Big Tech Assault on Free Speech
-
So are we for breaking up companies we dislike now? Conservatives are free to start their own companies and social media outlets.
-
As is their right to do so with their own privately owned company.
Sure it is but who remembers the fairness Doctrine and its supporters?
WSS
Sure it is but who remembers the fairness Doctrine and its supporters?
WSS
That whole thing is silly.
-
So are we for breaking up companies we dislike now? Conservatives are free to start their own companies and social media outlets.
So are we for breaking up companies we dislike now? Conservatives are free to start their own companies and social media outlets.
The Conservative Case for Breaking Up Monopolies Such as Google and Facebook
How do you take on monopolies with this sort of dominance and almost infinite levels of cash to buy out any rising competitor? That’s the question conservatives keep asking, and the answer is that realistically, you don’t.
As an individual, you can leave the platforms if you like — but because of their power and control of the national conversation, you are essentially de-platforming yourself by not using them. A message that doesn’t show up on social media might as well be written in a diary.
Could their eventual failings or a technology that sidesteps them somehow make them irrelevant? Sure, but that could take decades if it happens at all.
What about Congress regulating these businesses? They could certainly do that, but given the power and influence of these companies, it’s entirely possible that new regulations might be written to benefit Google and Facebook by making it even tougher for other businesses to compete with them.
However, there is another option to deal with this situation that would reduce the power of these companies and serve the public interest. That is breaking these monopolies up into smaller, more focused entities.
This is something with a long historical pedigree in the United States, including for Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for breaking up the Northern Securities Company. William Howard Taft helped bring down Standard Oil Company. Even Ronald Reagan broke up Ma Bell.
Admittedly, breaking up a tech platform is a tricky proposition; people want to use Facebook because other people use Facebook, for example, so the government would probably have little success and win few friends if it tried to force users to divide into Facebook 1 and Facebook 2. What the government can do, however, is separate the core platform from the other products and services these companies provide, thus limiting the amount of power concentrated in a single company’s hands. If Google and Facebook were broken up into multiple companies this way, there would be more competitors in the marketplace, and the companies would be less able to leverage their dominance in one product to give themselves an unfair advantage for others.
As former Google employee Tristan Harris has said, “A handful of people, working at a handful of technology companies, through their choices will steer what a billion people are thinking today. I don’t know a more urgent problem than this. It’s changing our democracy, and it’s changing our ability to have the conversations and relationships that we want with each other.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/breaking-up-tech-giants-conservative-case/
-
That article reads that something is so good that they must not try to create their own start ups. If conservatives are that concerned, they will migrate to their new homes and will generate revenue.
-
classifying socisl media as ?"puboic utilities"? u basic communists. Bernie is ayn rand next tonu guys. Stake out ur positions on this now or i brand all of just reg communists but communists "with proof".
i know where obf obviously stands so obf....understand i will refer to u as a communist till this board shuts down. And im not going to argue with u over it. You'll accept my snarky commie remarks and just move on. Cause ur a bolshevik fag......
?
-
classifying socisl media as ?"puboic utilities"? u basic communists. Bernie is ayn rand next tonu guys. Stake out ur positions on this now or i brand all of just reg communists but communists "with proof".
i know where obf obviously stands so obf....understand i will refer to u as a communist till this board shuts down. And im not going to argue with u over it. You'll accept my snarky commie remarks and just move on. Cause ur a bolshevik fag......
?
classifying socisl media as ?"puboic utilities"? u basic communists. Bernie is ayn rand next tonu guys. Stake out ur positions on this now or i brand all of just reg communists but communists "with proof".
i know where obf obviously stands so obf....understand i will refer to u as a communist till this board shuts down. And im not going to argue with u over it. You'll accept my snarky commie remarks and just move on. Cause ur a bolshevik fag......
?
I'm not locked into ideology. I am pragmatic. If socialism actually worked I would support it. The early first century churches actually were socialistic in they believed in spreading the wealth around from churches that had to churches who were in need. That worked well in the early church but it does not work in the world with selfish people. It makes the few the rulers over the masses as we have seen in many communist countries.
This might surprise you (Komrad) but I think AOC was right about the New York Amazon deal:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/18/aoc-right-amazons-jobs-arent-worth-3-billion-corporate-welfare/
-
LOL. What a fucking dweeb.
This is equivalent to being trolled and insulted on here, then suing TBB.
LOL. What a fucking dweeb.
This is equivalent to being trolled and insulted on here, then suing TBB.
Tiam, that is not equivalent at all. It is more like here, they would delete/not show conservative opinions, but they would show
lefties' opinions without fail. Except, it's a private board, so that isn't even true.
As a public? forum? An entire political movement, nationally, is being fostered, deliberately, by biased constructed algorithms to favor one side of the politics, the left side. This is nationally dangerous - a national publicly used medium is being slanted to control the next presidential election, having lost the last presidential election. Any attack on any conservative, anywhere, is an accepted attack, and any defense is not accepted.
Total controlling bias, on the encouragements by prominent leftwing politicians all the way up to former "president" ObaMao
Nothing to do with anything that goes on on the Brownsboard.
-
LOL. What a fucking dweeb.
This is equivalent to being trolled and insulted on here, then suing TBB.
Tiam, that is not equivalent at all. It is more like here, they would delete/not show conservative opinions, but they would show
lefties' opinions without fail. Except, it's a private board, so that isn't even true.
As a public? forum? An entire political movement, nationally, is being fostered, deliberately, by biased constructed algorithms to favor one side of the politics, the left side. This is nationally dangerous - a national publicly used medium is being slanted to control the next presidential election, having lost the last presidential election. Any attack on any conservative, anywhere, is an accepted attack, and any defense is not accepted.
Total controlling bias, on the encouragements by prominent leftwing politicians all the way up to former "president" ObaMao
Nothing to do with anything that goes on on the Brownsboard.
Tiam, that is not equivalent at all. It is more like here, they would delete/not show conservative opinions, but they would show
lefties' opinions without fail. Except, it's a private board, so that isn't even true.
As a public? forum? An entire political movement, nationally, is being fostered, deliberately, by biased constructed algorithms to favor one side of the politics, the left side. This is nationally dangerous - a national publicly used medium is being slanted to control the next presidential election, having lost the last presidential election. Any attack on any conservative, anywhere, is an accepted attack, and any defense is not accepted.
Total controlling bias, on the encouragements by prominent leftwing politicians all the way up to former "president" ObaMao
Nothing to do with anything that goes on on the Brownsboard.
While this board is privately owned, it is publicly accessible to all with limitations on what content may be posted per the owner/mods.
Twitter is no different. Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. Zuckerberg might say he wants facebook to "look" more neutral, but I'm well aware of what I see when I read between the lines on comments like that - as are you.
-
Tiam, that is not equivalent at all. It is more like here, they would delete/not show conservative opinions, but they would show
lefties' opinions without fail. Except, it's a private board, so that isn't even true.
As a public? forum? An entire political movement, nationally, is being fostered, deliberately, by biased constructed algorithms to favor one side of the politics, the left side. This is nationally dangerous - a national publicly used medium is being slanted to control the next presidential election, having lost the last presidential election. Any attack on any conservative, anywhere, is an accepted attack, and any defense is not accepted.
Total controlling bias, on the encouragements by prominent leftwing politicians all the way up to former "president" ObaMao
Nothing to do with anything that goes on on the Brownsboard.
While this board is privately owned, it is publicly accessible to all with limitations on what content may be posted per the owner/mods.
Twitter is no different. Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. Zuckerberg might say he wants facebook to "look" more neutral, but I'm well aware of what I see when I read between the lines on comments like that - as are you.
While this board is privately owned, it is publicly accessible to all with limitations on what content may be posted per the owner/mods.
Twitter is no different. Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. Zuckerberg might say he wants facebook to "look" more neutral, but I'm well aware of what I see when I read between the lines on comments like that - as are you.
Sure, but the Brownsboard is privately owned, and not a public entity. Generally speaking - it is a forum for an exclusive group - Browns fans...for the most part, granted.
But twitter is a national public entity - privately owned or not. At least unofficially, across the board. The difference is, twitter is a privately-owned social forum on a grand national/international? scale. It is used by government officials, to express information/opinions on a national scale. I'm probably not explaining it correctly, I "ain't no lawyer"
Fox example:
https://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2017/08/is-twitter-a-public-forum.html
But, nevertheless, the very nature of governmental use of social media lends itself to being the most public of public forums. When government officials use social media channels to make official communications, there is a developing line of cases that establish these channels as limited public forums. Essentially when a government entity or official creates a social media channel for official communications, it converts the channel from a private forum, to a limited public forum, which entails not-so-limited First Amendment protections for those who participate in the forum.
I should explain, that we don't twit, face, or link. Well, I used to link back in the pro working days, but no more.
-
While this board is privately owned, it is publicly accessible to all with limitations on what content may be posted per the owner/mods.
Twitter is no different. Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. Zuckerberg might say he wants facebook to "look" more neutral, but I'm well aware of what I see when I read between the lines on comments like that - as are you.
Sure, but the Brownsboard is privately owned, and not a public entity. Generally speaking - it is a forum for an exclusive group - Browns fans...for the most part, granted.
But twitter is a national public entity - privately owned or not. At least unofficially, across the board. The difference is, twitter is a privately-owned social forum on a grand national/international? scale. It is used by government officials, to express information/opinions on a national scale. I'm probably not explaining it correctly, I "ain't no lawyer"
Fox example:
https://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2017/08/is-twitter-a-public-forum.html
But, nevertheless, the very nature of governmental use of social media lends itself to being the most public of public forums. When government officials use social media channels to make official communications, there is a developing line of cases that establish these channels as limited public forums. Essentially when a government entity or official creates a social media channel for official communications, it converts the channel from a private forum, to a limited public forum, which entails not-so-limited First Amendment protections for those who participate in the forum.
I should explain, that we don't twit, face, or link. Well, I used to link back in the pro working days, but no more.
Sure, but the Brownsboard is privately owned, and not a public entity. Generally speaking - it is a forum for an exclusive group - Browns fans...for the most part, granted.
But twitter is a national public entity - privately owned or not. At least unofficially, across the board. The difference is, twitter is a privately-owned social forum on a grand national/international? scale. It is used by government officials, to express information/opinions on a national scale. I'm probably not explaining it correctly, I "ain't no lawyer"
Fox example:
https://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2017/08/is-twitter-a-public-forum.html
But, nevertheless, the very nature of governmental use of social media lends itself to being the most public of public forums. When government officials use social media channels to make official communications, there is a developing line of cases that establish these channels as limited public forums. Essentially when a government entity or official creates a social media channel for official communications, it converts the channel from a private forum, to a limited public forum, which entails not-so-limited First Amendment protections for those who participate in the forum.
I should explain, that we don't twit, face, or link. Well, I used to link back in the pro working days, but no more.
This harkens back to the "are they too big of a company" argument. Sure, they offer a social platform open to all - but again, you're bound by their ToS.
I just consider it a dangerous precedent to declare a private companies labor as a public utility when it isn't what any would call a necessity.
-
I get your point - I say this - with freedom comes responsbility - when a social media, my opinion, gets national and virtually used by most? people in all states, something like that - the media's ability to deliberately undermine a legit election via extreme bias, under handed reporting, deliberate political hacking, etc...
then the effect is national and public. It's a problem regardless of political persuasion. I'm hard pressed to name even one example on the conservative side.
Having said that, if I were a judge to rule in court based on all sides' evidence, I'd shake my head, rub my forehead and ask "why me?"
-
I am uncomfortable anytime we are talking about getting the government involved to regulate what is in essence a luxury. My grandpa avoids social media like it is dick cancer. He must be missing out on this necessity.
-
I never obsessed about dick cancer, just sayin............
-
I never obsessed about dick cancer, just sayin............
I never obsessed about dick cancer, just sayin............
RIP DHBF
-
Sure it is but who remembers the fairness Doctrine and its supporters?
WSS
That whole thing is silly.
That whole thing is silly.
I would tend to agree with you but oh, and there's that damn but again, in the real world that we all have to live in, the information that the tiny fraction of people want to find, is usually found through the internet giants like Google or worse yet Snapchat, Facebook Etc. At some point people should become concerned that the dissemination of news is filtered through the jaundiced eye of the left. Look how our members on the left constantly bitching about fox . Imagine if 95% of the media was as right-leaning has Fox News . I think there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth? Beyond that I don't know exactly what could or should be done about it but that's a fact.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
That whole thing is silly.
I would tend to agree with you but oh, and there's that damn but again, in the real world that we all have to live in, the information that the tiny fraction of people want to find, is usually found through the internet giants like Google or worse yet Snapchat, Facebook Etc. At some point people should become concerned that the dissemination of news is filtered through the jaundiced eye of the left. Look how our members on the left constantly bitching about fox . Imagine if 95% of the media was as right-leaning has Fox News . I think there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth? Beyond that I don't know exactly what could or should be done about it but that's a fact.
WSS
I would tend to agree with you but oh, and there's that damn but again, in the real world that we all have to live in, the information that the tiny fraction of people want to find, is usually found through the internet giants like Google or worse yet Snapchat, Facebook Etc. At some point people should become concerned that the dissemination of news is filtered through the jaundiced eye of the left. Look how our members on the left constantly bitching about fox . Imagine if 95% of the media was as right-leaning has Fox News . I think there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth? Beyond that I don't know exactly what could or should be done about it but that's a fact.
WSS
If people are too lazy/dumb to fish a bit deeper for information, no amount of regulating is going to help that. There are still idiots who don’t understand what satire is and lose their minds over The Onion.
-
I would tend to agree with you but oh, and there's that damn but again, in the real world that we all have to live in, the information that the tiny fraction of people want to find, is usually found through the internet giants like Google or worse yet Snapchat, Facebook Etc. At some point people should become concerned that the dissemination of news is filtered through the jaundiced eye of the left. Look how our members on the left constantly bitching about fox . Imagine if 95% of the media was as right-leaning has Fox News . I think there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth? Beyond that I don't know exactly what could or should be done about it but that's a fact.
WSS
If people are too lazy/dumb to fish a bit deeper for information, no amount of regulating is going to help that. There are still idiots who don’t understand what satire is and lose their minds over The Onion.
If people are too lazy/dumb to fish a bit deeper for information, no amount of regulating is going to help that. There are still idiots who don’t understand what satire is and lose their minds over The Onion.
Of course you are right and that's why I said I didn't know what the hell to do about it. Probably doesn't really matter when you get right down to it.
WSS
-
I would tend to agree with you but oh, and there's that damn but again, in the real world that we all have to live in, the information that the tiny fraction of people want to find, is usually found through the internet giants like Google or worse yet Snapchat, Facebook Etc. At some point people should become concerned that the dissemination of news is filtered through the jaundiced eye of the left. Look how our members on the left constantly bitching about fox . Imagine if 95% of the media was as right-leaning has Fox News . I think there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth? Beyond that I don't know exactly what could or should be done about it but that's a fact.
WSS
If people are too lazy/dumb to fish a bit deeper for information, no amount of regulating is going to help that. There are still idiots who don’t understand what satire is and lose their minds over The Onion.
If people are too lazy/dumb to fish a bit deeper for information, no amount of regulating is going to help that. There are still idiots who don’t understand what satire is and lose their minds over The Onion.
"The best case against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" - Churchill
Probably not much has changed since Churchill said that decades ago even though we live in an information society today that they didn't have then. You can say people should be smarter and dig deeper etc but will the masses do it? Probably not even though they really shouldn't have to as Big Tech should have a level playing field. Will this bias against conservatives affect elections? That is one of the big questions I have.
Google has at least nine shadow blacklists that affect what the public sees using it's search engine. When Google is not manipulating the internet to prevent users from seeing right wing content it also is directly attacking the content. Google's fact checking service almost exclusively only fact checks conservative news and in many cases their fact checking is wrong. Recently it was discovered a Google serach of Nazism listed the Northern California Republican party. One republican politician was surprised to see the top search result of her name showed a photo of her labeling her a bigot.
Google is clearly manipulating and controlling the political narrative in favor of Democrats and the left, and silencing conservatives and Republicans.
I don't think there is much denial on that point but the division is what to do about it. I think they are monopolies that will not self regulate themselves and at the minimum need a watchdog group set up over them with ombudsman to handle issues and complaints from consumers.
-
That whole thing is silly.
I would tend to agree with you but oh, and there's that damn but again, in the real world that we all have to live in, the information that the tiny fraction of people want to find, is usually found through the internet giants like Google or worse yet Snapchat, Facebook Etc. At some point people should become concerned that the dissemination of news is filtered through the jaundiced eye of the left. Look how our members on the left constantly bitching about fox . Imagine if 95% of the media was as right-leaning has Fox News . I think there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth? Beyond that I don't know exactly what could or should be done about it but that's a fact.
WSS
I would tend to agree with you but oh, and there's that damn but again, in the real world that we all have to live in, the information that the tiny fraction of people want to find, is usually found through the internet giants like Google or worse yet Snapchat, Facebook Etc. At some point people should become concerned that the dissemination of news is filtered through the jaundiced eye of the left. Look how our members on the left constantly bitching about fox . Imagine if 95% of the media was as right-leaning has Fox News . I think there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth? Beyond that I don't know exactly what could or should be done about it but that's a fact.
WSS
If that were true America would be a better place. Democrats would be out of business. Yes, the dissemination of the news is filtered, covered up by the left, but truth can be found.
The question is would there exist "wailing teeth gnashers" if for example every American was informed of all the players in the Russian hoax, their roles, sequence of events, what was said and done, how FAISAs were illegally obtained etc?…. as these things would be reported by a 95% "right leaning" aka reputable news media.
-
I would tend to agree with you but oh, and there's that damn but again, in the real world that we all have to live in, the information that the tiny fraction of people want to find, is usually found through the internet giants like Google or worse yet Snapchat, Facebook Etc. At some point people should become concerned that the dissemination of news is filtered through the jaundiced eye of the left. Look how our members on the left constantly bitching about fox . Imagine if 95% of the media was as right-leaning has Fox News . I think there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth? Beyond that I don't know exactly what could or should be done about it but that's a fact.
WSS
If people are too lazy/dumb to fish a bit deeper for information, no amount of regulating is going to help that. There are still idiots who don’t understand what satire is and lose their minds over The Onion.
If people are too lazy/dumb to fish a bit deeper for information, no amount of regulating is going to help that. There are still idiots who don’t understand what satire is and lose their minds over The Onion.
Oh we understand what satire is.
If anyone doesn't understand what satire is it's the left. They eat that shit up as if it were news and the comedians who propagate it are all liberals.
What political satire does for them is support or fortify their existing hate or misguided beliefs.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login