(01-10-2021 09:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 08:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 08:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 08:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 06:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What were the bad Dem actions that were implemented solely by Dems and not any Reps?

And on cue, here is Lad asking me to show him the proof.

It sounds as if he is saying, yes the dems cheated, but so did the Republicans. He wants me to prove the cheating was disproportional.

Can't do that Lad, nor is it something I said.

Sometimes I wonder if he reads my posts before he replies.

lad rails against people who dont quote him exactly, yet here he asks something that wasnt noted at all.

that is, lad not only didnt quote exactly, he simply pulled a new concept out of thin air. The hypocrisy is just amazing.

Just previously sometime in the last 24 hours he lambasted me for exactly just that. JFC it gets tiresome.

What are you even taking about? OO literally said he believed that there were bad actions by Dems (see bold). I asked him what those actions were...

Actually you did not.

Lol. You’re hanging your hat on the distinction of a Dem bad action and a Dem bad action that Reps didn’t also do.

L-O-L.

I have a question. On another board, I was asked what democrat policies I opposed, and I listed the following:

- the Green New Deal
- strict gun controls
- single-payer health care
- highly “progressive” income tax structures with top rates well above world averages
- the “poverty trap” welfare plantation of focused and means-tested programs
- micro-management regulatory rules and byzantine regulatory processes
- ending electoral college
- packing the Supreme Court

The response I got from the leftist posters was that I didn't understand what the democrat platform was. So for my left-leaning friends on here, if those are not democrat policies, what are democrat policies, other than "Orange Man Bad"?

(01-11-2021 07:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 09:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 08:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 08:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 08:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And on cue, here is Lad asking me to show him the proof.

It sounds as if he is saying, yes the dems cheated, but so did the Republicans. He wants me to prove the cheating was disproportional.

Can't do that Lad, nor is it something I said.

Sometimes I wonder if he reads my posts before he replies.

lad rails against people who dont quote him exactly, yet here he asks something that wasnt noted at all.

that is, lad not only didnt quote exactly, he simply pulled a new concept out of thin air. The hypocrisy is just amazing.

Just previously sometime in the last 24 hours he lambasted me for exactly just that. JFC it gets tiresome.

What are you even taking about? OO literally said he believed that there were bad actions by Dems (see bold). I asked him what those actions were...

Actually you did not.

Lol. You’re hanging your hat on the distinction of a Dem bad action and a Dem bad action that Reps didn’t also do.

L-O-L.

Coming from Mr. 'denial is not ignorant' that is quite the tack you are taking.

Coming from the guy that squawked about quotes that never existed, again, that is quite the tack you are taking.

Coming from the guy that felt the urgent need to change OO's predicate to something else, thrice now, that is quite the tack you are taking.

Thank you for now noting that even your own questions dont ask the same thing. Instead of denoting it, (or perhaps fing reading at the get go), you attack.

Amazing that, wouldnt you say?

Banzai !!!!!!

Edited: Headed back to gopher removal duty and armadillo tracking. Far more productive than watching the lad gyrations de jour. Anyone want me to video and post the tannerite solution for the gopher? My neighbor swears by it and handed me a glob of it to use, but while it could be fun to watch it really could be over the top for the situation....

(01-11-2021 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a question. On another board, I was asked what democrat policies I opposed, and I listed the following:

- the Green New Deal
- strict gun controls
- single-payer health care
- highly “progressive” income tax structures with top rates well above world averages
- the “poverty trap” welfare plantation of focused and means-tested programs
- micro-management regulatory rules and byzantine regulatory processes
- ending electoral college
- packing the Supreme Court

The response I got from the leftist posters was that I didn't understand what the democrat platform was. So for my left-leaning friends on here, if those are not democrat policies, what are democrat policies, other than "Orange Man Bad"?

You forgot the extension of California work regulations like A.B. 5 to the national scope, which throws the net of 'employee' as opposed to 'contractor' to practically anyone who even thinks of working.

(01-11-2021 07:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 08:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 08:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 06:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What were the bad Dem actions that were implemented solely by Dems and not any Reps?

And on cue, here is Lad asking me to show him the proof.

It sounds as if he is saying, yes the dems cheated, but so did the Republicans. He wants me to prove the cheating was disproportional.

Can't do that Lad, nor is it something I said.

Sometimes I wonder if he reads my posts before he replies.

You said “I believe there was a lot of Democratic bad actions.”

How can you believe there were bad actions but not point to what they were? I didn’t even ask for proof (as you said, that may not be possible to provide), I asked for what the bad actions were.

If you can’t even name the bad actions that were undertaken by Dems, how can you argue that “bad actions” occurred?

First, I said "I Believe". Need an explanation of what that means? It is at least as founded in fact as the belief of many in your party that police forces are full of homicidal racists.

Second, you asked me "What were the bad Dem actions that were implemented solely by Dems and not any Reps" (This time the quotation marks indicate a quotation). I did not allege whatever you are asking there.

Third, others here have pointed multiple times to actions by your party that many find suspicious. Much better foundation for that than the supposed collusion "evidence' you think is meaningful.

Fourth, Democrats have a history of cheating and getting away with it.

Fifth, since you clearly believe the Dems did not cheat, is that a belief founded on facts or faith?

Wait, wait, wait, because you say “I believe” means you don’t have to have an explanation of the statement? Again, difference between saying show me the evidence to back up your belief and asking for details on the belief.

It’s astounding that you won’t even provide details on your belief - it’s just Dems are bad, therefore there must have been fraud.

Also, the reason I asked about actions solely confined to Dems, is that any bad actions that were carried out by both parties would theoretically cancel each other out. So it’s really only relevant to talk about bad actions taken solely by Dems. But then again, if you can’t even articulate what those actions are, there isn’t anything to discuss...

so, by ask me to give you instances of cheating, you are NOT asking for proof? What if I said I believed in a benevolent God, or in a pantheon of gods related to natural things, such as a God of Thunder. What if I said I believed in the mission of the democratic party (as it appears you do)? What if I said I believed a lt of the phone calls I get from unknown numbers are scams, and refuse to take their calls? What if I said I believe in love?

You miss the essence of believing, I think.

Democrats have a long history of cheating, from Landslide Lyndon to Kennedy to Franken to McCloskey. They also appear to have a mental culture of the ends justify the means (BLM riots, MSM bias, Russiagate). They also have this single minded four year history of GET TRUMP! All these things and more make me trust them as much as I would trust a stranger at my door offering to fix my roof cheap if I will just advance him the money for materials. I don't need "proof" that it is a scam. I don't need to let them do it because I don't have "proof".

GoodOwl has presented a lot of stuff some would consider evidence, and has been summarily dismissed by the Democratic UI's and their closed minds here. Why should I subject myself to presenting evidence that will just be dismissed?

So to repeat myself, I think there is a high probability of Democratic cheating, whenever and wherever and however they think they can do it. Some is in what we might call gray areas, and some in much darker ways. I cannot prove it and don't want to spend my life working on it, like Adam Schiff. How am I supposed to prove that ______ happened in Michigan and _____________ happened in Georgia? And I sure cannot prove it to satisfaction of people with closed minds but a simple faith in the goodness of Democrats. And I sure as hell cannot do it before jan. 20.

The second part of my statements is that whether trump was voted out, or counted out, Biden won the election and will be inaugurated Jan 20. I cannot say if the expected cheating turned any states or turned enough states to turn the election. Maybe, maybe not.

But I would like for this country to act as it has before so many times - a peaceful handover followed by NO vengeance taking or actions against officiasl of the outgoing regime. I have already been disappointed in the former, and now expect to be disappointed in the latter. Unfortunately, the UIs will cheer the pogrom.

I do expect the blue ripple to be reversed at the polls in 2022. Besides the normal anti-admin bias of a midterm election, the Dems will have to battle the disappointments of those they promised so much to, and they will not have Trump to run against.

So President Harris will have to deal with a Republican Congress - both houses.

Quote:- the Green New Deal
- highly “progressive” income tax structures with top rates well above world averages
- the “poverty trap” welfare plantation of focused and means-tested programs
- micro-management regulatory rules and byzantine regulatory processes
the extension of California work regulations like A.B. 5 to the national scope, which throws the net of 'employee' as opposed to 'contractor' to practically anyone who even thinks of working.

taken collectively, these are known as the War on Business or as the War on Capitalism.

Early today, Ron Paul (Rand's father, and past Libertarian candidate for President) wrote this article that he posted to Facebook.

Later today, on Twitter:

“With no explanation other than ‘repeatedly going against our community standards,’ Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified.” -- Ron Paul

Techno-fascists gonna techno-fascist.

Awesome world you are constructing progressives. You should be proud of yourselves.

When modern leftists are asked to explain why they have moved so completely and so forcefully from liberalism to statism, their most frequently-uttered justification has been that corporations have too much power to control political discourse.

Well.

(01-12-2021 09:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  When modern leftists are asked to explain why they have moved so completely and so forcefully from liberalism to statism, their most frequently-uttered justification has been that corporations have too much power to control political discourse.

Well.

What is the term of the political system that emphasizes collectivism and statism, and engages private enterprise to be a major actor in implementing their political agenda?

It escapes me.

(01-12-2021 09:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  When modern leftists are asked to explain why they have moved so completely and so forcefully from liberalism to statism, their most frequently-uttered justification has been that corporations have too much power to control political discourse.

Well.

What is the term of the political system that emphasizes collectivism and statism, and engages private enterprise to be a major actor in implementing their political agenda?

It escapes me.

Don't worry. It will be rammed down your throat the next two years.

Turns out Parler found a provider that wont blackball them. I have ended up moving all of my hosting services from Amazon to that provider.

But here is the fun thing to do I found out by accident --

I wanted to check if the Parler website was back up, so lazily I typed 'parler' (I didnt say that lad, I am delineating the word, just so you dont go apeshit) into the upper field of my search engine. The shortcut way we almost all do -- all of my websites get the first 'hit' in the resulting list returned. That is, type 'quotescanmeandelineatingwords' into the upper browser bar and you get the site quotescanmeadelineatingwords.com as the first hit.

That is except for one search engine and browser.

Doing it in Opera with duckduckgo you get parler.com.

Doing it in Opera with Google there is zero return to the actual site. The dirtbags have delisted the site from even being searched for.

Im going to ask some people I once knew through work to see if I can pick up some secondary based ownership interest in it. Parler is going to have a fun time with their anti-trust actions here.

Progressive politics in full view here folks. Cancel culture at its extreme. I really would like to know the difference between Maoists and progressives in this portion of the issue at this point.

(01-12-2021 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turns out Parler found a provider that wont blackball them. I have ended up moving all of my hosting services from Amazon to that provider.

But here is the fun thing to do I found out by accident --

I wanted to check if the Parler website was back up, so lazily I typed 'parler' (I didnt say that lad, I am delineating the word, just so you dont go apeshit) into the upper field of my search engine. The shortcut way we almost all do -- all of my websites get the first 'hit' in the resulting list returned. That is, type 'quotescanmeandelineatingwords' into the upper browser bar and you get the site quotescanmeadelineatingwords.com as the first hit.

That is except for one search engine and browser.

Doing it in Opera with duckduckgo you get parler.com.

Doing it in Opera with Google there is zero return to the actual site. The fkwads have delisted the site from even being searched for.

Im going to ask some people I once knew through work to see if I can pick up some secondary based ownership interest in it. Parler is going to have a fun time with their anti-trust actions here.

Progressive politics in full view here folks. Cancel culture at its extreme. I really would like to know the difference between Maoists and progressives in this portion of the issue at this point.

Control the information flow and you control the people. That has worked for innumerable despots and dictators.

(01-12-2021 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turns out Parler found a provider that wont blackball them. I have ended up moving all of my hosting services from Amazon to that provider.

But here is the fun thing to do I found out by accident --

I wanted to check if the Parler website was back up, so lazily I typed 'parler' (I didnt say that lad, I am delineating the word, just so you dont go apeshit) into the upper field of my search engine. The shortcut way we almost all do -- all of my websites get the first 'hit' in the resulting list returned. That is, type 'quotescanmeandelineatingwords' into the upper browser bar and you get the site quotescanmeadelineatingwords.com as the first hit.

That is except for one search engine and browser.

Doing it in Opera with duckduckgo you get parler.com.

Doing it in Opera with Google there is zero return to the actual site. The fkwads have delisted the site from even being searched for.

Im going to ask some people I once knew through work to see if I can pick up some secondary based ownership interest in it. Parler is going to have a fun time with their anti-trust actions here.

Progressive politics in full view here folks. Cancel culture at its extreme. I really would like to know the difference between Maoists and progressives in this portion of the issue at this point.

Control the information flow and you control the people. That has worked for innumerable despots and dictators.

Before Big Tech, colleges led the way in de-platforming conservatives. Many of us here noted that then. And many disagreed that it was even happening. Kind of hard to argue that it doesnt exist in full force now.

Question for our leftists here: are you supportive/proud of the current de-platforming orgy that is currently happening? Serious question, although it sound rhetorical. At least, one would surmise it be rhetorical, but I would really like to know your all's perspective on it.

(01-12-2021 10:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turns out Parler found a provider that wont blackball them. I have ended up moving all of my hosting services from Amazon to that provider.

But here is the fun thing to do I found out by accident --

I wanted to check if the Parler website was back up, so lazily I typed 'parler' (I didnt say that lad, I am delineating the word, just so you dont go apeshit) into the upper field of my search engine. The shortcut way we almost all do -- all of my websites get the first 'hit' in the resulting list returned. That is, type 'quotescanmeandelineatingwords' into the upper browser bar and you get the site quotescanmeadelineatingwords.com as the first hit.

That is except for one search engine and browser.

Doing it in Opera with duckduckgo you get parler.com.

Doing it in Opera with Google there is zero return to the actual site. The fkwads have delisted the site from even being searched for.

Im going to ask some people I once knew through work to see if I can pick up some secondary based ownership interest in it. Parler is going to have a fun time with their anti-trust actions here.

Progressive politics in full view here folks. Cancel culture at its extreme. I really would like to know the difference between Maoists and progressives in this portion of the issue at this point.

Control the information flow and you control the people. That has worked for innumerable despots and dictators.

Before Big Tech, colleges led the way in de-platforming conservatives. Many of us here noted that then. And many disagreed that it was even happening. Kind of hard to argue that it doesnt exist in full force now.

Question for our leftists here: are you supportive/proud of the current de-platforming orgy that is currently happening? Serious question, although it sound rhetorical. At least, one would surmise it be rhetorical, but I would really like to know your all's perspective on it.

It's kind of a hard deal... if the platform is being used to help foment an insurrection against the US government then I understand the concern.

It's a slippery slope for sure, though. It seems that at this point companies are taking advantage of this moment to pile on a politician that they intensely dislike.

In general, I am opposed to the deplatforming that has taken place recently. I think we have to be really careful with this type of approach to political disagreement.

(01-12-2021 10:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turns out Parler found a provider that wont blackball them. I have ended up moving all of my hosting services from Amazon to that provider.

But here is the fun thing to do I found out by accident --

I wanted to check if the Parler website was back up, so lazily I typed 'parler' (I didnt say that lad, I am delineating the word, just so you dont go apeshit) into the upper field of my search engine. The shortcut way we almost all do -- all of my websites get the first 'hit' in the resulting list returned. That is, type 'quotescanmeandelineatingwords' into the upper browser bar and you get the site quotescanmeadelineatingwords.com as the first hit.

That is except for one search engine and browser.

Doing it in Opera with duckduckgo you get parler.com.

Doing it in Opera with Google there is zero return to the actual site. The fkwads have delisted the site from even being searched for.

Im going to ask some people I once knew through work to see if I can pick up some secondary based ownership interest in it. Parler is going to have a fun time with their anti-trust actions here.

Progressive politics in full view here folks. Cancel culture at its extreme. I really would like to know the difference between Maoists and progressives in this portion of the issue at this point.

Control the information flow and you control the people. That has worked for innumerable despots and dictators.

Before Big Tech, colleges led the way in de-platforming conservatives. Many of us here noted that then. And many disagreed that it was even happening. Kind of hard to argue that it doesnt exist in full force now.

Question for our leftists here: are you supportive/proud of the current de-platforming orgy that is currently happening? Serious question, although it sound rhetorical. At least, one would surmise it be rhetorical, but I would really like to know your all's perspective on it.

I'm torn about this - it's not binary (but you often have a really hard time with that concept).

Do we want the government to force these companies to operate in a way where they're required to provide service to all individuals, regardless of content? Political affiliation is not a protected class and there is evidence that some of these people were using these platforms to plan the riots.

Some of these tech firms are so large that they're basically monopolies (side note: in 2021, we are going to see antitrust laws flex their muscles), so do we want these select few companies basically dictating what can go into the public forum? That power is something that should probably not be concentrated in the hands of a few, unelected business people.

The answer I'm leaning towards is to bust up the monopoly that exists so these platforms can make the decisions they'd like to make about who they host, but there are viable alternatives out there that can decide to support these view points.

I'm not up in arms with the general idea of non-government entities being allowed to choose who speaks to their organizations. The alternative (forcing those entities to be a platform) seems more like communist-China than what we're seeing here.

As I saw elsewhere, do you think China is more likely to allow its social networks to take down Xi supporters or require that they provide a platform for his supporters?

(01-12-2021 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 10:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turns out Parler found a provider that wont blackball them. I have ended up moving all of my hosting services from Amazon to that provider.

But here is the fun thing to do I found out by accident --

I wanted to check if the Parler website was back up, so lazily I typed 'parler' (I didnt say that lad, I am delineating the word, just so you dont go apeshit) into the upper field of my search engine. The shortcut way we almost all do -- all of my websites get the first 'hit' in the resulting list returned. That is, type 'quotescanmeandelineatingwords' into the upper browser bar and you get the site quotescanmeadelineatingwords.com as the first hit.

That is except for one search engine and browser.

Doing it in Opera with duckduckgo you get parler.com.

Doing it in Opera with Google there is zero return to the actual site. The fkwads have delisted the site from even being searched for.

Im going to ask some people I once knew through work to see if I can pick up some secondary based ownership interest in it. Parler is going to have a fun time with their anti-trust actions here.

Progressive politics in full view here folks. Cancel culture at its extreme. I really would like to know the difference between Maoists and progressives in this portion of the issue at this point.

Control the information flow and you control the people. That has worked for innumerable despots and dictators.

Before Big Tech, colleges led the way in de-platforming conservatives. Many of us here noted that then. And many disagreed that it was even happening. Kind of hard to argue that it doesnt exist in full force now.

Question for our leftists here: are you supportive/proud of the current de-platforming orgy that is currently happening? Serious question, although it sound rhetorical. At least, one would surmise it be rhetorical, but I would really like to know your all's perspective on it.

I'm torn about this - it's not binary (but you often have a really hard time with that concept).

Dude -- I am attorney. I am paid to be binary in that sense. Get off your high hat.

Quote:Do we want the government to force these companies to operate in a way where they're required to provide service to all individuals, regardless of content? Political affiliation is not a protected class and there is evidence that some of these people were using these platforms to plan the riots.

Yes some did. Absolutely. But that brings up three points. And a small aside.

Small aside first: did you mean 'riot' instead of 'riots'? Or are there others that happened while I was asleep or blowing up gopher holes?

a) did not facebook and/or twitter allow people in its doors to plan on the BLM side? I would hazard a yes there as well. Given that, for the same transgression, why didn't FB/Twitter get de-platformed?

b) I would agree with your insinuation a little more, if a large proportion of the Parler crowd 'plan[ned] the riots'. But we are talking about a user base of 2.8 million. I dont buy in to having an extremely small subset who 'plan[ned] the riots'.

c) And in 'plan[ned] the riots', I dont mean 'planned the protest[s]'.

Quote:Some of these tech firms are so large that they're basically monopolies [side note removed to below], so do we want these select few companies basically dictating what can go into the public forum? That power is something that should probably not be concentrated in the hands of a few, unelected business people.

Amazing, something that we both agree on. Or my solution is put them under the regime of a 'common carrier' --- if they truly are a common carrier then allow them the protection of 230 as they currently do.

But, if they exercise anywhere near the power of editing that they currently do, then --- let them deal with the ancillary lawsuits that any publisher has and that they have shielded themselves with for the last 20 years. Kind of common sense -- if one is doesnt control what is on their 'pipe', then the full brunt of responsibility devolves to the poster themself. When you decide to be an editor in chief -- then you are responsible.

Quote:(side note: in 2021, we are going to see antitrust laws flex their muscles)

There is no way a Biden administration moves against FB, Google, or Twitter. Criminy, they drug him over the finish line with their heel firmly on anything that made him look bad.

That doesnt preclude the Parler lawsuit that absolutely will be touched off. But there wont be government intervention or a US government DOJ led action.

Quote:I'm not up in arms with the general idea of non-government entities being allowed to choose who speaks to their organizations. The alternative (forcing those entities to be a platform) seems more like communist-China than what we're seeing here.

The idea is not 'forced speech', the idea of making the mega-Tech companies a de facto 'public space for ideas'. That is precisely what they have built. As an example: airports are required to provide for allowing 'public space for ideas' on the theory that while many are public/private efforts, they have become de facto areas of the social commons.

mega-Tech, imo, should be considered as such an entity that must provide a common public speaking space. I would draw the distinction at size ---- obviously CSNBBS is a pipsqueak in the arena of public communication; who really cares what restrictions are placed at that level by private ownership.

In the case of Twitter and FB, they are so large that they have become de facto public spaces.

But the promotion of free speech (even by common carrier designation) doesnt even come anywhere close to being compared to CCP. Free speech is entirely anathema to that system, mind you.

Quote:As I saw elsewhere, do you think China is more likely to allow its social networks to take down Xi supporters or require that they provide a platform for his supporters?

I think the CCP isnt in the business of 'allowing', they tell. And to be honest, in terms of free speech, that concept is about as devoid in that system as water exists on the surface of Mars. China would force its social networks (as it does now) to restrict speech to what the government mandates is allowable.

The question if trying to tie that into this discussion would not be 'provide a platform for the regime's supporters', but to 'provide a platform for their critics'.

(01-12-2021 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 10:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turns out Parler found a provider that wont blackball them. I have ended up moving all of my hosting services from Amazon to that provider.

But here is the fun thing to do I found out by accident --

I wanted to check if the Parler website was back up, so lazily I typed 'parler' (I didnt say that lad, I am delineating the word, just so you dont go apeshit) into the upper field of my search engine. The shortcut way we almost all do -- all of my websites get the first 'hit' in the resulting list returned. That is, type 'quotescanmeandelineatingwords' into the upper browser bar and you get the site quotescanmeadelineatingwords.com as the first hit.

That is except for one search engine and browser.

Doing it in Opera with duckduckgo you get parler.com.

Doing it in Opera with Google there is zero return to the actual site. The fkwads have delisted the site from even being searched for.

Im going to ask some people I once knew through work to see if I can pick up some secondary based ownership interest in it. Parler is going to have a fun time with their anti-trust actions here.

Progressive politics in full view here folks. Cancel culture at its extreme. I really would like to know the difference between Maoists and progressives in this portion of the issue at this point.

Control the information flow and you control the people. That has worked for innumerable despots and dictators.

Before Big Tech, colleges led the way in de-platforming conservatives. Many of us here noted that then. And many disagreed that it was even happening. Kind of hard to argue that it doesnt exist in full force now.

Question for our leftists here: are you supportive/proud of the current de-platforming orgy that is currently happening? Serious question, although it sound rhetorical. At least, one would surmise it be rhetorical, but I would really like to know your all's perspective on it.

I'm torn about this - it's not binary (but you often have a really hard time with that concept).

Dude -- I am attorney. I am paid to be binary in that sense. Get off your high hat.

Quote:Do we want the government to force these companies to operate in a way where they're required to provide service to all individuals, regardless of content? Political affiliation is not a protected class and there is evidence that some of these people were using these platforms to plan the riots.

Yes some did. Absolutely. But that brings up three points. And a small aside.

Small aside first: did you mean 'riot' instead of 'riots'? Or are there others that happened while I was asleep or blowing up gopher holes?

a) did not facebook and/or twitter allow people in its doors to plan on the BLM side? I would hazard a yes there as well. Given that, for the same transgression, why didn't FB/Twitter get de-platformed?

b) I would agree with your insinuation a little more, if a large proportion of the Parler crowd 'plan[ned] the riots'. But we are talking about a user base of 2.8 million. I dont buy in to having an extremely small subset who 'plan[ned] the riots'.

c) And in 'plan[ned] the riots', I dont mean 'planned the protest[s]'.

Quote:Some of these tech firms are so large that they're basically monopolies [side note removed to below], so do we want these select few companies basically dictating what can go into the public forum? That power is something that should probably not be concentrated in the hands of a few, unelected business people.

Amazing, something that we both agree on. Or my solution is put them under the regime of a 'common carrier' --- if they truly are a common carrier then allow them the protection of 230 as they currently do.

But, if they exercise anywhere near the power of editing that they currently do, then --- let them deal with the ancillary lawsuits that any publisher has and that they have shielded themselves with for the last 20 years. Kind of common sense -- if one is doesnt control what is on their 'pipe', then the full brunt of responsibility devolves to the poster themself. When you decide to be an editor in chief -- then you are responsible.

Quote:(side note: in 2021, we are going to see antitrust laws flex their muscles)

There is no way a Biden administration moves against FB, Google, or Twitter. Criminy, they drug him over the finish line with their heel firmly on anything that made him look bad.

That doesnt preclude the Parler lawsuit that absolutely will be touched off. But there wont be government intervention or a US government DOJ led action.

Quote:I'm not up in arms with the general idea of non-government entities being allowed to choose who speaks to their organizations. The alternative (forcing those entities to be a platform) seems more like communist-China than what we're seeing here.

The idea is not 'forced speech', the idea of making the mega-Tech companies a de facto 'public space for ideas'. That is precisely what they have built. As an example: airports are required to provide for allowing 'public space for ideas' on the theory that while many are public/private efforts, they have become de facto areas of the social commons.

mega-Tech, imo, should be considered as such an entity that must provide a common public speaking space. I would draw the distinction at size ---- obviously CSNBBS is a pipsqueak in the arena of public communication; who really cares what restrictions are placed at that level by private ownership.

In the case of Twitter and FB, they are so large that they have become de facto public spaces.

But the promotion of free speech (even by common carrier designation) doesnt even come anywhere close to being compared to CCP. Free speech is entirely anathema to that system, mind you.

Quote:As I saw elsewhere, do you think China is more likely to allow its social networks to take down Xi supporters or require that they provide a platform for his supporters?

I think the CCP isnt in the business of 'allowing', they tell. And to be honest, in terms of free speech, that concept is about as devoid in that system as water exists on the surface of Mars. China would force its social networks (as it does now) to restrict speech to what the government mandates is allowable.

The question if trying to tie that into this discussion would not be 'provide a platform for the regime's supporters', but to 'provide a platform for their critics'.

That line at the end is just a duck and weave from my question. The alternative to allowing a media platform to decide who it provides its serves to is forcing said platform to provide its serves to someone. You're taking away one non-governmental organization's freedom to give the other non-governmental organization freedom.

It's why it isn't cut and dry, and why I don't think it's really a partisan issue. For example, Hawley screaming about his first amendment rights being infringed when he lost a book deal, is inherently arguing that a company be forced by the government to print his book.

As to the anti-trust suits, they are coming. I keep hearing more and more chatter on various tech/business podcasts and I see more and more articles about it. It's a place where Dems and Reps align, and frankly, the big boys (Facebook, Amazon, and Google [maybe even Alphabet] in particular) are getting too big for healthy competition and many are already being charged with anti-competitive behavior.

https://www.cnet.com/news/big-tech-in-20...n-the-law/

Finally, to the binary comment. I get that you work in law, but this forum is much better when we can actually discuss issues. The alternative, which happens to frequently, is when people are forced to pick a side on an issue and then get berated for disagreeing with the opposing side.

(01-12-2021 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 10:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Control the information flow and you control the people. That has worked for innumerable despots and dictators.

Before Big Tech, colleges led the way in de-platforming conservatives. Many of us here noted that then. And many disagreed that it was even happening. Kind of hard to argue that it doesnt exist in full force now.

Question for our leftists here: are you supportive/proud of the current de-platforming orgy that is currently happening? Serious question, although it sound rhetorical. At least, one would surmise it be rhetorical, but I would really like to know your all's perspective on it.

I'm torn about this - it's not binary (but you often have a really hard time with that concept).

Dude -- I am attorney. I am paid to be binary in that sense. Get off your high hat.

Quote:Do we want the government to force these companies to operate in a way where they're required to provide service to all individuals, regardless of content? Political affiliation is not a protected class and there is evidence that some of these people were using these platforms to plan the riots.

Yes some did. Absolutely. But that brings up three points. And a small aside.

Small aside first: did you mean 'riot' instead of 'riots'? Or are there others that happened while I was asleep or blowing up gopher holes?

a) did not facebook and/or twitter allow people in its doors to plan on the BLM side? I would hazard a yes there as well. Given that, for the same transgression, why didn't FB/Twitter get de-platformed?

b) I would agree with your insinuation a little more, if a large proportion of the Parler crowd 'plan[ned] the riots'. But we are talking about a user base of 2.8 million. I dont buy in to having an extremely small subset who 'plan[ned] the riots'.

c) And in 'plan[ned] the riots', I dont mean 'planned the protest[s]'.

Quote:Some of these tech firms are so large that they're basically monopolies [side note removed to below], so do we want these select few companies basically dictating what can go into the public forum? That power is something that should probably not be concentrated in the hands of a few, unelected business people.

Amazing, something that we both agree on. Or my solution is put them under the regime of a 'common carrier' --- if they truly are a common carrier then allow them the protection of 230 as they currently do.

But, if they exercise anywhere near the power of editing that they currently do, then --- let them deal with the ancillary lawsuits that any publisher has and that they have shielded themselves with for the last 20 years. Kind of common sense -- if one is doesnt control what is on their 'pipe', then the full brunt of responsibility devolves to the poster themself. When you decide to be an editor in chief -- then you are responsible.

Quote:(side note: in 2021, we are going to see antitrust laws flex their muscles)

There is no way a Biden administration moves against FB, Google, or Twitter. Criminy, they drug him over the finish line with their heel firmly on anything that made him look bad.

That doesnt preclude the Parler lawsuit that absolutely will be touched off. But there wont be government intervention or a US government DOJ led action.

Quote:I'm not up in arms with the general idea of non-government entities being allowed to choose who speaks to their organizations. The alternative (forcing those entities to be a platform) seems more like communist-China than what we're seeing here.

The idea is not 'forced speech', the idea of making the mega-Tech companies a de facto 'public space for ideas'. That is precisely what they have built. As an example: airports are required to provide for allowing 'public space for ideas' on the theory that while many are public/private efforts, they have become de facto areas of the social commons.

mega-Tech, imo, should be considered as such an entity that must provide a common public speaking space. I would draw the distinction at size ---- obviously CSNBBS is a pipsqueak in the arena of public communication; who really cares what restrictions are placed at that level by private ownership.

In the case of Twitter and FB, they are so large that they have become de facto public spaces.

But the promotion of free speech (even by common carrier designation) doesnt even come anywhere close to being compared to CCP. Free speech is entirely anathema to that system, mind you.

Quote:As I saw elsewhere, do you think China is more likely to allow its social networks to take down Xi supporters or require that they provide a platform for his supporters?

I think the CCP isnt in the business of 'allowing', they tell. And to be honest, in terms of free speech, that concept is about as devoid in that system as water exists on the surface of Mars. China would force its social networks (as it does now) to restrict speech to what the government mandates is allowable.

The question if trying to tie that into this discussion would not be 'provide a platform for the regime's supporters', but to 'provide a platform for their critics'.

That line at the end is just a duck and weave from my question.

because its a stupid as **** question, lad.

Quote:The alternative to allowing a media platform to decide who it provides its serves to is forcing said platform to provide its serves to someone. You're taking away one non-governmental organization's freedom to give the other non-governmental organization freedom.

You all do that all the time to the bakers in Colorado. Or the Christian wedding planners. Funny that. You all yelp and scream and force the common carrier principle on masterpiece bakery, but, oh no, how dare they do that to FB...... oh no....

Quote:It's why it isn't cut and dry, and why I don't think it's really a partisan issue. For example, Hawley screaming about his first amendment rights being infringed when he lost a book deal, is inherently arguing that a company be forced by the government to print his book.

Hawley is incorrect when he says his 1st amendment rights are being infringed. Hawley is spot on in the inference that his book is being scrubbed at the last minute for political content, which directly implicates the ideals of the First Amendment.

But, your point is really off-point. Simon and Schuster isnt 95% of the traffic in publishing. You dont get picked up there, hop to Halcourt. Or simply self-publish.

That option isnt really available for FB and Twitter. And the entire function of FB and Twitter is simply *direct* communication. Funny that. Hopefully you have your Josh Hawley fit done for the day with that as an upside.

Quote:As to the anti-trust suits, they are coming.

From whom? Congress cant sue, it has to the be the DOJ or a private party. A Biden DOJ suing the tech boys who body licked him and carried his water like no Gunga Din could ever match..... I just dont see that happening. Especially not for the deplatforming issue, which is a major problem. Maybe for buying their way into a monopoly and squelching competition, but that isnt the topic here, is it?

Quote:and many are already being charged with anti-competitive behavior.

Again, by whom? They are being sued by private companies they have fked over. And the only lawsuit against FB now isnt Sherman 1, it is a Sherman 2 action + a Clayton Act -- there is a big difference in the form of the suits. And in the merits of what you are talking about and what is filed.

(01-12-2021 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 10:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Before Big Tech, colleges led the way in de-platforming conservatives. Many of us here noted that then. And many disagreed that it was even happening. Kind of hard to argue that it doesnt exist in full force now.

Question for our leftists here: are you supportive/proud of the current de-platforming orgy that is currently happening? Serious question, although it sound rhetorical. At least, one would surmise it be rhetorical, but I would really like to know your all's perspective on it.

I'm torn about this - it's not binary (but you often have a really hard time with that concept).

Dude -- I am attorney. I am paid to be binary in that sense. Get off your high hat.

Quote:Do we want the government to force these companies to operate in a way where they're required to provide service to all individuals, regardless of content? Political affiliation is not a protected class and there is evidence that some of these people were using these platforms to plan the riots.

Yes some did. Absolutely. But that brings up three points. And a small aside.

Small aside first: did you mean 'riot' instead of 'riots'? Or are there others that happened while I was asleep or blowing up gopher holes?

a) did not facebook and/or twitter allow people in its doors to plan on the BLM side? I would hazard a yes there as well. Given that, for the same transgression, why didn't FB/Twitter get de-platformed?

b) I would agree with your insinuation a little more, if a large proportion of the Parler crowd 'plan[ned] the riots'. But we are talking about a user base of 2.8 million. I dont buy in to having an extremely small subset who 'plan[ned] the riots'.

c) And in 'plan[ned] the riots', I dont mean 'planned the protest[s]'.

Quote:Some of these tech firms are so large that they're basically monopolies [side note removed to below], so do we want these select few companies basically dictating what can go into the public forum? That power is something that should probably not be concentrated in the hands of a few, unelected business people.

Amazing, something that we both agree on. Or my solution is put them under the regime of a 'common carrier' --- if they truly are a common carrier then allow them the protection of 230 as they currently do.

But, if they exercise anywhere near the power of editing that they currently do, then --- let them deal with the ancillary lawsuits that any publisher has and that they have shielded themselves with for the last 20 years. Kind of common sense -- if one is doesnt control what is on their 'pipe', then the full brunt of responsibility devolves to the poster themself. When you decide to be an editor in chief -- then you are responsible.

Quote:(side note: in 2021, we are going to see antitrust laws flex their muscles)

There is no way a Biden administration moves against FB, Google, or Twitter. Criminy, they drug him over the finish line with their heel firmly on anything that made him look bad.

That doesnt preclude the Parler lawsuit that absolutely will be touched off. But there wont be government intervention or a US government DOJ led action.

Quote:I'm not up in arms with the general idea of non-government entities being allowed to choose who speaks to their organizations. The alternative (forcing those entities to be a platform) seems more like communist-China than what we're seeing here.

The idea is not 'forced speech', the idea of making the mega-Tech companies a de facto 'public space for ideas'. That is precisely what they have built. As an example: airports are required to provide for allowing 'public space for ideas' on the theory that while many are public/private efforts, they have become de facto areas of the social commons.

mega-Tech, imo, should be considered as such an entity that must provide a common public speaking space. I would draw the distinction at size ---- obviously CSNBBS is a pipsqueak in the arena of public communication; who really cares what restrictions are placed at that level by private ownership.

In the case of Twitter and FB, they are so large that they have become de facto public spaces.

But the promotion of free speech (even by common carrier designation) doesnt even come anywhere close to being compared to CCP. Free speech is entirely anathema to that system, mind you.

Quote:As I saw elsewhere, do you think China is more likely to allow its social networks to take down Xi supporters or require that they provide a platform for his supporters?

I think the CCP isnt in the business of 'allowing', they tell. And to be honest, in terms of free speech, that concept is about as devoid in that system as water exists on the surface of Mars. China would force its social networks (as it does now) to restrict speech to what the government mandates is allowable.

The question if trying to tie that into this discussion would not be 'provide a platform for the regime's supporters', but to 'provide a platform for their critics'.

That line at the end is just a duck and weave from my question.

because its a stupid as **** question, lad.

Quote:The alternative to allowing a media platform to decide who it provides its serves to is forcing said platform to provide its serves to someone. You're taking away one non-governmental organization's freedom to give the other non-governmental organization freedom.

You all do that all the time to the bakers in Colorado. Or the Christian wedding planners. Funny that. You all yelp and scream and force the common carrier principle on masterpiece bakery, but, oh no, how dare they do that to FB...... oh no....

Quote:It's why it isn't cut and dry, and why I don't think it's really a partisan issue. For example, Hawley screaming about his first amendment rights being infringed when he lost a book deal, is inherently arguing that a company be forced by the government to print his book.

Hawley is incorrect when he says his 1st amendment rights are being infringed. Hawley is spot on in the inference that his book is being scrubbed at the last minute for political content, which directly implicates the ideals of the First Amendment.

But, your point is really off-point. Simon and Schuster isnt 95% of the traffic in publishing. You dont get picked up there, hop to Halcourt. Or simply self-publish.

That option isnt really available for FB and Twitter. And the entire function of FB and Twitter is simply *direct* communication. Funny that. Hopefully you have your Josh Hawley fit done for the day with that as an upside.

Quote:As to the anti-trust suits, they are coming.

From whom? Congress cant sue, it has to the be the DOJ or a private party. A Biden DOJ suing the tech boys who body licked him and carried his water like no Gunga Din could ever match..... I just dont see that happening. Especially not for the deplatforming issue, which is a major problem. Maybe for buying their way into a monopoly and squelching competition, but that isnt the topic here, is it?

Quote:and many are already being charged with anti-competitive behavior.

Again, by whom? They are being sued by private companies they have fked over. And the only lawsuit against FB now isnt Sherman 1, it is a Sherman 2 action + a Clayton Act -- there is a big difference in the form of the suits. And in the merits of what you are talking about and what is filed.

Let's reconvene at the end of the year and see if there has been any movement on the antitrust issue.

You seem to be forgetting that Dems are far more likely to leverage government to regulate industries, and Reps are also itching to tackle the tech giants. There is clearly common ground.

The current DOJ has already filed lawsuits against Google for anticompetitive tactics (so, a wee bit more than just the private companies you're wrong about, again), and from what I've taken in, it would be highly unlikely for the Biden DOJ to turn suit.

From the NYTimes:

Quote:A Biden administration is expected to pursue the antitrust lawsuit filed against Google last month, people with knowledge of his campaign said. It may also introduce more antitrust cases against Facebook and possibly Amazon and Apple, which the Trump administration has investigated for more than a year...

Current and former tech executives and lobbyists, as well as former regulators, said that while the industry expected a Biden administration to be tough on the companies, particularly in antitrust areas, it would welcome a change from the unpredictable Trump administration.

But maybe we won't see any movement by the DOJ - my hypothesis is that we will.

(01-12-2021 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm torn about this - it's not binary (but you often have a really hard time with that concept).

Dude -- I am attorney. I am paid to be binary in that sense. Get off your high hat.

Quote:Do we want the government to force these companies to operate in a way where they're required to provide service to all individuals, regardless of content? Political affiliation is not a protected class and there is evidence that some of these people were using these platforms to plan the riots.

Yes some did. Absolutely. But that brings up three points. And a small aside.

Small aside first: did you mean 'riot' instead of 'riots'? Or are there others that happened while I was asleep or blowing up gopher holes?

a) did not facebook and/or twitter allow people in its doors to plan on the BLM side? I would hazard a yes there as well. Given that, for the same transgression, why didn't FB/Twitter get de-platformed?

b) I would agree with your insinuation a little more, if a large proportion of the Parler crowd 'plan[ned] the riots'. But we are talking about a user base of 2.8 million. I dont buy in to having an extremely small subset who 'plan[ned] the riots'.

c) And in 'plan[ned] the riots', I dont mean 'planned the protest[s]'.

Quote:Some of these tech firms are so large that they're basically monopolies [side note removed to below], so do we want these select few companies basically dictating what can go into the public forum? That power is something that should probably not be concentrated in the hands of a few, unelected business people.

Amazing, something that we both agree on. Or my solution is put them under the regime of a 'common carrier' --- if they truly are a common carrier then allow them the protection of 230 as they currently do.

But, if they exercise anywhere near the power of editing that they currently do, then --- let them deal with the ancillary lawsuits that any publisher has and that they have shielded themselves with for the last 20 years. Kind of common sense -- if one is doesnt control what is on their 'pipe', then the full brunt of responsibility devolves to the poster themself. When you decide to be an editor in chief -- then you are responsible.

Quote:(side note: in 2021, we are going to see antitrust laws flex their muscles)

There is no way a Biden administration moves against FB, Google, or Twitter. Criminy, they drug him over the finish line with their heel firmly on anything that made him look bad.

That doesnt preclude the Parler lawsuit that absolutely will be touched off. But there wont be government intervention or a US government DOJ led action.

Quote:I'm not up in arms with the general idea of non-government entities being allowed to choose who speaks to their organizations. The alternative (forcing those entities to be a platform) seems more like communist-China than what we're seeing here.

The idea is not 'forced speech', the idea of making the mega-Tech companies a de facto 'public space for ideas'. That is precisely what they have built. As an example: airports are required to provide for allowing 'public space for ideas' on the theory that while many are public/private efforts, they have become de facto areas of the social commons.

mega-Tech, imo, should be considered as such an entity that must provide a common public speaking space. I would draw the distinction at size ---- obviously CSNBBS is a pipsqueak in the arena of public communication; who really cares what restrictions are placed at that level by private ownership.

In the case of Twitter and FB, they are so large that they have become de facto public spaces.

But the promotion of free speech (even by common carrier designation) doesnt even come anywhere close to being compared to CCP. Free speech is entirely anathema to that system, mind you.

Quote:As I saw elsewhere, do you think China is more likely to allow its social networks to take down Xi supporters or require that they provide a platform for his supporters?

I think the CCP isnt in the business of 'allowing', they tell. And to be honest, in terms of free speech, that concept is about as devoid in that system as water exists on the surface of Mars. China would force its social networks (as it does now) to restrict speech to what the government mandates is allowable.

The question if trying to tie that into this discussion would not be 'provide a platform for the regime's supporters', but to 'provide a platform for their critics'.

That line at the end is just a duck and weave from my question.

because its a stupid as **** question, lad.

Quote:The alternative to allowing a media platform to decide who it provides its serves to is forcing said platform to provide its serves to someone. You're taking away one non-governmental organization's freedom to give the other non-governmental organization freedom.

You all do that all the time to the bakers in Colorado. Or the Christian wedding planners. Funny that. You all yelp and scream and force the common carrier principle on masterpiece bakery, but, oh no, how dare they do that to FB...... oh no....

Quote:It's why it isn't cut and dry, and why I don't think it's really a partisan issue. For example, Hawley screaming about his first amendment rights being infringed when he lost a book deal, is inherently arguing that a company be forced by the government to print his book.

Hawley is incorrect when he says his 1st amendment rights are being infringed. Hawley is spot on in the inference that his book is being scrubbed at the last minute for political content, which directly implicates the ideals of the First Amendment.

But, your point is really off-point. Simon and Schuster isnt 95% of the traffic in publishing. You dont get picked up there, hop to Halcourt. Or simply self-publish.

That option isnt really available for FB and Twitter. And the entire function of FB and Twitter is simply *direct* communication. Funny that. Hopefully you have your Josh Hawley fit done for the day with that as an upside.

Quote:As to the anti-trust suits, they are coming.

From whom? Congress cant sue, it has to the be the DOJ or a private party. A Biden DOJ suing the tech boys who body licked him and carried his water like no Gunga Din could ever match..... I just dont see that happening. Especially not for the deplatforming issue, which is a major problem. Maybe for buying their way into a monopoly and squelching competition, but that isnt the topic here, is it?

Quote:and many are already being charged with anti-competitive behavior.

Again, by whom? They are being sued by private companies they have fked over. And the only lawsuit against FB now isnt Sherman 1, it is a Sherman 2 action + a Clayton Act -- there is a big difference in the form of the suits. And in the merits of what you are talking about and what is filed.

Let's reconvene at the end of the year and see if there has been any movement on the antitrust issue.

You seem to be forgetting that Dems are far more likely to leverage government to regulate industries, and Reps are also itching to tackle the tech giants. There is clearly common ground.

The current DOJ has already filed lawsuits against Google for anticompetitive tactics (so, a wee bit more than just the private companies you're wrong about, again), and from what I've taken in, it would be highly unlikely for the Biden DOJ to turn suit.

From the NYTimes:

Quote:A Biden administration is expected to pursue the antitrust lawsuit filed against Google last month, people with knowledge of his campaign said. It may also introduce more antitrust cases against Facebook and possibly Amazon and Apple, which the Trump administration has investigated for more than a year...

Current and former tech executives and lobbyists, as well as former regulators, said that while the industry expected a Biden administration to be tough on the companies, particularly in antitrust areas, it would welcome a change from the unpredictable Trump administration.

But maybe we won't see any movement by the DOJ - my hypothesis is that we will.

Fair enough, we shall see.

The current Google one really only touches on a small aspect of its business -- i.e. the user base of search engines.

And the current FB one, as I said, is one that is the 'buying to be a monopolist' action, not a 'you did bad things as a monopolist' action. Not all anti-trust suits come in the same flavor.

A Sherman sec. 1 is much worse than a Sherman sec. 2, and a Clayton Act is really one on price fixing.