• animist@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not American, does your country consider this anti-competitive behavior?

    • Revezd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      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).

      • zalack@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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).

      • WookieMunster@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

    • fuckyou_m8@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • animist@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • fuckyou_m8@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yep, decisions like not allowing movie distribution companies to own any cinema would not happen these days

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.