(12-31-2017 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (12-27-2017 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-27-2017 12:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote: Censorship is stupid easy to prove.
It's a known fact that Facebook has been reducing the reach of posts from news outlets that don't pay. If you run a small town newspaper and have 1000 facebook followers your newest post may only reach 200 of those followers unless you pay to promote it.
I get about 10% to 15% reach on Facebook to people who follow my site. For $5 I can get about 25% for around $40 bucks I can reach about half of the people who clicked saying they wanted to see my content.
Google skews results as well plus they use a nifty trick. Search google for say Home Depot. The first listing will be a listing for Home Depot that is an ad and Home Depot gets charged if you click it. Scroll below it and there will be the google result which they don't get paid for.
But I wouldn't expect any regulation coming soon. This Congress and president aren't upping regulations.
The issue isnt the legal issue of censorship. Google, Facebook, Twitter (and all the rest) are *all* private actors. They can legally 'censor' whatever the blast they want whenever they want with *no* legal repercussions.
To legislate (or use government action such as suing) to stop their practice is more dangerous than the perceived benefit.
Why do you want a version a "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies? Honestly speaking, if such regulations were put into place I think the social media companies would (justly so) sue the fing pants off the government for a violation of *their* First Amendment rights as private actors.
The *only* justification for such rules and doctrines is that normal broadcast radio and TV use limited resources (spectrum). The license to use that spectrum (a very limited resource, mind you) is that they *don't* put their hands on the scales.
I fail to see *any* justification for government regulation for social media at all. In fact, I would extremely worried if they did.
It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.
I dont see any problems with Sherman or Clayton.
Sherman 1 requires :
(1) an agreement;
(2) which unreasonably restrains competition; and
(3) which affects interstate commerce.
(anticompetive collusion).
No agreement between any of the social media, no Sherman 1 violation.
Sherman 2a requires:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
(misuse of monopoly power in an anti-competitive)
Again, the individual social media might meet element 1. But what in the 'bad usage' complained of is quashing other competition? None that I can see.
Sherman 2b requires:
(1) qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a monopoly
(2) specific intent to monopolize; and
(3) dangerous probability of success (actual monopolization).
(attempted monopolization through bad acts. Again no violation.)
Clayton Act -- many individual and particularized violations, including such items as:
Quote:price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);
sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);
mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);
any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. § 19).
(From Wikipedia entry for Clayton Act)
Again, no current violation by 'big tech'.
So under a current "monopoly analysis" there are no problems.
By your statement
Quote:It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.
it seems that you must mean "[i] matters when you do a
brand new defined variety of monopoly analysis as opposed to anything that actually exists.
What I hear from the "brand new defined analysis" that runs through this thread really amounts to nothing more than an "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies. I can't support that in the slightest. And I guess that is where you and I will probably have to agree to disagree.