[Wayward Son]

Big tech has become an organ of the state. Sever those ties and they fall by the wayside.

 

[mike from st pe]

So, the tech guys are the "Robber Barons" of the 21st century?

 

['Ol Grandad]

(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.

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.

 

[Gray Dood]

I think ALL censorship of the internet needs to end.

Al Jazzera? Let them loose. Communist Party of America? Have at it. American Nazi Party? Them too. Fringe groups don't matter. And never have

The whole idea that adults need protection from "harmful speech " is directly in opposition to free speech. The defense against destructive ideas and ideologies is a competing beneficial idea or ideology.

Let it rip!!!! Wide open!!!! Full throttle!!!

If social media companies don't agree to that, and insist on editing, suppressing, or promoting one idea over another, then they're publishers and should be treated as such.

 

[Syclone0538]

Interesting topic. Thought I'd see what a libertarian view was.

https://mises.org/wire/problem-big-tech

 

[redneck ron]

Yes!

 

[Z71bill]

The new way the left looks at censorship -

Fake ideas spread faster than "the truth" - and without a process to filter out "fake speech" it takes over and blocks out "the truth" --

So we have to destroy free speech to save free speech.

 

[Hannie Caulder]

I think ALL censorship of the internet needs to end.
Let it rip!!!! Wide open!!!! Full throttle!!!

I agree with this. The answer to every problem is always more freedom, not more .gov.

 

[BBMW]

Google "Sherman Anti-trust Act". Also look up the break up of Standard Oil.

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.

 

[kiole]

I don’t trust big government to make those decisions so no.

 

[wrenrj1]

Absolutely not. Should they be watched? Yes. Look at history, Kodak had a lock on film, IBM had a lock on the computer, Ford had a lock on manufacturing, Xerox had a lock on the copy machine. All of them no longer have a lock on anything. Even Google has competition. Facebook et. al have their competition and they are now finding themselves competing. Tesla, the standard a few years ago is having to compete with a myriad of electric car companies etc. Government picking companies to break apart is picking winners and losers IMHO. Let the market work.

 

[mike from st pe]

Teddy the trust buster Roosevelt would have busted them up in a New York second!

 

[rj1939]

I am reluctant to use the term "tech" when talking about Fartbook and all the rest.....................similar to calling Mengele a physician.
They all make tech a dirty word.
It is up to the fawning populace to see them for what they are...........................I know, we are pretty well f*****
Maybe in the future we can spawn a generation that isn't so dimwitted. The current generation may just bring that on, with all the hardship they are fomenting.

 

[kiole]

It’s always interesting to see the party of small government demand that government break up those they don’t agree with.

Be better, innovate, create competition. Breaking up big successful companies seems to be taking a page out of the socialist/communist playbook.

Until I can’t host my own website and publish whatever I want it’s not a problem.

Did Amazon cry and ask the government to shutdown Walmart? No they innovated. Did Facebook demand the government shut down MySpace? No they innovated.

We don’t demand the government shutdown the National enquirer because the population is too dumb to figure out the facts vs lies.

I can create my own video platform tonight for a few thousands bucks and allow whatever I want on it. It’s up to me to innovate and get it to grow.

 

[paynter2]

Repeal section 230 and break up big tech!

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?

Granted, the poster is using Twitter - a private media option. But, Twitter has an exemption that prohibits any repercussion from their unconstitutional action. It seems to me that Section 280 makes Twitter a quasi public media option. As such, posters should be protected under the Constitution. Dims can make and support the laws they make - provided the Supremes find them Constitutionally acceptable. I don't know if there's a suit there or not - but it would be interesting to find out. I'd like to see the Masters of the Universe get their cloaks trimmed a little.

 

[Gray Dood]

It’s always interesting to see the party of small government demand that government break up those they don’t agree with.

If your opinion prevailed, we would not now have many, many choices for phone and internet services.

We'd all be clients of A.T.& T.

When companies, ANY company becomes so monolithic that it can stifle competition, retard innovation, and work in ways that are against the public interest then that is the very reason there are anti trust laws.

Small government principles aren't a suicide pact. Nor does small government mean no government.

Just my $.02.

 

[PIC123]

(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.

Yes, monopolies are dangerous or considerous to the consumers cost of a product.
The word cost usually comes down to $$,, it still does, but in much newer directions.
It's a regulation on capitalistic powerhouses who play unfair.

 

[SRS]

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?

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.

 

[MtnBiker]

If big tech had remained apolitical, I'd say no.

They didn't. So, YES!

 

[paynter2]

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.

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.

I predict a legal challenge will come to the MofU's. It's the only way they will be challenged. Dims will not do anything to them.