Comments by "kxmode" (@kxmode) on "Gravitas: 37 American states sue Google" video.

  1. 4:34 It is neither unlawful nor is it unconstitutional. Private companies have the right to control the content on their platforms. That's their "place of business." They spell out these controlling terms in great detail in the TOS that everyone agrees to while creating an account. It is similar to the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and "we have the right to refuse service to anyone" policy private businesses use. At times it means they ban or kick out people from their place of business. As for the freedom of speech, Amendment I in the United States Constitution states that it is Congress who "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, etc." Social media companies aren't Congress. They're large platforms that enable online discussion, yes, but businesses own them. Social media isn't a public utility. Until Congress passes laws making them such, the freedom of speech does not apply to such platforms.
    7
  2. Side loading is not a monopoly. This is how Amazon is able to create their Android app store that will run apps in Windows 11. A genuine monopoly is when there are no other choices like Pacific Bell in the 80s. People keep conflating lack of "easy" options with monopoly. ANY company can develop a competing Android app store, they just need to do it. Amazon is the first to do it.
    4