https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-sh...b-big-tech
editorial on how to deal with tech censorship

"...I don’t think there is a group left in America who is happy about the power that companies like Facebook and Twitter and Google have arrogated to themselves. According to a recent poll from Vox and Data for Progress, 59% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans think Big Tech’s economic power is a problem. It’s hard to think of another issue with that kind of bipartisan consensus.

The nature of your anger, of course, depends on where you sit. (Twitter’s decision to ban Trump in January found 87% approval from Democrats and a mere 28% of Republicans in the same poll.) But the point is that this subject touches everyone...."

People give them power by using them so much.

I simplest terms - Stop using them.

(04-11-2021 10:53 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  People give them power by using them so much.

I simplest terms - Stop using them.

This. Let's see one of those competitors we keep seeing that's supposed to become a threat to one of the big tech companies actually step up and do something. I hate hate HATE the idea of the few billionaires that are currently deciding so much of what has prominence in public discourse, but the arguments for limiting their power basically come down to punishing them for being too good at what they do.

Big tech is simply too big not to use. They have made themselves a major carrier—similar to phone companies and tv networks. I think the answer is to restrict their right to sensor or ban at the state level. There is real power in federalism (the current NIL movement in college sports is a good example of how it can work). Enough states block Twitters ability to operate in a state if they behave badly, then Twitter will stop behaving badly. I would do the same with Amazon and their server farms (deplatforming is wrong).

Conservative internet.

Simple solution: If they censor (except for obviously illegal activity) then they lose the 130 safe harbor.

(04-11-2021 12:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Simple solution: If they censor (except for obviously illegal activity) then they lose the 130 safe harbor.

That's my thought.

But I also think we need to be more aggressive with anti-trust action. Amazon and Google clearly exert monopoly market power.

From the article:

"...It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.

It is worth reading the whole thing. Justice Thomas clearly wants to see a case on this...."


And as for the alternative that you simply create a conservative alternative, as soon as Parler became a threat, the left extinguished them:

"...If you hate a platform so much, nothing’s stopping you from making a new one.

That argument feels flimsier than ever these days. When Trump got banned from Twitter, the argument was: So what? It’s Twitter. And Twitter is a private company. Jack Dorsey can boot whoever he wants. And anyway, Trump can go to Parler.

But then Parler got kicked out of the Apple and Google app stores, so the argument became: well, you can still create a website. But then AWS stopped hosting Parler. As Sacks put it: “You shouldn’t have to build a new Internet to post a tweet...."”

This is all akin to the "Too Big to Fail" mantra BS when the great recession started. If you are too big to fail, you are too big period.

I am all for best of breed etc.... if you make a good or great service people should use it, but once it becomes more than what it is supposed to be, that is when you start having problems. These places became what they are now by allowing "free exchange of information", now they are trying to take away the "free" part by obvious censoring of content. They should lose the federal protections they are granted if they choose to not follow the rules that give them those protections.

(04-11-2021 10:53 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  People give them power by using them so much.

I simplest terms - Stop using them.

You said it. Stop using them. People can either find other (better) ways to communicate, or use the abundance of alternatives already in place.

A monopoly on almost anything internet related is a farce. They have only the power we give them. Stop clicking on them, stop logging in, stop going to their sites. And, stop complaining about them. They've all shown where they stand. Where do WE stand?

In a capitalist society, we make our own decisions and I don't need the government to regulate what I can read. I can regulate myself just fine.

Someone asked when some of the alternatives are going to "step up" and be more. They have had to fight tooth and nail to even exist. They are here, they are growing, Gab cannot even find a bank to do business with, but they are building up an untouchable business model that will be very difficult to shut down. They are running their own servers, building up a marketplace, starting their own video sharing service etc.

The powers that be surely hate free speech.

(04-11-2021 10:53 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  People give them power by using them so much.

I simplest terms - Stop using them.

Wait, did you just ask to close your account here?

(04-11-2021 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  From the article:

"...It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.

It is worth reading the whole thing. Justice Thomas clearly wants to see a case on this...."


And as for the alternative that you simply create a conservative alternative, as soon as Parler became a threat, the left extinguished them:

"...If you hate a platform so much, nothing’s stopping you from making a new one.

That argument feels flimsier than ever these days. When Trump got banned from Twitter, the argument was: So what? It’s Twitter. And Twitter is a private company. Jack Dorsey can boot whoever he wants. And anyway, Trump can go to Parler.

But then Parler got kicked out of the Apple and Google app stores, so the argument became: well, you can still create a website. But then AWS stopped hosting Parler. As Sacks put it: “You shouldn’t have to build a new Internet to post a tweet...."”

I used to be in the “stop using them” camp because I failed to see their power as demonstrated by what happened to Parler. I made the false assumption that they wouldn’t be so bold as to openly collude to crush competition. Sure, they have all individually went Rockefeller to crush competition within their given niche, but to then combine those strengths to block competition is, to me, RICO Act worthy. The issue is they have positioned themselves as owners of the internet. They could cause anyone to be banished today.

Bad thing is that they will enjoy the next 4 years continuing to strengthen their grip knowing that Biden will eagerly repay them for their help in 2020.

I don't use Facebook, Twitter, or Google. Neither does the company I work for. Damned if we all don't still make a living.

(04-12-2021 09:35 AM)banker Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  From the article:

"...It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.

It is worth reading the whole thing. Justice Thomas clearly wants to see a case on this...."


And as for the alternative that you simply create a conservative alternative, as soon as Parler became a threat, the left extinguished them:

"...If you hate a platform so much, nothing’s stopping you from making a new one.

That argument feels flimsier than ever these days. When Trump got banned from Twitter, the argument was: So what? It’s Twitter. And Twitter is a private company. Jack Dorsey can boot whoever he wants. And anyway, Trump can go to Parler.

But then Parler got kicked out of the Apple and Google app stores, so the argument became: well, you can still create a website. But then AWS stopped hosting Parler. As Sacks put it: “You shouldn’t have to build a new Internet to post a tweet...."”

I used to be in the “stop using them” camp because I failed to see their power as demonstrated by what happened to Parler. I made the false assumption that they wouldn’t be so bold as to openly collude to crush competition. Sure, they have all individually went Rockefeller to crush competition within their given niche, but to then combine those strengths to block competition is, to me, RICO Act worthy. The issue is they have positioned themselves as owners of the internet. They could cause anyone to be banished today.

Bad thing is that they will enjoy the next 4 years continuing to strengthen their grip knowing that Biden will eagerly repay them for their help in 2020.

There is only one answer. Re-institute enforcement of anti-trust laws and if new anti-trust laws are needed pass them. We cannot have a handful of people deciding who has a voice in a free society. It is anathema to what we are supposed to be.

I might add that legislation providing that all news sources must be independently owned and may not be a part of a corporation or conglomerate would also be in order.

You have to meticulously spell these laws out because corporations assume anything not covered by law is fair game, and to that end they are correct.

In the late 1800s, people ranted and raved against the power of railroads in everyday life. They made the mistake of passing the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 to establish the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The ICC somewhat restrained the worst abuse by the railroads.

But most of the abuses remained as the ICC (like all bureaucratic bodies) eventually became captured by the very organizations it was trying to regulate. Railroads used the ICC to keep out competitors.

What ended the abuses of the railroads? Technological change. By 1920, competition from automobiles had broken the power of the railroads.

But the ICC lived on, and was used by long-distance trucking companies to monopolize an industry that would have been much better off if it had been deregulated.



Google and Apple will eventually be defeated by new competitors. Technology moves faster today than it did in 1900. We are better off letting time take care of this problem than trying to invent a government solution to it.

I thought Trump was about to launch a conservative platform for you all to frequent?

And you’ve also got Parler & Gab... so those places still allow you a forum to “own libs” & freely spread hate, racism, conspiracy & sedition.

(04-12-2021 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 09:35 AM)banker Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  From the article:

"...It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.

It is worth reading the whole thing. Justice Thomas clearly wants to see a case on this...."


And as for the alternative that you simply create a conservative alternative, as soon as Parler became a threat, the left extinguished them:

"...If you hate a platform so much, nothing’s stopping you from making a new one.

That argument feels flimsier than ever these days. When Trump got banned from Twitter, the argument was: So what? It’s Twitter. And Twitter is a private company. Jack Dorsey can boot whoever he wants. And anyway, Trump can go to Parler.

But then Parler got kicked out of the Apple and Google app stores, so the argument became: well, you can still create a website. But then AWS stopped hosting Parler. As Sacks put it: “You shouldn’t have to build a new Internet to post a tweet...."”

I used to be in the “stop using them” camp because I failed to see their power as demonstrated by what happened to Parler. I made the false assumption that they wouldn’t be so bold as to openly collude to crush competition. Sure, they have all individually went Rockefeller to crush competition within their given niche, but to then combine those strengths to block competition is, to me, RICO Act worthy. The issue is they have positioned themselves as owners of the internet. They could cause anyone to be banished today.

Bad thing is that they will enjoy the next 4 years continuing to strengthen their grip knowing that Biden will eagerly repay them for their help in 2020.

There is only one answer. Re-institute enforcement of anti-trust laws and if new anti-trust laws are needed pass them. We cannot have a handful of people deciding who has a voice in a free society. It is anathema to what we are supposed to be.

I might add that legislation providing that all news sources must be independently owned and may not be a part of a corporation or conglomerate would also be in order.

You have to meticulously spell these laws out because corporations assume anything not covered by law is fair game, and to that end they are correct.

nailed.....Teddy R. was a true progressive....Ike was a realist progressive....Reagan was a merge that mucked the war on drugs....#henceDJT was a progressive gift that was shunned...

@whereAreWeNow

#shameful

(04-12-2021 09:35 AM)banker Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  From the article:

"...It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.

It is worth reading the whole thing. Justice Thomas clearly wants to see a case on this...."


And as for the alternative that you simply create a conservative alternative, as soon as Parler became a threat, the left extinguished them:

"...If you hate a platform so much, nothing’s stopping you from making a new one.

That argument feels flimsier than ever these days. When Trump got banned from Twitter, the argument was: So what? It’s Twitter. And Twitter is a private company. Jack Dorsey can boot whoever he wants. And anyway, Trump can go to Parler.

But then Parler got kicked out of the Apple and Google app stores, so the argument became: well, you can still create a website. But then AWS stopped hosting Parler. As Sacks put it: “You shouldn’t have to build a new Internet to post a tweet...."”

I used to be in the “stop using them” camp because I failed to see their power as demonstrated by what happened to Parler. I made the false assumption that they wouldn’t be so bold as to openly collude to crush competition. Sure, they have all individually went Rockefeller to crush competition within their given niche, but to then combine those strengths to block competition is, to me, RICO Act worthy. The issue is they have positioned themselves as owners of the internet. They could cause anyone to be banished today.

Bad thing is that they will enjoy the next 4 years continuing to strengthen their grip knowing that Biden will eagerly repay them for their help in 2020.

It definitely reeked of RICO.

But clearly Google and Amazon have way too much monopoly power without any liberal interpretation of existing laws.