
June 10, 2025
Just a dinobaby and no AI: How horrible an approach?
Apple, at least to date, has not demonstrated adeptness in lashing smart software to its super secure and really user friendly system. How many times do I have to dismiss “log in to iCloud” and “log in to Facetime”? How frequently will Siri wander in dataspace? How often do I have to dismiss “two factor authentication” for the old iPad I use to read Kindle books? How often? The answer is, “As many times as the European Union will fine the company for failure to follow its rules, guidelines, laws, and special directives.
I read “EU Ruling: Apple’s App Store Still in Violation of DMA, 30 Days to Comply” and I really don’t know what Apple has blown off. I vaguely recall that the company ignored a US court order in the US. However, the EU is not the US, and the EU can make quite miserable for the company, its employees residing in the EU, and its contractors with primary offices in member countries. The tools can be trivial: A bit of friction at international airports. The machinery can be quite Byzantine when financial or certification activities can be quite entertaining to an observer.
The write up says:
Following its initial €500 million fine in April, the European Commission is now giving Apple 30 days to fully align its App Store rules with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). If it fails to comply, the EU says it will start imposing “periodic penalty payments” until Apple [follows the rules]…
For me, the operative word is “periodic.” I think it means a phenomenon that repeats at regular intervals of time. Okay, a fine like the most recent €500 would just occur in a heart beat fashion. One example would be every month. After one year, the fines total €6,000,000,000. What happens if the EU gets frisky after a bottle of French burgundy from a very good year? The fine would be levied for each day in a calendar year and amount to €2,190,000,000,000 or two trillion one hundred ninety billion euros. Even for a high flier like Apple and its pilot Tim Apple, stakeholders might suggest, “Just obey the law, please.”
I wonder if the EU might consider using Telegram bots to automate the periodic fines. The system developed by France’s favorite citizen Pavel Durov is robust, easily extensible, and essentially free. The “FineApple_bot” could fire on a schedule and message Tim Apple, his Board of Directors, the other “leadership” of Apple, and assorted news outlets. The free service operates quickly enough for most users, but by paying a nominal monthly fee, the FineApple_bot could issues 1,000 instructions a second. But that’s probably overkill unless the EU decides to fine Apple by the minute. In case you were wondering the annual fine would be in the neighborhood of €52,560,000,000,000 (or fifty-two trillion five hundred sixty billion euros).
My hunch is that despite Apple’s cavalier approach to court orders, some less intransigent professional in the core of Apple would find a way to resolve the problem. But I personally quite like the Telegram bot approach.
Stephen E Arnold, June 10, 2025
Lawyers Versus Lawyers: We Need a Spy Versus Spy Cartoon Now
June 5, 2025
Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.
Rupert Murdoch, a media tycoon with some alleged telephone intercept activity, owns a number of “real” news outfits. One of these published “What Is Big Tech Trying to Hide? Amazon, Apple, Google Are All Being Accused of Abusing Legal Privilege in Battles to Strip Away Their Power.” As a dinobaby in rural Kentucky, I have absolutely no idea if the information in the write up is spot on, close enough for horseshoes, or dead solid slam dunk in the information game.
What’s interesting is that the US legal system is getting quite a bit of coverage. Recently a judge in a fly over state found herself in handcuffs. Grousing about biased and unfair judges pops up in social media posts. One of my contacts in Manhattan told me that some judges have been receiving communications implying kinetic action.
Yep, lawyers.
Now the story about US big technology companies using the US legal system in a way that directly benefits these firms reveals “news” that I found mildly amusing. In rural Kentucky, when one gets in trouble or receives a call from law enforcement about a wayward sibling, the first action is to call one of the outstanding legal professionals who advertise in direct mail blasts on the six pm news and put memorable telephone numbers on the sides of the mostly empty bus vehicles that slowly prowl the pot-holed streets.
The purpose of the legal system is to get paid to represent the client. The client pays money or here in rural Kentucky a working pinball machine was accepted as payment by my former, deceased, and dearly beloved attorney. You get the idea: Pay money, get professional services. The understanding in my dealings with legal professionals is that the lawyers listen to their paying customers, discuss options among themselves or here in rural Kentucky with a horse in their barn, and formulate arguments to present their clients’ sides of cases or matters.
Obviously a person with money wants attorneys who [a] want compensation, [b] want to allow the client to prevail in a legal dust up, and [c] push back but come to accept their clients’ positions.
So now the Wall Street Journal reveals that the US legal system works in a transparent, predictable, and straightforward way.
My view of the legal problems the US technology firms face is that these innovative firms rode the wave their products and services created among millions of people. As a person who has been involved in successful start ups, I know how the surprise, thrill, and opportunities become the drivers of business decisions. Most of the high technology start ups fail. The survivors believe their intelligence, decision making, and charisma made success happen. That’s a cultural characteristic of what I call the Sillycon Valley way. (I know about this first hand because I lived in Berkeley and experienced the carnival ride of a technological winner.)
Without exposure to how technologies like “online” work, it was and to some extent still difficult to comprehend the potential impacts of the shift from media anchored in non digital ecosystems to the there is not there there hot house of a successful technology. Therefore, neither the “users” of the technology recognized the impact of consumerizing the most successful technologies nor the regulators could understand what was changing on a daily and sometimes hourly cadence. Even those involved at a fast-growing high technology company had no idea that the fizz of winning would override ethical and moral considerations.
Therefore:
- Not really news
- Standard operating procedure for big technology trials since the MSFT anti-trust matter
- The US ethical fabric plus the invincibility and super hero mindsets maps the future of legal dust ups in my opinion.
Net net: Sigh. William James’s quantum energy is definitely not buzzing.
Stephen E Arnold, June 5, 2025
India: Fair Use Can Squeeze YouTubers
June 5, 2025
Asian News International (ANI) seems to be leveraging the vagueness of India’s fair-use definition with YouTube’s draconian policies to hold content creators over a barrel. The Reporters’ Collective declares, “ANI Finds Business Niche in Copyright Claims Against YouTubers.” Writer Ayushi Kar recounts the story of Sumit, a content creator ANI accused of copyright infringement. The news agency reported more than three violations at once, a move that triggered an automatic takedown of those videos. Worse, it gave Sumit just a week to make good with ANI or lose his channel for good. To save his livelihood, he forked over between 1,500,000 and 1,800,000 rupees (about $17,600 – $21,100) for a one-year access license. We learn:
“Sumit isn’t the lone guy facing the aggressive copyright claims of ANI, which has adopted a new strategy to punitively leverage YouTube’s copyright policies in India to generate revenue. Using the death clause in YouTube policy and India’s vague provisions for fair use of copyrighted material, ANI is effectively forcing YouTube creators to buy expensive year-long licenses. The agency’s approach is to negotiate pricey licensing deals with YouTubers, including several who are strong critics of the BJP, even as YouTube holds a sword over the content producer’s channel for multiple claims of copyright violation.”
See the write-up for more examples of content creators who went through an ANI shake down. Kar continues:
“While ANI might be following a business it understands to be legal and fair, the episode has raised larger concern about copyright laws and the fair use rights in India by content producers who are worried about being squeezed out of their livelihoods – sometimes wiping out years of labor to build a community – between YouTube’s policies and copyright owners willingness to play hardball.”
What a cute tactic. Will it come to the US? Is it already here? YouTubers, feel free to comment. There is something special about India’s laws, though, that might make this scheme especially profitable there. Kar tells us:
“India’s Copyright Act 1957 allows … use of copyrighted material without the copyright owner’s permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news, reporting and many more. In practice, there is a severe lack of specificity in law and regulations about how fair use doctrine is to be practiced.”
That means the courts decide what fair use means case by case. Bringing one’s case to court is, of course, expensive and time consuming, and victory is far from assured. It is no wonder content creators feel they must pay up. It would be a shame if something happened to that channel.
Cynthia Murrell, June 5, 2025
Telegram, a Stylish French Dog Collar, and Mom Saying, “Pavel Clean Up Your Room!”
June 4, 2025
Just a dinobaby operating without AI. What do you expect? A free newsletter and an old geezer. Do those statements sound like dorky detritus?
Pavel Durov has a problem with France. The country’s judiciary let him go back home after an eight month stay-cation. However, Mr. Durov is not the type of person to enjoy having a ring in his nose and a long strand of red tape connecting him to his new mom back in Paris. Pavel wants to live an Airbnb life, but he has to find a way to get his French mom to say, “Okay, Pavel, you can go out with your friends but you have to be home by 9 pm Paris time.” If he does not comply, Mr. Durov is learning that the French government can make life miserable: There’s the monitoring. There’s the red tape. There’s the reminder that France has some wonderful prison facilities in France, North Africa, and Guiana (like where’s that, Pavel?). But worst of all, Mr. Durov does not have his beloved freedom.
He learned this when he blew off a French request to block certain content from Telegram into Romania. For details, click here. What happened?
The first reminder was a jerk on his stylish French when the 40 year old was told, “Pavel, you cannot go to the US.” The write up “France Denies Telegram Founder Pavel Durov’s Request to Visit US” reported on May 22, 2025:
France has denied a request by Telegram founder Pavel Durov to travel to the United States for talks with investment funds, prosecutors…
For an advocate of “freedom,” Mr. Durov has just been told, “Pavel, go to your room.”
Mr. Durov, a young-at-heart 40 year old with oodles of loving children, wanted to travel from Dubai to Oslo, Norway. The reason was for Mr. Durov to travel to a conference about freedom. The French, those often viewed as people who certify chickens for quality, told Mr. Durov, “Pavel, you are grounded. Go back to your room and clean it up.”
Then another sharp pull and in public, causing the digital poodle to yelp. The Human Rights Foundation’s PR team published “French Courts Block Telegram Founder Pavel from Attending Oslo Freedom Forum.” That write up explained:
A French court has denied Telegram founder Pavel Durov’s request to travel to Norway in order to speak at the Oslo Freedom Forum on Tuesday, May 27. Durov had been invited to speak at the global gathering of activists, hosted annually by the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), on the topic of free speech, surveillance, and digital rights.
I interpret this decision by the French judiciary as making clear to Pavel Durov that he is not “free” and that he may be at risk of being sent to a summer camp in one of France’s salubrious facilities for those who don’t like to follow the rules. He is a French citizen, and I assume that he is learning that being allowed to leave France is not a get-out-of-jail free card. I would suggest that not even his brother, the fellow with two PhDs or his colleagues in his “core” engineering team can come up with what I call the “French problem.” My hunch is that these very intelligent people have considered that the French might expand their scope of interest to include the legal entities for Telegram and the “gee, it is not part of our operation” TON Foundation, its executives, and their ancillary business interests. The French did produce some nifty math about probabilities, and I have a hunch that the probability of the French judiciary fuzzifying the boundary between Pavel Durov and these other individuals is creeping up… quickly.
Pavel Durov is on a bureaucratic leash. The French judiciary have jerked Mr. Durov’s neck twice and quite publicly.
The question becomes, “What’s Mr. Durov going to do?” The fellow has a French collar with a leasch connecting him to the savvy French judiciary?
Allow this dinobaby to offer several observations:
- He will talk with his lawyers Kaminski and learn that France’s legal and police system does indeed have an interest in high-quality chickens as well as a prime specimen like Pavel Durov. In short, that fowl will be watched, probed, and groomed. Mr. Durov is experiencing how those ducks, geese, and chickens on French farms live before the creatures find themselves in a pot after plucking and plucking forcefully.
- Mr. Durov will continue to tidy Telegram to the standards of cleanliness enforced at the French Foreign Legion training headquarters. He is making progress on the money laundering front. He is cleaning up pointers to adult and other interesting Telegram content which has had 13 years to plant roots and support a veritable forest of allegedly illegal products and services. More effort is likely to be needed. Did I mention that dog crates are used to punish trainees who don’t get the bed making and ironing up to snuff? The crates are located in front of the drill field to make it easy for fellow trainees to see who has created the extra duties for the squad. It can be warm near Marseille for dog crates exposed to the elements.
- The competition is beginning to become visible. The charming Mark Zuckerberg, the delightful Elon Musk, and the life-of-the-AI-party Sam Altman are accelerating their efforts to release an everything application with some Telegram “features.” One thing is certain, a Pavel Durov does not have the scope or “freedom” of operation he had before his fateful trip to Paris in August 2024. Innovation at Telegram seems to be confined to “gifts” and STARS. Exciting stuff as TONcoin disappoints
Net net: Pavel Durov faces some headwinds, and these are not the gusts blasting up and down the narrow streets of Dubai, the US, or Norway. He has a big wind machine planted in front of his handsome visage and the blades are not rotating at full speed. Will France crank up the RPMs, Pavel? Do goose livers swell under certain conditions? Yep, a lot.
Stephen E Arnold, June 4, 2025
Coincidence or No Big Deal for the Google: User Data and Suicide
May 27, 2025
Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.
I have ignored most of the carnival noise about smart software. Google continues its bug spray approach to thwarting the equally publicity-crazed Microsoft and OpenAI. (Is Copilot useful? Is Sam Altman the heir to Steve Jobs?)
Two stories caught my attention. The first is almost routine. Armed with the Chrome Hoover, long-lived cookies, and the permission hungry Android play — The Verge published “Google Has a Big AI Advantage: It Already Knows Everything about You.” Sigh. another categorical affirmative: “Everything.” Is that accurate? “Everything” or is it just a scare tactic to draw readers? Old news.
But the sub title is more interesting; to wit:
Google is slowly giving Gemini more and more access to user data to ‘personalize’ your responses.
Slowly. Really? More access? More than what? And “your responses?” Whose?
The write up says:
As an example, Google says if you’re chatting with a friend about road trip advice, Gemini can search through your emails and files, allowing it to find hotel reservations and an itinerary you put together. It can then suggest a response that incorporates relevant information. That, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said during the keynote, may even help you “be a better friend.” It seems Google plans on bringing personal context outside Gemini, too, as its blog post announcing the feature says, “You can imagine how helpful personal context will be across Search, Gemini and more.” Google said in March that it will eventually let users connect their YouTube history and Photos library to Gemini, too.
No kidding. How does one know that Google has not been processing personal data for decades. There’s a patent *with a cute machine generated profile of Michael Jackson. This report generated by Google appeared in the 2007 patent application US2007/0198481:
The machine generated bubble gum card about Michael Jackson, including last known address, nicknames, and other details. See US2007/0198481 A1, “Automatic Object Reference Identification and Linking in a Browsable Fact Repository.”
The inventors Andrew W. Hogue (Ho Ho Kus, NJ) and Jonathan T. Betz (Summit, NJ) appear on the “final” version of their invention. The name of the patent was the same, but there was an important different between the patent application and the actual patent. The machine generated personal profile was replaced with a much less useful informative screen capture; to wit:
From Google Patent 7774328, granted in 2010 as “Browsable Fact Repository.”
Google wasn’t done “inventing” enhancements to its profile engine capable of outputting bubble gum cards for either authorized users or Google systems. Check out Extension US9760570 B2 “Finding and Disambiguating References to Entities on Web Pages.” The idea is that items like “aliases” and similarly opaque factoids can be made concrete for linking to cross correlated content objects.,
Thus, the “everything” assertion while a categorical affirmative reveals a certain innocence on the part of the Verge “real news” story.
Now what about the information in “Google, AI Firm Must Face Lawsuit Filed by a Mother over Suicide of Son, US Court Says.” The write up is from the trusted outfit Thomson Reuters (I know it is trusted because it says so on the Web page). The write up dated May 21, 2025, reports:
The lawsuit is one of the first in the U.S. against an AI company for allegedly failing to protect children from psychological harms. It alleges that the teenager killed himself after becoming obsessed with an AI-powered chatbot. A Character.AI spokesperson said the company will continue to fight the case and employs safety features on its platform to protect minors, including measures to prevent "conversations about self-harm." Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the company strongly disagrees with the decision. Castaneda also said that Google and Character.AI are "entirely separate" and that Google "did not create, design, or manage Character.AI’s app or any component part of it."
Absent from the Reuters’ report and the allegedly accurate Google and semi-Google statements, the company takes steps to protect users, especially children. With The profiling and bubble gum card technology Google invented, does it seem prudent for Google to identify a child, cross correlate the child’s queries with the bubble gum card and dynamically [a] flag an issue, [b] alert a parent or guardian, [c] use the “everything” information to present suggestions for mental health support? I want to point out that if one searches for words on a stop list, the Dark Web search engine Ahmia.fi presents a page providing links to Clear Web resources to assist the person with counseling. Imagine: A Dark Web search engine performing a function specifically intended to help users.
Google, is Ahmia,fi more sophisticated that you and your quasi-Googles? Are the statements made about Google’s AI capabilities in line with reality? My hunch is requests like “Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the company strongly disagrees with the decision. Castaneda also said that Google and Character.AI are "entirely separate" and that Google "did not create, design, or manage Character.AI’s app or any component part of it." made after the presentation of evidence were not compelling. (Compelling is a popular word in some AI generated content. Yeah, compelling: A kid’s death. Inventions by Googlers specifically designed to profile a user, disambiguate disparate content objects, and make available a bubble gum card. Yeah, compelling.
I am optimistic that Google knowing “everything,” the death of a child, a Dark Web search engine that can intervene, and the semi-Google lawyers add up to comfort and support.
Yeah, compelling. Google’s been chugging along in the profiling vineyard since 2007. Let’s see that works out to longer than the 14 year old had been alive.
Compelling? Nah. Googley.
Stephen E Arnold, May 27, 2025
Google: A Critic Looks in the Rear View Mirror and Risks a Collision with a Smart Service
May 21, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
Courtney Radsch, a director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty, is not Googley. Her opinion about the Google makes this clear in “Google Broke the Law. It’s Time to Break Up the Company.”
. To which facet of the lovable Googzilla direct her attention. Picking one is difficult. Several of her points were interesting and in line with the intellectual stance of the Guardian, which ran her essay on April 24, 2025. Please, read the original write up and do contribute some money to the Guardian newspaper. Their strident pleas are moving, and I find their escalating way to say “donate” informative.
The first statement I circled was:
These global actions [the different legal hassles Googzilla faces with attendant fines and smarmy explanations] reflect a growing consensus: Google’s power is infrastructural and self-reinforcing. It controls the tools that decide what we know, what we see and who profits. The implications are especially acute for journalism, which has been hollowed out by Google’s ad market manipulation and search favoritism. In an era of generative AI, where foundation models are trained on the open web and commodify news content without compensation, this market power becomes even more perfidious.
The point abut infrastructure and self-reinforcing is accurate. I would point out that Google has been building out its infrastructure and the software “hooks” to make its services “self reinforcing.” The behavior is not new. What’s new is that it seems to be a surprise to some people. Where were the “real” journalists when the Google implemented its Yahoo-influenced advertising system? Where were the “real” journalists when Dr. Jeff Dean and other Googlers were talking and writing about the infrastructure “innovations” at the Google?
The second one was:
… global coordination should be built into enforcement.
I want to mention that “global coordination” is difficult at the present time. Perhaps if the “coordination” began 20 years ago, the process might be easier. Perhaps the author of the essay would like to speak with some people at Europol about the time and procedures required to coordinate to take down a criminal online operation. Tackling an outfit which is used by quite a few people for free is a more difficult, expensive, and resource intensive task. There are some tensions in the world, and the Google is going to have to pay some fines and possibly dump some of its assets to reduce the legal pressure being applied to the company. But Google has big bucks, and money has some value in certain circles. Coordination is possible in enforcement, but it is not exactly the magical spooky action at a distance some may think it is.
The third statement I drew a couple of lines under was:
The courts have shown that Google broke the law. Now, governments must show that the law still has teeth. That means structural remedies, not settlements. Transformation, not tinkering.
News flash. Google is as I type this sentence transforming. If you think the squishy world of search and the two way doors of online advertising were interesting business processes, I suggest one look closely at the artificial intelligence push at the Google. First, it is baked into to Google’s services. I am not sure users know how much Googliness its AI services have. That’s the same problem will looking at Google superficially as people did when the Backdoor was kicked open and the Google emerged. Also, the AI push has the same infrastructure game plan. Exactly who is going to prevent Google from developing its own chips and its next-generation computing infrastructure? Is this action going to come from regulators and lawyers? I don’t think so. These two groups are not closely associated with gradient descents, matrix mathematics, and semi-conductor engineering in my experience. Some individuals in these groups are, but many are users of Google AI, not engineers developing Google AI. I do like the T shirt slogan, “Transformation, not tinkering.”
In summary, I liked the editorial. I have one problem. Google has been being Googley for more than 20 years and now legal action is being taken for yesterday’s businesses at the company. The new Googzilla moves are not even on the essay writer’s, the Guardian’s, or the regulators’ radar.
Net net: Googzilla is rocking to tomorrow, not transformation. You don’t alter the DNA of Googzilla.
Stephen E Arnold, May 21, 2025
Meta Knows How to Argue: The Ad Hominem Tactic
May 20, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.
This is exciting for me, the dinobaby. Meta (a Telegram inspired outfit) is now going after “real” media people. Yep, individuals as in ad hominin just like the old times in Greek discourse. Cool. A blast from the past. Check out the title from the pay-to-read outfit, The Verge:
Now that is a headline: Meta, antitrust trial, attorney, failed, and the ultimate “real” journalist pejorative “blogger.” A blogger. Wow. Harsh.
The write up says, which for the purpose of this short essay, as the sacred truth:
In court, he [Meta’s lead attorney] projected a headline about her [Kara Swisher] recently calling Mark Zuckerberg a “small little creature with a shriveled soul.”
But who is the failed blogger because Ms. Swisher is no longer just a blogger; she is a media personality? It is Om Malik. Before you say, “Who?” Here’s a snapshot: Mr. Malik is the founder of Gigaom. He is a venture capitalist.
The Verge story asserts:
Malik critiqued Facebook’s intentions for offering free access to its apps and others in India, after board member Marc Andreessen blamed local resistance to the program on “anti-colonialism” in a later-deleted tweet. “I am suspicious of any for-profit company arguing its good intentions and its free gifts,” Malik wrote at the time.
How will this trial play out? I have zero idea. I am not sure the story with the “failed blogger” headline will do much to change opinions about Meta and its “bring people together properties.”
Several observations:
- What types of argumentative strategies are taught in law school? I thought the ad hominem method was viewed as less than slick.
- Why is Meta in court? The company has been chugging along for 21 years, largely unimpeded by regulations and researchers who have suggested that the company has remarkable influence on certain user cohorts? Will a decision today remediate alleged harms from yesterday? Probably not too much in my opinion.
- With Meta’s increasing involvement in political activities in the US, won’t other types of argumentative techniques be more effective and less subject to behaviors of the judicial processes?
Net net: Slick stuff.
Stephen E Arnold, May 20, 2025
Germany and Pirate Sites
May 15, 2025
The United States is batting around site-blocking legislation called Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) by Representative Zoe Lofgren. The act takes US rights holders site blocking experience from overseas and transforms into a package for US use. What it means, according to TorrentFreak’s article: “Non-Transparency Resumed After Pirate Site Blacklist Publicly Exposed In Error,”
“Should it become law, FAPDA would allow rightsholders to obtain site blocking orders targeted at verified pirate sites, run by foreign or assumed foreign operators. The proposals as they stand today envision blocking orders that would apply to both ISPs and DNS resolvers, the latter an already controversial trend that has only recently shown momentum in Europe.”
In order to be effective, site-blocking tools must always adapt. It appears that FAPDA proposals are the template for US site blocking. Similar legislation called SOPA happened in 2012 but there wasn’t any historical precedence before, but now there is. The US is using Europe’s site-blocking as an example.
Germany has an administrative site that blocks pirate Web sites without direct legal oversight:
“A partnership between rightsholders and local ISPs saw the launch of the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” (CUII) which is now responsible for handing down blocking instructions against sites that structurally infringe copyright.”
The CUII Web site publishes blocking recommendations and it is supposed to be private. It wasn’t! The Netzpolitik reported that Germany’s secret pirate blocking Web site has been publicly viewable for ten months.
People are also crying free speech violations, especially because there aren’t any transparency. Europe won’t be forthcoming with transparency is ISPs and rights holders aren’t required to have them.
Whitney Grace, May 15, 2025
The Zuck Plays Defense: The Opposing Line Is Huge, Dude
May 15, 2025
The BBC reports that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has been in the news lately for his company being on trial: “Mark Zuckerberg Defends Meta In Social Media Monopoly Trial.” Meta and Zuckerberg are on trail for antitrust allegations that the company has a monopoly on social media. Zuckerberg testified in 2020 when the FTC brought the case to court.
The allegations are that Zuckerberg dominated the social media market when it acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. The FTC wants Meta to split apart by forcing Instagram and WhatsApp into separate entities. Meta argues there’s plenty of competition with X, YouTube, and TikTok. Zuckerberg was the first to testify in the trial expected to last until July 2025.
The FTC says that Meta bought rivals because it was easier to acquire them than compete with them:
“They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,” said FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson in his opening statement at Monday’s trial. Meta countered that the lawsuit from the FTC, which originally reviewed and approved both those acquisitions, was “misguided”.
Meta ‘acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to improve and grow them alongside Facebook’, the company’s attorney Mark Hansen argued.
The FTC lawyer cited a 2012 memo from Mr Zuckerberg in which he discusses the importance of “neutralising” Instagram.
Mr Matheson called that message “a smoking gun”.”
Meta argues that when they acquired the competing platforms that it made them better for users. Instagram accounts for over half of Meta’s advertising revenue. Meta also donated to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Zuckerberg repeatedly petitions Trump to have the FTC charges dropped. The FTC has a harder case to prove than when Google was sued for monopolizing search. I wonder if the prosecution’s attorneys have read Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism.
Whitney Grace, May 15, 2025
An Agreeable Google: Will It Write Checks with a Sad, Wry Systemic Smile?
May 14, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
Did you see the news about Google’s probable check writing?
“Google Settles Black Employees’ Racial Bias Lawsuit for $50 Million” reports:
According to the complaint, Black employees comprised only 4.4% of Google’s workforce and 3% of its leadership in 2021. The plaintiff April Curley, hired to expand outreach to historically Black colleges, said Google denied her promotions, stereotyped her as an “angry” Black woman, and fired her after six years as she prepared a report on its alleged racial bias. Managers also allegedly denigrated Black employees by declaring they were not “Googley” enough or lacked “Googleyness,” which the plaintiffs called racial dog whistles.
The little news story includes the words “racially biased corporate culture” and “systemic racial bias.” Is this the beloved “do no evil” company with the cheerful kindergarten colored logo? Frankly, this dinobaby is shocked. This must be an anomaly in the management approach of a trusted institution based on advertising.
Well, there is this story from Bloomberg, the terminal folks: “Google to Pay Texas $1.4 Billion to End Privacy Cases.” As I understand it,
Google will pay the state of Texas $1.375 billion to resolve two privacy lawsuits claiming the tech giant tracks Texans’ personal location and maintains their facial recognition data, both without their consent. Google announced the settlement Friday, ending yearslong battles with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) over the state’s strict laws on user data.
Remarkable.
The Dallas Morning News reports that Google’s position remains firm, resolute, and Googley:
The settlement doesn’t require any new changes to Google’s products, and the company did not admit any wrongdoing or liability. “This settles a raft of old claims, many of which have already been resolved elsewhere, concerning product policies we have long since changed,” said José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson. “We are pleased to put them behind us, and we will continue to build robust privacy controls into our services.”
Absolutely.
Imagine a company with those kindergarten colors in its logos finding itself snared in what seem to me grade school issues. Google must be misunderstood like one of those precocious children who solve math problems without showing their work. It’s just system perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, May 14, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
