I wonder what they are being threatened with behind closed doors. Google has the money to fight this lawsuit.

Probably the same stick all admins have: the threat of letting the DOJ pursue anti-monopolistic behavior. If they "behave" the DOJ lets them continue in their ways. If they don't they allow the possibility of getting the giants split up.

I think op means, I wonder what it means to "behave" in this context. I wonder what is actually being pursued?

Money going to a ballroom…

In unexpected news Larry E. and Jared K. have just announced the formation of a ballroom building company.

Who saw that coming?

"caves" is an odd word choice. The platform banned the president of the united states, libeling him in the process, which feels like a pretty big and harmful deal. I don't want big tech regulating which politicians we're allowed to know about, and I would imagine most people would agree whether it's about a Republican or Democrat.

In the US, it's not libel if it's true.

If it were true, Google, Meta, and X wouldn't have paid out ~60 million so far.

As far as I can tell this is becoming a dangerous line of logic. In Brazil they jailed Bolsonaro while saying he tried to throw an insurrection based off a protest, without real evidence. If we're going to arrest politicians every time their supporters riot the entire democratic caucus would be in jail. imo we should be making these decisions based on what the politician himself does, not what we believe their supporters have done.

> If it were true, Google, Meta, and X wouldn't have paid out ~60 million so far.

They paid because they fear that not caving would be worse for them. Lawsuits aren’t cheap, and it’s a common tactic to sue someone to burden them with the costs of fighting it, thus getting them to shut up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

In this case, they also have to feat the possibility of legal repercussions in other ways, such as having business deals deliberately stalled or denied in retaliation, something the Trump administration has made very clear is something they are OK with doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_Jimmy_Kimmel_Liv...!

> based off a protest

You are oversimplifying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022–2023_Brazilian_coup_plot

Average politician hasn't tried to steal an election though

Many people have difficulty understanding the difference between a belief and a fact. I.e, you are talking about a belief but talking like it is a fact.

Sorry, what exactly is "not a fact" about it?

I mean Meta, X, and Google have all paid him out so far.

Why would you think he tried to steal the election? What lead you to this belief? I don't think I know anyone in real life who holds this belief, I genuinely don't know why someone would think this.

Not sure what these companies paying the authoritarian tax is supposed to say about anything other than the president openly takes bribes.

> I don't think I know anyone in real life who holds this belief

Maybe you just don't know anyone who knows any of the facts? -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

I don't want to get too political on HN, but you should know according to the article essentially all of the money went to the government or lawyers, not Trump.

Sure, "not Trump" just the pointless ballroom he decided to have built.

Yeah because we have a fascist fucking government and they are more interested in money than principle.

The effort to have false electors vote for Trump as president in 2020 is extremely documented. What exactly would you call that if not stealing the election?

Can you at least admit that it isn't a fact like the sky is blue or gravity pulls objects together?

Except it is. It's been years since one of the most well documented attempts at a steal ever. Only the willfully blind remain unaware, it's undeniable -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

How do you feel about Google's settlement being a donation to a Trust that's building the "Trump Ballroom"? Helpfully, Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, has formed a company that handles construction management for event spaces...

Knowing about and having to hear his lies are two diff things.

"Caves" is doing heavy lifting work here. Censoring a president should come with repercussions.

No, compelled speech falls under free speech. You can kick people off a platform because you disagree with them. They can even demonetize people for perfectly legal activities.

So, legally YouTube is fine, politically things are different.

Precisely, these platforms are settling specifically because this president openly looks to punish and hold grudges and have vendettas against whom he sees, and describes, as his enemies.

This is a matter of Google saying "he can do more than $25M of damage to us if we keep fighting this".

Kick rocks. Pres. Bonespurs was a civi at the time and a full-on pos that deserved to be kicked off.

Not when that president incites a terrorist attack against the US government...

You mean the one in which there were 275 federal agents - some of which who were extremely fit and masked people who broke open windows, urging people to get in. Also hit and shoved away the unmasked protestors who asked them what the hell they were doing ?

You're saying Trump was voted out so the FBI(?) tried to stop the count. And then the Biden DOJ decided not to prosecute them?

Seems plausible.

People are really living in their own reality these days. Don't know how we get back to any level of sanity when a non-trivial portion of the population is this detached from reality.

Sadly this is also why no matter how corrupt Trump gets, his base won't abandon him. The God Emperor can do no wrong.

Weak as water