Posted on 08/18/2018 6:28:23 AM PDT by JonPreston
“The ones in question here are all publicly traded on a stock exchange which is/are FEDERALLY regulated.
This means they are subject to Federal regulation on an infinite number of items.”
Oh, so someone lied to you and said that a publicly traded company is subjected to arbitrary and extra-legal random federal regulation.
“FR is private property. And this is Jim’s house... per se.”
Since you seem to fancy and support the idea of unlawful federal usurpation of private companies autonomy, can you cite what you think you can use to keep the feds hands off of sites like this? “FR is private property” is meaningless.
“Some may not want to admit this crucial difference, but all the wise guys in the tech scam gone public, are about to find out how real it is... EVERY publicly traded tech company is subject. Musk will likely be the very next.
ROFL...”
ROFL? You are not even remotely reading what you write, are you?
“And of course the DOJ can bring anti trust actions against several of them as illegal monopolies.”
And they would lose. None of these sites are remotely monopolies. Standard Oil was a monopoly. Some random social media site is not. You have plenty to choose from. I learned of 7 that I didnt even know existed a week ago.
“And let’s not forget, the courts can rule they are the equivalent of the town square and thus cannot ban anybody who does not engage in clearly illegal speech.”
They wont, because that is an absurd observation. Those sites are not companies charted by the state. They dont owe you a space.
“.just like the 9th circuit ruled a privately owned shopping mall on private property could not bar a group of protestors from coming onto their property to protest.”
I’m not sure what you are looking at, but this only exists in California.
“There’s nothing tyrannical about any of that.’
Never really is when the embrace it. right?
yes I am.
you are supporting what will not be allowed to continue.
the big tech companies are doomed by their monopolistic abuse of the marketplace.
whine all you want. they are done...
you will see... like it or not.
“And they would lose. None of these sites are remotely monopolies. Standard Oil was a monopoly. Some random social media site is not. You have plenty to choose from. I learned of 7 that I didnt even know existed a week ago.”
Oh I disagree. Several of them hold a very high market share and have no real competitors worthy of the name due to network effects. ie. everybody is on youtube because everybody is on youtube. Same goes for facebook. Ergo, the barriers to entry are quite high. It is far from certain the DOJ would lose an antitrust action.
“They wont, because that is an absurd observation. Those sites are not companies charted by the state. They dont owe you a space.”
Its no more absurd than the 9th circuit’s ruling in the case I outlined. They “owe” us all a space in the same way that private shopping mall does.
“I’m not sure what you are looking at, but this only exists in California.”
Not exactly. The court Circuit Court in Alabama made a similar ruling about a company town in 1946. There IS precedent for this. The SCOTUS has never taken up the issue but could.
“Never really is when the embrace it. right?”
Call it the Fairness Doctrine 2.0
“Oh I disagree. Several of them hold a very high market share and have no real competitors worthy of the name”
So? Alternatives EXIST. You cannot declare something a monopoly because the existing alternatives arent “fun” or all your buddies refuse to use them.
“Its no more absurd than the 9th circuit’s ruling in the case I outlined. They “owe” us all a space in the same way that private shopping mall does.”
Conservatives talking about how they are “owed” something for free....what a flip-flop!
“Call it the Fairness Doctrine 2.0”
Because we were totally supporting the 1.0 version?
Some of you seriously need to give up the act and sign-up for DU, because I seriously cant tell the difference between that Dem-Socialist candidate from New York and some of the people here.
“whine all you want. they are done...”
Who the hell is “whining”?
I dont care if they all go under, but I’m not going to support soft-socialism that people on FR are embracing to do that.
You can make them fail by not using them. But they are too big to fail, so you are pushing for some state take over or extra-legal intervention so you dont have to quit your social media site.
President Trump is openly calling for Free Speech, the end of censorship, and the open market of ideas - he’s just like Hitler!
“So? Alternatives EXIST. You cannot declare something a monopoly because the existing alternatives arent “fun” or all your buddies refuse to use them.”
So? Being a monopoly doesn’t mean you have absolutely no competitors whatsoever.
“Conservatives talking about how they are “owed” something for free....what a flip-flop!”
Leftists wanting one set of rules for others and a different set for themselves. How remarkably consistent.
“Because we were totally supporting the 1.0 version?”
No. The first was misnamed. It was simply a giveaway to Netflix which hogs an enormous share of total bandwidth. What I propose would be true fairness in that it would prevent viewpoint discrimination by Big Tech.
“Some of you seriously need to give up the act and sign-up for DU, because I seriously cant tell the difference between that Dem-Socialist candidate from New York and some of the people here.”
Some of you need to drop the act and come out of the closet as Leftist shills for Big Tech.
I do not nor have I ever used social media.
They ARE a monopoly (of information product), publicly traded and subject to regulation by the Feds by that attribute.
The current cadre of Silicon Valley electronic socialists, have had plenty of time to self-reform their all impacting policies. They clearly will not do so voluntarily. They will be coerced, deconstructed and/or pressured by that and other governance devices, to self reform or they will be at&t’d.
They ARE a monopoly (of information product)”
Monopoly is a legal term. That is not remotely what it is.
“publicly traded and subject to regulation by the Feds by that attribute.”
Um, noooooooooooooooooooo. Just because you offer shares of stock does not mean the Feds have the ability to have extra-special regulations over your operations at their whim.
“The current cadre of Silicon Valley electronic socialists, have had plenty of time to self-reform their all impacting policies.”
They are idiots, but they are not obligated to “self-reform”, whatever that means. They run it like they want and they either rise or fall on that. They make money from ads, not your status updates.
” They clearly will not do so voluntarily. They will be coerced, deconstructed and/or pressured by that and other governance devices, to self reform or they will be at&t’d.”
That sounds like some goofy mafia-like threat. It certainly isnt based on a solid legal case of actual monopoly.
And btw, AT&T (Ma Bell) is a case that the complaints with Facebook have no analog whatsoever.
Facebook is more like AOL in the 90s. AOL was the way most people got onto the internet, but it wasn’t a monopoly because it was NOT the internet. It really wasn’t even an ISP because access to the web was just a side feature.
Facebook isnt the internet, not the only social media site out there by a long shot, and was not created to be a political battleground. So they will skate any antitrust actions without breaking a sweat.
“So? Being a monopoly doesn’t mean you have absolutely no competitors whatsoever”
Yeah? It also is about Facebook working to stifile your access to them, or engaging in actions where those sites cant work.
Facebook, as far as anyone has said, has done nothing to prevent competition nor stifle their operations. If you can prove that a Twitter, for instance, worked with Apple to kick Gab.ai out of their app store, then you have a case. But as far a FB goes, they are clean right now.
“Leftists wanting one set of rules for others and a different set for themselves. How remarkably consistent.”
True, but it’s playing dirty, unfortunately not illegal.
“No. The first was misnamed. It was simply a giveaway to Netflix which hogs an enormous share of total bandwidth. What I propose would be true fairness in that it would prevent viewpoint discrimination by Big Tech.”
The Fairness Doctrine was created decades ago to force radio stations that were dominated by conservative talk radio shows, to provide equal time for left-wing shows. I think you are referring to “Net Neutrality”.
“Some of you need to drop the act and come out of the closet as Leftist shills for Big Tech.
Exactly what am I “shilling”? I’m pointing out the holes in this shortcut socialism that is being floated. At no point have I said that these companies are doing the RIGHT thing, but I’ll be dammed if I get behind this big government nonsense that people are pushing to engage in complete misuse of anti-trust to make up for the laziness of our side to have not seen the danger that these companies represented, that many of us were warning of for years.
The left is dying for the right to go that route. To finally establish on both sides that the state has no legal borders and can interfere with any and all companies operations from A to Z.
“Yeah? It also is about Facebook working to stifile your access to them, or engaging in actions where those sites cant work.
Facebook, as far as anyone has said, has done nothing to prevent competition nor stifle their operations. If you can prove that a Twitter, for instance, worked with Apple to kick Gab.ai out of their app store, then you have a case. But as far a FB goes, they are clean right now.”
The DOJ need not prove one of the tech giants acted to stifle competition. Merely that they have an extremely high market share and that there are significant barriers to entry. Malfeasance is not a necessary element of proof in a court’s ruling that a company is a monopoly and thus in violation of anti trust law.
“True, but it’s playing dirty, unfortunately not illegal.”
Well....they got section 320 exemption on the argument that they did not have editorial control over content. Now they hare exercising editorial control over content via their “hate speech” policies and newly hired so-called “fact checkers”. Seems to me they’re trying to play it both ways here.
Then there are the arguments to be made about them being monopolies and the equivalent of the “town square” and thus enjoined from being able to censor.
“The Fairness Doctrine was created decades ago to force radio stations that were dominated by conservative talk radio shows, to provide equal time for left-wing shows. I think you are referring to “Net Neutrality”.
You’re correct. Mea Culpa.
“Exactly what am I “shilling”? I’m pointing out the holes in this shortcut socialism that is being floated. At no point have I said that these companies are doing the RIGHT thing, but I’ll be dammed if I get behind this big government nonsense that people are pushing to engage in complete misuse of anti-trust to make up for the laziness of our side to have not seen the danger that these companies represented, that many of us were warning of for years.”
Breaking up a monopoly is not socialism. Socialism is the ultimate monopoly - ie the government holds the monopoly, but make no mistake, monopolies suck and are not the free market. Monopolies must be broken up to ensure that there is competition - that there is a free market.
My position is that EITHER the government FORCE them to be just conduits like they originally claimed they were when they got section 320 exemption (that means no censorship), OR rule them to be monopolies and break them up. With a fragmented market, some companies could censor and that would be just fine. When a few giants dominate - each utterly dominant in its own domain - then censorship is really dangerous and should not be permitted.
“The left is dying for the right to go that route. To finally establish on both sides that the state has no legal borders and can interfere with any and all companies operations from A to Z.”
Again, I don’t agree that breaking up a monopoly = socialism
or that ruling a huge company that exhibits editorial control and utterly dominates one area (video sharing, online text messaging, etc etc) may not engage in viewpoint discrimination = socialism. I am not proposing that government take over and run these companies - only that a competitive market be restored whether under the rubrik of one company that does not interfere in a particular area or under many companies competing in that area some of which do interfere and others don’t or interfere with the exact opposite political bias.
One way or the other, the outcome will be their trip to the shredder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.