Kerala politicians stand by actor Mammootty facing online harassment, call him state's pride
Thiruvananthapuram, May 16: Politicians from the Left and the Congress party in Kerala have rallied behind Malayalam superstar Mammootty who is facing online harassment from certain right wing sympathisers in connection with one of his movies that had been released two years ago.
The controversy erupted after posts on on social media platforms claimed that the movie 'Puzhu' released in 2022 was an anti-Brahmanical one.
Some of them even used Mammootty's birth name, Muhammed Kutty, to criticise the national award-winning actor in connection with the film, which was a psychological drama directed by debutant filmmaker Ratheena P T.
The row erupted following a recent interview given by the woman director's husband to an online channel in which he claimed that the movie was against a particular community and criticised Mammootty over doing the film.
Rubbishing the social media campaign against the legendary actor, several persons including state Ministers V Sivankutty and K Rajan and AICC General Secretary K C Venugopal came out in support of Mammootty.
Senior CPI (M) leader and General Education Minister V Sivankutty put up a Facebook post sharing a photo of of him with the actor, who has won three national awards, among many other recognitions.
"Mammootty is Malayalees' pride," the minister said in the FB post.
CPI leader and Revenue Minister K Rajan also described Mammootty as the "Pride of Kerala and Malayalees".
The minister alleged that "Sangh Parivar politics" was behind such campaigns and said that such propaganda would not reap its desired results in the state.
"This is Kerala," he pointed out to those behind the campaign. Recalling a similar campaign unleashed against eminent director Kamal some time ago, the minister said the "the Sanghi politics of calling Mammootty as Mohammed Kutty, Kamal as Kamaluddin and Vijay as Joseph Vijay (top Tamil film star who has a large fan following in Kerala) will not reap any result here."
Sharing similar views, AICC General Secretary K C Venugopal also strongly supported Mammootty and said the secular society of the state would not support such propaganda.
He said no matter how hard they try to brand a person who has clear political views and acting skills, the people of the state won't support them.
In an FB post, the Congress leader further said that it is the duty of Kerala society to take care of the actor without being affected by the "poison of hate campaigns".
A person like Mammootty cannot be confined to the compartments of religion and caste, he said, adding that vested interests are doing so with a clear political agenda.
"Mammootty is being Mohammed Kutty only in the contemptuous minds of those hate campaigners," the leader added.
The actor is yet to react to the controversy.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
US regulators seek to break up Google, forcing Chrome sale as part of monopoly punishment
Washington, Nov 21: US regulators want a federal judge to break up Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through its dominant search engine after a court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the past decade.
The proposed breakup floated in a 23-page document filed late Wednesday by the US Department of Justice calls for sweeping punishments that would include a sale of Google's industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions to prevent Android from favouring its own search engine.
A sale of Chrome “will permanently stop Google's control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet”, Justice Department lawyers argued in their filing.
Although regulators stopped short of demanding Google sell Android too, they asserted the judge should make it clear the company could still be required to divest its smartphone operating system if its oversight committee continues to see evidence of misconduct.
The broad scope of the recommended penalties underscores how severely regulators operating under President Joe Biden's administration believe Google should be punished following an August ruling by US District Judge Amit Mehta that branded the company as a monopolist.
The Justice Department decision-makers who will inherit the case after President-elect Donald Trump takes office next year might not be as strident. The Washington, DC, court hearings on Google's punishment are scheduled to begin in April and Mehta is aiming to issue his final decision before Labour Day.
If Mehta embraces the government's recommendations, Google would be forced to sell its 16-year-old Chrome browser within six months of the final ruling. But the company certainly would appeal any punishment, potentially prolonging a legal tussle that has dragged on for more than four years.
Besides seeking a Chrome spinoff and a corralling of the Android software, the Justice Department wants the judge to ban Google from forging multibillion-dollar deals to lock in its dominant search engine as the default option on Apple's iPhone and other devices. It would also ban Google from favouring its own services, such as YouTube or its recently-launched artificial intelligence platform, Gemini.
Regulators also want Google to license the search index data it collects from people's queries to its rivals, giving them a better chance at competing with the tech giant. On the commercial side of its search engine, Google would be required to provide more transparency into how it sets the prices that advertisers pay to be listed near the top of some targeted search results.
Kent Walker, Google's chief legal officer, lashed out at the Justice Department for pursuing “a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America's global technology”.
In a blog post, Walker warned the “overly broad proposal” would threaten personal privacy while undermining Google's early leadership in artificial intelligence, “perhaps the most important innovation of our time”.
Wary of Google's increasing use of artificial intelligence in its search results, regulators also advised Mehta to ensure websites will be able to shield their content from Google's AI training techniques.
The measures, if they are ordered, threaten to upend a business expected to generate more than USD 300 billion in revenue this year.
“The playing field is not level because of Google's conduct, and Google's quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired,” the Justice Department asserted in its recommendations. “The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”
It's still possible that the Justice Department could ease off attempts to break up Google, especially if Trump takes the widely expected step of replacing Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, who was appointed by Biden to oversee the agency's antitrust division.
Although the case targeting Google was originally filed during the final months of Trump's first term in office, Kanter oversaw the high-profile trial that culminated in Mehta's ruling against Google.
Working in tandem with Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, Kanter took a get-tough stance against Big Tech that triggered other attempted crackdowns on industry powerhouses such as Apple and discouraged many business deals from getting done during the past four years.
Trump recently expressed concerns that a breakup might destroy Google but didn't elaborate on alternative penalties he might have in mind. “What you can do without breaking it up is make sure it's more fair,” Trump said last month.
Matt Gaetz, the former Republican congressman that Trump nominated to be the next US Attorney General, has previously called for the breakup of Big Tech companies.
Gaetz faces a tough confirmation hearing.
This latest filing gave Kanter and his team a final chance to spell out measures that they believe are needed to restore competition in search. It comes six weeks after Justice first floated the idea of a breakup in a preliminary outline of potential penalties.
But Kanter's proposal is already raising questions about whether regulators seek to impose controls that extend beyond the issues covered in last year's trial, and — by extension — Mehta's ruling.
Banning the default search deals that Google now pays more than USD 26 billion annually to maintain was one of the main practices that troubled Mehta in his ruling.
It's less clear whether the judge will embrace the Justice Department's contention that Chrome needs to be spun out of Google, and the recommendation that Android should be completely walled off from the company's own search engine.
“It is probably going a little beyond,” Syracuse University law professor Shubha Ghosh said of the Chrome breakup. “The remedies should match the harm, it should match the transgression. This does seem a little beyond that pale.”
Google rival DuckDuckGo, whose executives testified during last year's trial, asserted the Justice Department is simply doing what needs to be done to rein in a brazen monopolist.
“Undoing Google's overlapping and widespread illegal conduct over more than a decade requires more than contract restrictions: it requires a range of remedies to create enduring competition,” Kamyl Bazbaz, DuckDuckGo's senior vice president of public affairs, said in a statement.
Trying to break up Google harks back to a similar punishment initially imposed on Microsoft a quarter century ago following another major antitrust trial that culminated in a federal judge deciding the software maker had illegally used his Windows operating system for PCs to stifle competition.
However, an appeals court overturned an order that would have broken up Microsoft, a precedent many experts believe will make Mehta reluctant to go down a similar road with the Google case.
