What is even the grounds for this? You can’t call election interference on a private company because of a preference for a candidate. That’s like if Harris wanted to sue Fox News for a bias towards Trump. Private companies are allowed to have biases.
It is also completely possible that the supposed preferential treatment may be due to public opinion and news reporting. Kinda like how if you lie a lot, people call you out on it, but that doesn’t make it illegal that they don’t call out your opponent equally as much.
For a company that is a monopoly - you should logically be able to, monopolies are not allowed to have biases (shouldn’t exist in the first place though).
For a company that says it’s a search engine but in fact meddles with recommendations - you should logically be able to, they are calling themselves not what they are in fact.
Both would mean putting all the big tech top management into jail, though. So no chance.
What is even the grounds for this? You can’t call election interference on a private company because of a preference for a candidate. That’s like if Harris wanted to sue Fox News for a bias towards Trump. Private companies are allowed to have biases.
It is also completely possible that the supposed preferential treatment may be due to public opinion and news reporting. Kinda like how if you lie a lot, people call you out on it, but that doesn’t make it illegal that they don’t call out your opponent equally as much.
For a company that is a monopoly - you should logically be able to, monopolies are not allowed to have biases (shouldn’t exist in the first place though).
For a company that says it’s a search engine but in fact meddles with recommendations - you should logically be able to, they are calling themselves not what they are in fact.
Both would mean putting all the big tech top management into jail, though. So no chance.
Not exactly, that would work quite differently if Fox had a news monopoly.