Joined
·
5,444 Posts
Big tech has become an organ of the state. Sever those ties and they fall by the wayside.
Aren't there laws against having a monopoly? Maybe we need to overhaul that law? I think that is why we have that law, isn't it? Maybe I'm being naïve.(Mods:It isn’t my intention to make this a political post, but if it goes there, as the OP, I apologize in advance.)
A good friend of mine suggested that I watch a documentary called “Social Dilemma”. It’s about social networking web sites, and how they manage to manipulate the public opinion.
Coincidentally, I had a discussion with my son this morning, and he made a compelling case for breaking up big tech. When a corporation begins to gain enough power to control a populace, especially in competition with the federal government, it might be time to do a little fine tuning.
I know this lies in contrast with pure capitalist theory, but it has been done before with Teddy Roosevelt’s actions with Standard Oil.
All I can say is that I’m conflicted. I wanted to gather a few opinions before I watch the documentary.
I agree with this. The answer to every problem is always more freedom, not more .gov.I think ALL censorship of the internet needs to end.
Let it rip!!!! Wide open!!!! Full throttle!!!
Aren't there laws against having a monopoly? Maybe we need to overhaul that law? I think that is why we have that law, isn't it? Maybe I'm being naïve.
Dims will never allow this to happen... However, I wonder if a very good attorney (oxymoron?) could sue big tech for infringement of someone's first amendment rights? Consider a case where someone posts something on Twitter that is demonstrably true - yet the post is reviews by Twitter and removed for one of their lame excuses. Why is that not an infringement of the posters right to free speech?Repeal section 230 and break up big tech!
If your opinion prevailed, we would not now have many, many choices for phone and internet services.It’s always interesting to see the party of small government demand that government break up those they don’t agree with.
Yes, monopolies are dangerous or considerous to the consumers cost of a product.(Mods:It isn’t my intention to make this a political post, but if it goes there, as the OP, I apologize in advance.)
A good friend of mine suggested that I watch a documentary called “Social Dilemma”. It’s about social networking web sites, and how they manage to manipulate the public opinion.
Coincidentally, I had a discussion with my son this morning, and he made a compelling case for breaking up big tech. When a corporation begins to gain enough power to control a populace, especially in competition with the federal government, it might be time to do a little fine tuning.
I know this lies in contrast with pure capitalist theory, but it has been done before with Teddy Roosevelt’s actions with Standard Oil.
All I can say is that I’m conflicted. I wanted to gather a few opinions before I watch the documentary.
A very good attorney, or even high school student with a working understanding of the First Amendment, wouldn’t sue because he’d know that’s an embarrassingly laughable claim. What’s “seems” to you to be true has no basis in fact or law.However, I wonder if a very good attorney (oxymoron?) could sue big tech for infringement of someone's first amendment rights? Consider a case where someone posts something on Twitter that is demonstrably true - yet the post is reviews by Twitter and removed for one of their lame excuses. Why is that not an infringement of the posters right to free speech?
What an AHole... I'm not an attorney - that doesn't preclude me from posting on a public site. Are you trying to be JackA$$ Dorsey? Hence the 'I wonder...' beginning of my post. The NFL gets very powerful, yet specific, legal protection. They are aware of their protections and make sure they don't abuse them - at the risk of losing them. My point is that maybe the specific protections of social media must continue to protect Constitutional rights.A very good attorney, or even high school student with a working understanding of the First Amendment, wouldn’t sue because he’d know that’s an embarrassingly laughable claim. What’s “seems” to you to be true has no basis in fact or law.