Regulating social media giants is a road to Big Tech tyranny

Washington Examiner ^ | 2018-09-06 12:00 | Tyler Grant

[McQ444]

Last week, President Trump tweeted about potentially exploring regulation for companies such as Google, citing a report that claimed searching for “ Trump News” pulls up disproportionately left-leaning results.

[Eleutheria5]

Break up monopolies and deregulate them.

[grey_whiskers]

McQ444
Since Aug 29, 2018

SNIFF.

Cloudy with a chance of lightning

[exDemMom]

The big social media are acting in a manner that indicates they want to be regulated. The big question is, why?

And going along with their censorship/regulation agenda is against the principles of freedom that all conservatives embrace, so how do we address this issue?

[Savage Beast]

"Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you." ~George Orwell: 1984"

[usconservative]

The big social media are acting in a manner that indicates they want to be regulated. The big question is, why?

Because the political pendulum in this country swings both ways and they believe the Democrats will be back in power soon. That's when they can then use the power of big government to stifle any competition through their paid for Democrats then collude with the Government to fully implement fascism. That's where this all will go if they have their way: shut down all speech they don't agree with and destroy those who dare oppose them in any way.

[Savage Beast]

"if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth." ~George Orwell: 1984.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

[VanDeKoik]

“The big question is, why?”

Because then they become as much part of the government as the post office.

Constantly getting cash infusions, while having no competition BY LAW.

And look how many stupid people on our side are falling for it because “it’s muh town square”!

[Future Useless Eater]

When POTUS mentioned not being able to find POTUS-friendly sites when he googled "Trump News" was he specifically hoping to see the URL   Trump.news   listed?

Is that site even a legitimate Trump-friendly site?   It seems at the moment to be. OR IS THAT site a Trojan horse, waiting to become popular, and then DUMP on the POTUS?

I see what https://www.whois.com/whois/trump.news   shows almost everything says "REDACTED for PRIVACY"

However https://www.whois.com/whois/trump.com   shows that it is owned by "The Trump Organization", "New York, New York, and clearly seems to be owned by the Trump family, but it is not a news site."

[jacknhoo]

It seems to me this is a fairly easy task for the the social media sites.

Let everyone participate uninhibited until a crime is reported/identified. When a crime is reported/identified, investigate the accounts and prosecute the account’s owner, just as we would do for someone in any public place.

Foreign entities should have to abide by United States laws and should be identifiable immediately as not being within the USA.

[Paladin2]

Vote by walking away.

Tough to do though.

I find Google searches to be superior to all others for non-political subjects.

Amazon finds one time purchase products better than the rest by a smaller margin than Google’s superiority.

[Buckeye McFrog]

“it’s muh town square”!

That it is, for many, many people.

I am not on social media, nor are many people I know. But most of the world IS (particularly younger people). And if we are going to spread the Conservative message and win converts, THAT is the forum in which we must do so.

Which is why they are trying to silence us, and why I must respectfully disagree on the subject of regulating them.

[VanDeKoik]

“That it is, for many, many people.”

Dont care.

Soft nationalization is not going to solve your problems. It will make it FAR WORSE.

[SgtHooper]

“Let everyone participate uninhibited until a crime is reported/identified. When a crime is reported/identified,...”

Therein lies the problem! Who identifies the crime? Who reports the crime? Who determines it actually IS a crime?

[SunkenCiv]

We've seen jihadists waved through while disabled children and nuns are shaken down by the TSA. It isn't the tools, it's who's holding them, that is the problem.

[G Larry]

Be careful what you ask for.....

Regulation is completely dependent on who designs the yardstick.

[veracious]

Break up monopolies. Proper USA government has done this before because we want competition. It is the nature of corporate business to collapse similar businesses onto themselves. This needs be undone on a regular basis.

Consolidation mostly stems from the artificial nature of legal fictions, sans corporations. Corporations last much longer than the real people who create private enterprise, so they accumulate this way.

Corporate grow and ownership of much of our resources is a function of _money_from_thin_air. We would not have such monstrous corporations without it. Fiat money is the _food_ for these legal fictions and for fiat government, like that one occupying DC.

[jacknhoo]

Who identifies/reports the crime: users and bias free software algorithms and state and federal law enforcement.

Who determines/prosecutes the crime: law enforcement of the state where the account is based. If outside the US or if the state determines it is a federal crime, the feds.

No different than if people are standing on a public street or in a town hall forum.

[ConservativeMind]

These are now “public commons” and that means regulations.

They are also not privately held.

Regulate away!

[GOPJ]

We've seen jihadists waved through while disabled children and nuns are shaken down by the TSA. It isn't the tools, it's who's holding them...

BINGO!