FTC COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SILICON VALLEY CARTEL
Filed With The FTC On Jan. 12, 2021
This news article underscores the issues of the anti-trust violations by the Silicon Valley tech bullies and reflects the need for the FTC, SEC, DOJ, OSC, FBI and Congress to intervene:
HOW THE SILICON VALLEY CARTEL USES MONOPOLISTIC COLLUSION TO DESTROY COMPETITORS
"The Silicon Valley Cartel took out any electric car competitor that competed with their boyfriend: Elon Musk. They killed any web video competitor to their boyfriends at Netflix. They destroyed any contact software that competed with their boyfriend: Reid Hoffman! Now, the FTC, SEC, FCC, Congress and DOJ have received complaints asking them to address the tech monopoly.
Politicians talk a big game about coming down on the Silicon Valley Cartel but they never really seem to move on their threats or declarations because they are receiving bribes FROM the Silicon Valley Cartel.
It has been proven that Google does indeed pick and choose what search results come up at the top of every search in order to help Google's friends and harm Google's enemies. Google, Facebook, Netflix and Tesla covertly spend billions of dollars influencing Congress.
The monopoly of the Silicon Valley Cartel is distinct and different from somebody like the New York Times, for example, or any major media platform that does not have legal immunity because they are publishers. All other publishers do pick and choose what news stories they publish, what letters to the editor’s are printed, what kind of op-eds are put on their platform, and they make those decisions knowing they are legally liable. Google bribed the 230 law into existence as an exclusive law just for Google to get away with exclusionary market crimes.
Via agreements to collude, the Silicon Valley Cartel platforms are acting as publishers as they are making editorial decisions while maintaining a legal immunity under section 230 which allows them to attack others without consequences. Google has parties and members of congress will go and pick up their checks. Facebook will have a big reception and Congress members go and say "hey, where’s my check?'”. That is outright bribery!
Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren and hundreds of community action groups say that the reason no one is acting on big tech is that the companies are inviting our elected members of congress into their very deep pockets. This is a massive abuse of power on several levels and if our elected officials can’t resist the temptation of extra money in their pockets, then they need to be removed by recall elections, lawsuits and doxing.
Famous journalist Glenn Greenwald has documented the fact that in recent months, tech giants have censored political speech and journalism to manipulate U.S. politics. The Silicon Valley Cartel has attacked smaller Bay Area start-ups, threatened the lives and income of every competitor and prances around with impunity, publicly stating that they believe that; “The FTC is their bitch…!”
Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Larry Page, Vinod Khosla, Steve Westly, Steve Spinner, John Doerr and the other Silicon Valley Cartel bosses hand down orders to their family office staff, who, in turn, hand down orders to their lobbysists, CPA’s tech law firms , Goldman Sachs and dirty tricks operatives. It is ludicrous for the FTC, the FBI, or any agency, to ignore the chain of command insider structure that kill the competing companies that a ‘Larry Page’ wants killed. An Elon Musk-paid lawyer at Wilson Sonsini has a thousand times more resources to kill a competitor than Elon Musk, personally has, but that lawyer has millions of dollars and specific orders, that he would not otherwise have, if Musk had not given the kill order. These oligarchs have services that they hire to have the executives at their competitors character assassinated, defamed and attacked.
It is widely documented in the news that two top Perkins Coie lawyers were retained to hire Fusion GPS and organize the Steele Dossier attack on a famous politician. Multiply this by 10,000 lawyers, at famous law firms, and you will see that there is a tsunami of thousands of lawyers producing thousands of character assassination programs on behalf of crazy billionaires and power mad politicians. There are no laws to stop them and the violence of the counter-attacks, by citizens, who have no protection from these attacks, increases annually. Without laws to stop 'commercialized defamation' this will spiral into something very, very bad.
Critics of Silicon Valley censorship for years heard the same BS refrain: “… tech platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter are private corporations and can host or ban whoever they want. If you don’t like what they are doing, the solution is not to complain or to regulate them. Instead, go create your own social media platform that operates the way you think it should...”
The founders of Parler, Palm, Blockbuster, Altavista, Path, Alta Motors, Webvan, Jawbone, MySpace, etc., heard that suggestion and tried. In August, 2018, Parler, for example, created a social media platform similar to Twitter but which promised far greater privacy protections, including a refusal to aggregate user data in order to monetize them to advertisers or algorithmically evaluate their interests in order to promote content or products to them. They also promised far greater free speech rights, rejecting the increasingly repressive content policing of Silicon Valley giants. They discovered, though, that YOU CANNOT BUILD A COMPANY IN SILICON VALLEY IF IT COMPETES WITH THE SILICON VALLEY CARTEL! YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO IT!
( AUTHOR NOTE: We built an electric car company, an internet video broadcasting company, a social media network and suffered THE SAME EXACT ATTACKS as Parler and thousands of others who “dared” to compete with the Silicon Valley Cartel. This is not about politics it is about organized crime! In fact Google/Youtube spent over thirty million dollars (exposed in their banking records) attacking us and blockading us from suing them in court because they feared his competing technologies. In a similar case, in a special federal hearing, the United States Patent Office ruled that our team had first invented the architecture that Facebook is based on but Facebook's executive's sit on the U.S. Patent Office administration board and ordered our social media patent blockaded from issuance. Google's patent lawyer was the previous head of the U.S. Patent Office and re-staged the Patent Office as a protection racket to help Google and Facebook steal IP without paying for it. )
Over the last year, Parler encountered immense success. Millions of people who objected to increasing repression of speech on the largest platforms or who had themselves been banned signed up for the new social media company.
As Silicon Valley censorship radically escalated over the past several months — banning pre-election reporting by The New York Post, denouncing and deleting multiple posts from the public and then terminating their access altogether, mass-removal of accounts — so many people migrated to Parler that it was catapulted to the number one spot on the list of most-downloaded apps on the Apple Play Store, the sole and exclusive means which iPhone users have to download apps. “Overall, the app was the 10th most downloaded social media app in 2020 with 8.1 million new installs,” reported TechCrunch.
It looked as if Parler had proven critics of Silicon Valley monopolistic power wrong. Their success showed that it was possible after all to create a new social media platform to compete with Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. And they did so by doing exactly what Silicon Valley defenders long insisted should be done: if you don’t like the rules imposed by tech giants, go create your own platform with different rules.
But today, if you want to download, sign up for, or use Parler, you will be unable to do so. That is because three Silicon Valley monopolies — Amazon, Google and Apple — abruptly united to remove Parler from the internet, exactly at the moment when it became the most-downloaded app in the country.
If one were looking for evidence to demonstrate that these tech behemoths are, in fact, monopolies that engage in anti-competitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws, and will obliterate any attempt to compete with them in the marketplace, it would be difficult to imagine anything more compelling than how they just used their unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising competitor.
It is hard to overstate the harm to a platform from being removed from the App Store. Users of iPhones are barred from downloading apps onto their devices from the internet. If an app is not on the App Store, it cannot be used on the iPhone. Even iPhone users who have already downloaded the App will lose the ability to receive updates, which will shortly render the platform both unmanageable and unsafe.
In October, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law issued a 425-page report concluding that Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google all possess monopoly power and are using that power anti-competitively. For Apple, they emphasized the company’s control over iPhones through its control of access to the App Store. As Ars Technica put it when highlighting the report’s key findings:
Apple controls about 45 percent of the US smartphone market and 20 percent of the global smartphone market, the committee found, and is projected to sell its 2 billionth iPhone in 2021. It is correct that, in the smartphone handset market, Apple is not a monopoly. Instead, iOS and Android hold an effective duopoly in mobile operating systems.
However, the report concludes, Apple does have a monopolistic hold over what you can do with an iPhone. You can only put apps on your phone through the Apple App Store, and Apple has total gatekeeper control over that App Store—that's what Epic is suing the company over. . . .
The committee found internal documents showing that company leadership, including former CEO Steve Jobs, "acknowledged that IAP requirement would stifle competition and limit the apps available to Apple's customers." The report concludes that Apple has also unfairly used its control over APIs, search rankings, and default apps to limit competitors' access to iPhone users.
It was precisely Google’s abuse of its power to control its app device that was at issue “when the European Commission deemed Google LLC as the dominant undertaking in the app stores for the Android mobile operating system (i.e. Google Play Store) and hit the online search and advertisement giant with €4.34 billion for its anti-competitive practices to strengthen its position in various of other markets through its dominance in the app store market.”
There are an endless number of hypocrisies with Silicon Valley giants feigning opposition to violent rhetoric or political extremism. Amazon, for instance, is one of the CIA’s most profitable partners, with a $600 million contract to provide services to the agency, and it is constantly bidding for more. On Facebook and Twitter, one finds official accounts from the most repressive and violent regimes on earth, including Saudi Arabia, and pages devoted to propaganda on behalf of the Egyptian regime. Does anyone think these tech giants have a genuine concern about violence and extremism?
The nature of monopolistic power is that anti-competitive entities engage in anti-trust illegalities to destroy rising competitors. Any small and new enough platform in tech is such that it can be made an example of. Its head can be placed on a pike to make clear that no attempt to compete with existing Silicon Valley monopolies is possible. The destruction of any new tech start-up preserves the unchallengeable power of a tiny handful of tech oligarchs over the political discourse not just of the United States but democracies worldwide (which is why Germany, France and Mexico are raising their voices in protest).
No authoritarians believe they are authoritarians. No matter how repressive are the measures they support — censorship, monopoly power, no-fly lists for American citizens without due process — they tell themselves that those they are silencing and attacking are so evil, are terrorists, that anything done against them is noble and benevolent, not despotic and repressive..."