I’m not American, does your country consider this anti-competitive behavior?
Wasn’t there just a case where they ruled that a homophobic bunch can refuse services to LGBTQI+ members? If so, this might fall under the same freedom of business. I however think it’s really sad (especially in the above described case).
But what if some of the judges have a personal dislike of Twitter? Would it matter who bribed Thomas more?
I’m pretty sure that ruling specifically relied on the denial of service being an expression of religious belief, which would be a hard sell here.
(Also, not endorsing the ruling, that’s just my understanding of it).
Wouldn’t that be a bit of a stretch? In the first case they’re refusing patrons while Twitter is blocking a whole service/platform
You don’t have to be American, if twitter works in your country, then it should at least on your country follow your rules or they could be blocked by your ISP
That’s not what I am asking. Are there anti-monopoly laws in the United States that would prevent Twitter from blocking links to their competitor?
Technically yes there are anti-monopoly laws in the US, however they aren’t really used much anymore because so much of politics is dominated by corporate money now
Yep, decisions like not allowing movie distribution companies to own any cinema would not happen these days
Twitter’s not anywhere near being a monopoly in any market though.
Generally speaking, anti-competition laws here are focused on abusing a monopoly, and Twitter very much is not a monopoly, especially given the extremely successful emergence of a strong competitor.
Keep fighting
based but it’s twitter so 😢
Grab em Billionaire. /s
