GlockTalk Forum banner

41 - 60 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
I'm not an attorney - that doesn't preclude me from posting on a public site.
I’m not precluding you from posting anything. The best part of this is that you are totally oblivious to the irony—the guy who wants the government to dictate speech by private actors crying about being “precluded” from offering a dumb opinion on social media.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
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.
It is their god given right to control what goes on their site and a bunch of commies CANT take that away from them! God bless America!
 

·
NRA4EVR
Joined
·
11,506 Posts
Facebook is not a monopoly, not even close. There are countless options for social media. This forum is one of them. No one has to use a screen name - anyone can use their real name here, and you can get all your friends and relatives posting, too. Just like thousands of other message boards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,518 Posts
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.
Except ATT and telecoms require specialized infrastructure with federal and local government cooperation. The infrastructure was/is largely subsidized and laws requiring public cooperation (right of ways etc).

Social media and streaming content companies aren’t this. If they buy up all the data centers and telecoms to start censoring what they will host, I’d be more sympathetic toward the cause of breaking them up.

However just because Google, Facebook and Twitter are successful doesn’t mean there is an unfair barrier to competition. Anyone including you can make a competitor tomorrow. There isn’t some unfair anticompetitive practices stopping you from making the next social media platform.

Alex Jones is banned from these platforms he found somewhere else to spew his views. That proves there isn’t a monopoly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,957 Posts
Interesting that Walmart was once a family oriented store that went in to smaller /rural communities and was liked and successful. When was the point at which we (meaning the collective we) started hating Walmart for its success?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,996 Posts
The problem with tech is that it attracts a certain type of person. That won't change if they're broken up.

V.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,996 Posts
The flip side of the coin however may be it handicaps innovation in the future. Innovation and technology is a key driver in the success of the US economy.
Most of the disruptive advances in tech oriented companies comes from smaller start ups.

The big issue for large tech companies is how to keep their culture looking like a small upstart.

V.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,043 Posts
My example of the phone company might just dispel this assumption.
Would Ma Bell have come up with all this wireless technology?
They came up with the first functional transistor...

Bell Labs produced a lot of technical research back in the day - they were very innovative.

-Pat
 
  • Like
Reactions: IamtheNRA

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,181 Posts
Except ATT and telecoms require specialized infrastructure with federal and local government cooperation. The infrastructure was/is largely subsidized and laws requiring public cooperation (right of ways etc).

Social media and streaming content companies aren’t this. If they buy up all the data centers and telecoms to start censoring what they will host, I’d be more sympathetic toward the cause of breaking them up.
Facebook, and Twitter, use that same infrastructure that requires public cooperation, additionally they get special protections, like common carriers, as opposed to being treated like a publisher. Does AT&T monitor your calls and shut them down if they think you aren’t telling the truth? and that is part of why they get protections publishers don’t. I would be fine with Facebook and Twitter censoring whatever they want and allowing those things they like to be published, if they had the same protections as publishers (none). If they stuck to trying to remove copyright infringements and porn then that would be ok, but they have gone way beyond that.

However just because Google, Facebook and Twitter are successful doesn’t mean there is an unfair barrier to competition. Anyone including you can make a competitor tomorrow. There isn’t some unfair anticompetitive practices stopping you from making the next social media platform.

Alex Jones is banned from these platforms he found somewhere else to spew his views. That proves there isn’t a monopoly.
They can easily be declared public accommodations and be subject to law suits for discrimination against protected groups. They also benefit from government protections as corporations, the government could easily make those corporate protections dependent on not censoring based on anything but public decency and copyright infringement.

Also they have a great deal of vertical integration which creates a different sort of anticompetitive practice.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,207 Posts
Break up big tech, big retail, and most especially big media. While we are at it, bar lobbying out right. All elected people are audited by a neutral, as best can be assured, third party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,704 Posts
They came up with the first functional transistor...

Bell Labs produced a lot of technical research back in the day - they were very innovative.

-Pat
Agreed but they also had a great deal of wired infrastructure that they orobably would have wanted to utilize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
Bell Labs invented the transistor and the laser, two things that formed the very foundation of the Information Age.
Soon after that Al Gore invented the Internet and the long slide of Big Tech began............

On the serious side, Big Tech needs to be broken up, their model has changed over the years. Once they started presenting news as fact and started fact checking what they think is fake news, controlling public opinion, that was a game changer. The pro's and con's of today's big tech can be used as a model for what ever legislation that should be implemented. Its amazing how many people use FB as their news source today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IamtheNRA

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,057 Posts
Soon after that Al Gore invented the Internet and the long slide of Big Tech began............

On the serious side, Big Tech needs to be broken up, their model has changed over the years. Once they started presenting news as fact and started fact checking what they think is fake news, controlling public opinion, that was a game changer. The pro's and con's of today's big tech can be used as a model for what ever legislation that should be implemented. Its amazing how many people use FB as their news source today.
Any time someone says, "I saw on Facebook that..." I just chuckle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,869 Posts
Big Media Tech is either an independent platform, that welcomes and hosts all free ideas, opinions and writings (that don't violate an actual law) and doesn't promote any particular ideas over others ... or ... they're a publisher, promoting the publication of Opinions which intentionally promote only those ideas that suit them and their political bias, and they actively censor dissenting ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cubdriver

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,057 Posts
Big Media Tech is either an independent platform, that welcomes and hosts all free ideas, opinions and writings (that don't violate an actual law) and doesn't promote any particular ideas over others ... or ... they're a publisher, promoting the publication of Opinions which intentionally promote only those ideas that suit them and their political bias, and they actively censor dissenting ideas.
They're trying to eat their cake and have it, too.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
19,108 Posts
Except Wikipedia includes links to the source material. 99.999% of "shocking" FB headlines are fake.

The problem is anyone can edit Wiki.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,620 Posts
Cut patent lengths, BS protections like 230, Corporate welfare/subsidies/endless tax breaks and lobby power as well as political donations and you won't need to break them up.

As it stands, breaking them up simply makes them more powerful. i.e. Standard Oil
 
41 - 60 of 64 Posts
Top