None of the companies involved here are monopolies, or even close to being monopolies. And this sort of 'collusion' isn't illegal - the illegal collusion is a completely different thing. Actually there isn't even any collusion of either kind to begin with.
> Twitter doesn’t do hosting, so it wouldn’t ‘compete’ with AWS for customers?
Sure, the place were an agreement of restraint of trade would be more simply possible would be something like Twitter/FB.
Though if you had a Twitter/FB pact and AWS was brought in and agreed to kick off Twitter/FB competitors that didn’t voluntarily join the Twitter/FB pact, AWS could be part of the scheme…
And a Twitter/AWS agreement alone along the same lines could be problematic, if Twitter alone had market power.
Except the lawsuit mentions AWS and twitter...not FB?
I mean sure, we can come up with all kinds of scenarios but the probably have zero relevance to the case ?
If there was some action that happened that made them all independently realize their liability, forcing them to act in similar matters, then it need not be collusion.
Users have no more legal right to act on these platforms against TOS than I do to camp on our property.
And, since there are plenty of other hosts and platforms besides these few, it will incredibly difficult to claim anti-trust.
Did you watch the most recent Zuckerberg testimony in Congress? There, Senator Hawley grilled Zuckerberg about a communication platform, SENTRA, in which Twitter, Google, Facebook, absolutely are known to collaborate on who to ban and what to ban. He shows a screenshot in the hearing to Zuckerberg, and Mark is caught weaseling in his chair about it. That is collusion.
Centra* (according to Hawley [0]) and there appears to be absolutely no proof this exists other than the word of a senator that pushed a false narrative that this election was stolen, his name is mud.
"Collusion" isn't generally a thing. Providers can lawfully cooperate for all sorts of reasons; the exceptions are the cases they can't, not the cases they can. For instance, providers could run private channels for banning users that spread CSAM (and I'd be surprised if they didn't).
And in doing so, they would be forming a centralized information cartel. And the opportunities for abuse of such systems is now more than apparent. They have effectively booted a Twitter competitor off the internet, working in concert. If that's not legal cause for antitrust action, then antitrust is no longer a thing.
Do you have an argument that would be persuasive to people who don't believe that coordinated efforts to eliminate CSAM constitute antitrust violations?
You are twisting words. Zuckerberg said he had no knowledge of a tool called that but couldn't say for sure that it didn't exist since he doesn't always know the names of all the internal tools they have. The CEO of my company doesn't know the internal names for tons of stuff we do, this isn't surprising. Also it's not proven to exist.
