Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I imagine we’ll be getting some posts now about how “private companies” can do whatever they want. Suppose an advertising agency with a monopoly on billboards decided to refuse to sell billboards to a specific political party two months before an election. Would that be permissible because they were a private company?

Does it not seem ridiculous that we’ve spent two years hearing about how horrible Russian influence on social media in 2016 was, but we’re now supposed to think nothing of companies that are largely influenced by China dictating what can and cannot be seen on the internet?


2 posted on 08/28/2018 6:44:28 AM PDT by Junk Silver ("It's a little hard to herd people onto trains when they're shooting at you." SirLurkedalot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Junk Silver
we’ll be getting some posts now about how “private companies” can do whatever they want.

I don't know why we're not seeing lawsuits about clear and numerous breaches of their own 30-page Terms Of Service Agreements. I've seen the violations pointed out in chapter and verse here and there but I'm too lazy to look those links up right now.

5 posted on 08/28/2018 6:46:58 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Junk Silver

“I imagine we’ll be getting some posts now about how “private companies” can do whatever they want.”

Because they are, whether some people on FR have decided that socialism is cool as long as they do it.

“Suppose an advertising agency with a monopoly on billboards decided to refuse to sell billboards to a specific political party two months before an election. Would that be permissible because they were a private company?”

Yes. They are not obligated to print your sign, just like a cake baker can be the only one in town and not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

And Google, Twitter, and Facebook are not monopolies. Their user base are made up of addicted idiots that cant bring themselves to use another platform. That’s not those companies problem. If they were actively working to deprive competitors their ability to run their own service, then you have an issue.

The iPod/iTunes is the classic example. 90% of the MP3 player market at a time. Not a monopoly. Just absurdly popular despite available alternatives that people should have been using.


14 posted on 08/28/2018 7:07:44 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Junk Silver

It is cronyism pure and simple. Actually out of control in this world due to the Globalist Cronies. Google is presenting its product as unbiased, yet it is favoring its friendly liberal customers. If Google advertised itself as anti Trump or as a liberal left leaning search engine, it would not be in violation of false labeling laws for starters. Conservatives need to file a class action law suit and split these behemoths at their mouths.


35 posted on 08/28/2018 10:54:51 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson