Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Joe Fan, Jul 25, 2016.
That's too bad.
Switch back to Chrome.
Had a good discussion with my boss re politics. He swayed me a little on muting everyone, even if they're despicable. So, I will regroup with my censorship opinions. Go home and think about it a bit.
Well, instead of muting everyone just leave Hornfans
The problem with Twitter, Facebook, and Goggle are they they are all both monopiles and discriminatory based on viewpoint.
It'd be one thing if each of those companies had 1/8 of the market share or such - if you didn't like their selective enforcement of their own policies you could just go to another company. But each of those companies controls maybe 90 percent or more of the market share, for a product that is not just for the end user, but a way to express free speech. So you're cut out of a huge market share if you are censored by those companies.
No way the FTC would say, allow one oil company to own 90% of the gas stations, require you to have an account to buy gas (no cash), then if they didn't like your political viewpoint, refuse to sell you gasoline, with their response of "no one's keeping you from riding the bus".
Problem is, the Federal government has been first lazy, then corrupted, by the monopolistic nature of these three, and also Amazon's, market share. Now, as the government is about 98 percent leftist, they enjoy being able to silence opposing viewpoints via their private company soul mates.
If this was your social media platform you could boot him. The cries of foul from liberals would be ironic tears.
Certainly better than being a censor and book burner. Leftist used to claim they were against those things. Then they got into power, banished everyone who disagreed with them, and decided they were alright with both.
1984 and F 451 were supposed to be frightening stores of a failed future. Not an instruction manual for the Ministry of Information
A few points on this. First, it's possible to think something doesn't warrant deploying the power of government to intervene but still think it is a bad thing. Many Democrats (including the incoming president) take this approach on abortion.
Second, the First Amendment free speech principle isn't good because it's in the Constitution. It's in the Constitution, because it's good. It is more than a constitutional right. It's a value that should be deeply ingrained in our culture not always by government but by culture - again, because it's good. It fosters dialogue, civility, intellectual growth, and accountability. When businesses that are the primary forum of discourse start making content-based and partisan restrictions, that is culturally bad even if it's not illegal. Even Angela Merkel (who's among the most anti-Trump world leaders) publicly sided with Trump over Twitter - something for which she has absolutely nothing to gain by doing.
Third, there is a pretty big difference between the religious baker and the banning of people on Twitter. First, the baker doesn't have an effective monopoly on baking. If a baker doesn't want to cater a gay wedding, someone else almost surely will. (Personally, I didn't even get a piece of my friggin wedding cake.) If Facebook and Twitter decide you're not allowed to speak on their forum, it's a major imposition on your ability to reach a substantial audience. Second, progressives actually do want to bring the power of government to ruin that baker's ability to make a living if he won't go along. I'm only saying that social media companies shouldn't do this because they're damaging the common good and shouldn't get special legal protections to do it. I don't think anyone should bankrupt Jack Dorsey just because he wants to make Democratic partisanship a major priority in his company. He has that right. He doesn't have a right to special protection though - and wouldn't even if he was totally fair.
Finally, even if the tech companies don't have to worry about the First Amendment, they do have to worry about federal and state antitrust laws, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. Kicking Trump off and banning conservatives won't break those laws, but interfering with Parler to get it bounced from the internet might depending on the specifics of how that went down. @iatrogenic brought up tortious interference. He could be right - again it depends on the specifics, to which I'm not privy.
He does, and so do the social media companies. The difference is that @Dionysus doesn't enforce his ToS selectively along partisan and ideological lines. Can we tell his politics based on how he enforced his ToS? I can't. Can we tell what Jack Dorsey's politics are based on how he enforces his ToS? Very much so. Dion also doesn't have an effective monopoly. If he decides to become a partisan hack and ban people based on their politics, we have choices.
@horninchicago , I disagreed with him again. Can I get some more credit? Notice I didn't rip him personally or call him names. Do you think I was weak or "cuckish" for not doing those things?
Yes, required reading in my sci fi lit class. As well as what may be the best episode of the Twilight Zone.
The Obsolete Man | The Twilight Zone Wiki | Fandom
IOW, only if they moderate out what we don't like.
Tim Cook says Parler can return after complying with App Store terms of service | AppleInsider
This is a good argument. It is not how much of the market these companies have, it is the fact that they used a government law (of course the feds are involved) allowing them to "self-regulate" to force Parler out of business. They f'd up when they did that. It is the ability to prevent others from entering a business/industry that creates a monopoly, not market share.
Cook's an idiot. He doesn't have the right to run Parler or moderate, even vicariously, their site. They allow Parler to sell an app in the app store.
Duck, the problem isn't that they are monopolies per se. Monopolies can't exist for long without 1) them serving their customers very very well or 2) government enforcement.
The issues with Big Tech is that they are intertwined with the US government. They have been from the start. They took seed money from the CIAs investment company. Soon afterwards they came online they have worked with the NSA to promote their preferred narrative on foreign policy and other things.
This is the problem. They use force, like the government, to keep competition out of the market like you saw when Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon pressured other companies to not work with Parler. It is hugely unAmerican and totalitarian even though it is corporations doing the work for governments.
You could even call it by its technical term, FASCISM.
Deez, is there a case that they are illegally colluding? There are laws that prevent companies from becoming a cartel and setting prices, restricting supply, and holding out competitors. Isn't that what happened in the case of Parler? If AWS doesn't want to work with Parler, no one should force them to, but when Big Tech then pressures everyone else into not working with Parler, that sounds illegal to me.
May not be illegal, but definitely bad as you say in earlier paragraphs of your post.
The app was not even being sold...free app for free speech. Maybe it was the lack of money that had Apple more concerned than citizens being permitted to actually engage in discussions in a place where the scales are not tilted by Big Tech.
I agree with the sentiment. The real path forward is parallel systems from the bottom to top, banks and currency to electronics and software.
If the link doesn't work.
Yes, there could be a case depending on the specifics. We have pretty broad federal antitrust laws. What gets a little weird is that we aren't consistent in how strictly we enforce them, and both parties have factions that are favorable and hostile to them. For example, Bernie Sanders-types are suspicious of big business interests and want them strictly enforced. However, your economic fascist-types who like government being in the sack with big business are far less aggressive. They like cartelization, because cartels are much easier to regulate, leverage, and to unionize. For example, antitrust enforcement virtually disappeared during the New Deal. The Sherman, Clayton, and FTC Acts were on the books, but there was almost no enforcement of them. My guess is that the Biden Adminstration will be somewhere in between but closer to the FDR mentality, especially when it comes to a politically-connected business like Amazon.
Parler has brought a private antitrust suit. We'll see how it turns out.
Dump twitter. I’m not clicking on any post that includes twitter.
You're that guy who loses a belt notch to the holidays and then looks in the mirror on 1/2/xx, blinks once and then drinks black coffee and eats dry toast and boiled eggs for 7.5 days to get back down to your 21 year old weight, right?
Wish is was that easy Bubba.
Does the meth hangover always affect you this way?
I take Barry as more of a gas huffer. Top shelf for him is when he buys the 93 octane!
It's all good fun, he's a good guy and I enjoy having him on the board to trade opinions on. Unlike say that austin bat horn or whatever his handle is on the Wuhan thread, that dude is every leftist cliché in one.
Definitely not AustinBat. Good poster as I recall. But I know who you mean.
Social media going to knock these folks for inciting violence against an innocent man?
Im surprised Parler is not suing Apple and Google yet for monopolistic behavior, collusion, and inconsistent application of their ToS. Maybe they are planning to but I have not seen anything in the news yet.
This **** is nothing new
But their tactics have certainly changed
I'm guessing that is in the works, but the first priority is to get back online...and that means the AWS suit sits on top of the desk for now.