Platforms

President-elect Joe Biden is set to have a very different relationship with the tech industry from when he served as vice president. Tech companies have grown more powerful over the past four years — and more perilous. They have continued to amass data and wealth. But they have been used as tools for election interference and disinformation, contributing to the divide in the nation.

The law firm Hagens Berman filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in New York alleges that a deal between Amazon and five major book publishers has led to higher e-book prices for all consumers, because it prevents rival retailers from selling any of these publishers’ e-books at a lower price than on Amazon.

San Francisco-based analytics firm Zignal Labs has found that online misinformation about election fraud plunged 73 percent after several social media sites suspended President Trump and key allies.

Former-Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps has called on the new Biden administration to establish a Presidential Commission on the Future of the Internet. He contrasts the regulation of the broadcast industry in the public interest with the relatively hands-off treatment of internet commerce and cites privacy, disinformation, and antitrust concerns, as well as the impact of social media giants on local news outlets, as reasons why a comprehensive policy review is in order.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai says online platforms should be forced to explain their practices in the much the same way he required of broadband providers like Comcast and AT&T. Chairman Pai paired those transparency requirements with his 2017 repeal of net neutrality rules. He also took a dig at online companies that supported net neutrality rules for broadband providers who appear to be "unwilling to abide by" similar rules themselves.

Each of the big social platforms handled the challenges of the Trump presidency in its own unique way, scrambling to address or neutralize various urgent and contradictory concerns from users, advertisers, lawmakers and occasionally the president himself.

The actions of Facebook and Twitter to ban President Donald Trump are protected by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Act. This is the same Section 230 behind which social media companies have sheltered to protect them from liability for the dissemination of the hate, lies and conspiracies that ultimately led to the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. These actions are better late than never. But the proverbial horse has left the barn.

President Trump used social media to encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol to attempt to maintain his power.

President Donald Trump said that the social media sites had made a “catastrophic mistake” and acted in a politically “divisive” manner after punishing him for comments the companies said threatened to incite violence.

A North Idaho internet provider, Your T1 WIFI, confirmed it is blocking Facebook and Twitter from its WIFI service for some customers. The move comes after Twitter and Facebook banned President Donald Trump from their platforms due to incitement of violence and undermining the transition of power to President-elect Joe Biden. Because Twitter and Facebook are private companies, their bans on the Pre