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

Skip to comments.

There Is Only One Solution To Social Media Deplatforming,
Townhall.com ^ | May 6, 2019 | Scott Morefield

Posted on 05/06/2019 3:30:38 AM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: iontheball

The problem is no one can prove it is a monopoly “in restraint of trade.”

FB/Twit erect NO “barriers” to entry, other than the fact that people voluntarily flock there. Any conservative wealthy person could create such a network, only none do.

A shift “might” be possible if a real alternative, such as Gab that fixed its problems and became user friendly, were to see President Trump abruptly leave Twit and join. Immediately about 50m followers would go there, and probably double as each of those undoubtedly has a few people who don’t follow Trump.

But legally, you’d find it difficult to justify the “barriers to entry” clause. Just because no consumers want to buy your product does not constitute a barrier to entry legally.


41 posted on 05/06/2019 6:47:37 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long
FB is a private company and just like the Christian baker....

Um.....no....FB is NOT a private company!

Facebook is publicly traded corporation owned by its individual shareholders, so yes, it's a private company. Facebook's use is so prevalent that perhaps it should be regulated like a public utility, but the fact remains: Facebook is a private company.

42 posted on 05/06/2019 6:54:16 AM PDT by Ahithophel (Communication is an art form susceptible to sudden technical failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ahithophel

Still, splitting hairs....doesn’t even compare to a mom and pop private bakery.


43 posted on 05/06/2019 7:19:56 AM PDT by Jane Long (Praise God, from whom ALL blessings flow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Ted Cruz idea is faster, and may be needed to stop these platforms from interfering with the 2020 elections. But eventually, antitrust proceedings need to be carried out against them.

As Europe is already beginning to do. They will take a very long time, and actually need a new, Civil Rights, justification for antitrust, but the ball needs to get rolling.

Eventually, they must either adopt the traditional “advocacy of criminal violence” standard, or they must be broken up. And “criminal violence” must be defined as actual criminal violence, not just imaginary or hysterical belief in violence.


44 posted on 05/06/2019 7:44:35 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Desperate swarm sewage drains for water..." Venezuelans or D.C. Swamp denizens?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

that is why the only option is regulation as a utility


45 posted on 05/06/2019 7:45:52 AM PDT by Chickensoup (Voter ID for 2020!! Leftists totalitarian fascists appear to be planning to eradicate conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

Sure, I could see that as a reason for disavowing the monopoly requirement.

I was speaking to the original premise of the article and how I believe the author gets it wrong vis-à-vis Ted Cruz’s argument. Cruz is correct in his argument that these platforms are actually content providers because they do edit, change, allow, deny, or limit access to content based on their editorial review, algorithms, etc... They moderate content, which is the same as editing.


46 posted on 05/06/2019 7:50:05 AM PDT by jurroppi1 (The Left doesnÂ’t have ideas, it has cliches. H/T Flick Lives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack
The only way these companies could be regulated on the basis as a monopoly would be if they were providing a critical good or service.
Like oil, transportation of goods and people, or communications.
________________________________________
Is free communication in a free society critical? Is the Internet critical in today's society? Are monopolistic communication mediums free to control whatever speech they desire over their platforms? There are lots of small communication oriented businesses that operate in the market place of news and ideas that use these monopolistic mediums to conduct their small business operations. There are many individuals on You Tube who have full time news and commentary channels/bogs that derive funding for their operations through subscriptions and business sponsorships. Subscriber numbers and ‘like’ votes on You Tube determine lots of things such as where the website is placed on the Google search engine. When these numbers are manipulated artificially low, the private websites suffer. When deplaning, banning, or other tactics are employed in an ideologically driven discriminatory manner to curtail free speech of certain classes or categories of individuals, you have an artificially forced thought shaping and control practice taking place in a society. Remember, information is power. Is the only recourse for these aggrieved individuals to sue the private police? I believe that placing these communication and information (Google) mediums under FCC regulation would require them to adhere uniformly to free and fair speech principles or risk the ‘big stick of hefty fines.
47 posted on 05/06/2019 8:03:09 AM PDT by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
I think people are getting it wrong.

Alex Jones (and company) are not being de-personed because of what they said, exactly.

They are being de-personed because of the INFLUENCE they had in the last election.

It's a subtle difference but a difference.

Had the formula that has always worked still worked--Alex Jones would have been allowed to go on business as usual. That formula was painting him as a whacko, extremist, dangerous, etc. However, that was no longer working. In fact, Joe Six Pack, wife AND kids were now getting their information from places like Infowars and the MEMES were insanely powerful in getting the ideas out there and painting pictures.

And remember this, Alex Jones and the alt-light (Paul Joseph Watson, Cernovich, etc) are like a gateway drug. Once (younger) people discover those sources, they quickly red-pill and move on to even redder pilling sources.

Alex Jones and the alt-right meme makers won the last election. They think they can stop it from happening again. However, the one thing on side is they can't get inside the heads of these kids that grew up on the internet. It's like they speak two different languages. It's a large part of WHY the left can't meme.

48 posted on 05/06/2019 9:25:54 AM PDT by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
I think people are getting it wrong.

Alex Jones (and company) are not being de-personed because of what they said, exactly.

They are being de-personed because of the INFLUENCE they had in the last election.

It's a subtle difference but a difference.

Had the formula that has always worked still worked--Alex Jones would have been allowed to go on business as usual. That formula was painting him as a whacko, extremist, dangerous, etc. However, that was no longer working. In fact, Joe Six Pack, wife AND kids were now getting their information from places like Infowars and the MEMES were insanely powerful in getting the ideas out there and painting pictures.

And remember this, Alex Jones and the alt-light (Paul Joseph Watson, Cernovich, etc) are like a gateway drug. Once (younger) people discover those sources, they quickly red-pill and move on to even redder pilling sources.

Alex Jones and the alt-right meme makers won the last election. They think they can stop it from happening again. However, the one thing on side is they can't get inside the heads of these kids that grew up on the internet. It's like they speak two different languages. It's a large part of WHY the left can't meme.

49 posted on 05/06/2019 9:25:54 AM PDT by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

ISP’s most certainly fall under the guise monopoly law since the control access to the internet which is critical to business, but I don’t see why Google, FB, or Tweter is critical.
Yes it would be difficult to start a rival company to these entities, but not impossible so long as Google, FB, etc... Do no actively try to suppress them.
I don’t use any of the above companies products and i am not adversly affected.

That is why i don’t see the gov’t being able to break them up.


50 posted on 05/06/2019 10:42:57 AM PDT by CapnJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

For me it was a bit inconvenient in the beginning. I found other ways to contact the people that I really need to. It has worked out just fine. ;o)


51 posted on 05/06/2019 2:00:13 PM PDT by super7man (Madam Defarge, knitting, knitting, always knitting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ahithophel

Facebook began a public trade of stock after the 18 May 2012 IPO. The Facebook Common Stock can be found listed as (FB) on the NASDAG Composite.


52 posted on 05/06/2019 9:46:48 PM PDT by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Facebook & Twitter are no different than Bell Telephone was in the 70’s.Private Co. Ma Bell built all the infrastructure, but were broken up anyway. These are public communication utilities. They cannot be allowed to discriminate or censor.


53 posted on 05/06/2019 10:19:23 PM PDT by weston (As far as I'm concerned, it's Christ or nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

A few weeks ago I had a meltdown and flashed my boobs.

Don’t goad me. Who knows what could happen.


54 posted on 05/07/2019 5:08:48 AM PDT by BarbM ( President Trump: MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LS
“The problem is no one can prove it is a monopoly “in restraint of trade.””

Lets say a prospective employer rejects you for something you posted at one time on Facebook?

55 posted on 05/07/2019 7:53:32 AM PDT by rottweiller_inc (inter canem et lupum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They are a Platform or a Publisher. They can’t continue to hide.


56 posted on 05/07/2019 8:06:11 AM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

critical to Millennials :)


57 posted on 05/07/2019 8:09:46 AM PDT by rottweiller_inc (inter canem et lupum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc

“critical to Millennials :)”

But not to normal human beings.


58 posted on 05/08/2019 3:07:34 PM PDT by CapnJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dp0622

Try this one on for size: split the f**king companies up and make them compete with one another, just like we did with Ma Bell.

Let’s stop playing patsy with these morons.


59 posted on 05/08/2019 3:09:58 PM PDT by Gulf War One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

exactly


60 posted on 05/09/2019 10:35:35 AM PDT by rottweiller_inc (inter canem et lupum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

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.

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