The Next President is...

[Swamp Yankee]

5 hours ago, Pooter said:

The free market is amazing (for businesses I personally agree with.) For example: I fully support businesses' constitutional right to not bake gay wedding cakes or refuse service to certain minorities.

But the idea a business could deny internet service to a seditious mob actively inciting violence is simply a bridge too far.  

Well stated.  That's the rub that it seems like no one can get past.  'Free speech only applies to things I agree with'.   Many of those complaining about Twitter's decision with Trump likely supported removal of artwork considered offensive to Christianity. In fact, I know two people with this perspective, who can't (or aren't willing) to note the inconsistency.  And there are equal examples from the opposite political perspective. 

You also bring up a good point. For years, and maybe still now, minorities were refused mortgages to keep them out of the suburbs.  All those nice moms didn't want their little darlings sharing classrooms with brown people.  So the reality is free speech has its limits, particularly where it impedes someone else's liberty. 

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech.  Many are troubled by them banning Trump (complete overkill as they respond to the mob), but i am more concerned about the double standard because they are picking sides.  The did nothing when Madonna said "I want to burn down the White House, the did nothing when Kathy Girffin stood there with the severed head of Trump, they did nothing when BLM rolled out their "Fry police like bacon" chat, they did nothing when BLM and other extreme groups burned cities and attacked Government property this summer....all of these acts inciting violence but it happened on the other side of the political aisle.  MOST concerning is they silenced the NY Post when they published the story about Hunter Biden's laptop...calling it fake news when in fact it is true and there is an active federal investigation.  If these few companies that control our access to information can choose sides and determine what we are allowed to see then our system is done.  I am stunned that more people on here are not shocked...you took and oath to the Constitution, not a political party...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

I seem to remember a great deal of social media and news coverage regarding complaints about BLM, Kathy Griffin, and Hunter Biden.  Lots of coverage of the details and the reaction from the right.  Not sure what media you consume.  

Even if social media exerts bias on what does and doesn't get posted on their platforms, there are many other currently-available avenues to communicate via the internet.  Also, I mentioned in another post that if you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy you can start your own social media platform.  You're not beholden to anyone. Go for it! 

You are absolutely right! My oath was to defend the constitution, not a flag, political party or specific person.  It is a really complicated situation. You've got the issue of a private company having the ability to control its destiny. You've got public accommodation laws to prevent things like minorities not being able to get mortgages. Then you've got the issue of very partisan people like a Hawley, Schumer, McConnell, or Pelosi having a direct say in what a private company can or can't discuss.  If I had the answers, I wouldn't be doing this. 

On a related topic: Fox, Newsmax, talk radio and other right leaning news outlets ARE part of mainstream media.  They have global reach and huge, growing viewer/readership. The tired old "liberal mainstream media" whining is obsolete.  

Edited January 21, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech.  Many are troubled by them banning Trump (complete overkill as they respond to the mob), but i am more concerned about the double standard because they are picking sides.  The did nothing when Madonna said "I want to burn down the White House, the did nothing when Kathy Girffin stood there with the severed head of Trump, they did nothing when BLM rolled out their "Fry police like bacon" chat, they did nothing when BLM and other extreme groups burned cities and attacked Government property this summer....all of these acts inciting violence but it happened on the other side of the political aisle.  MOST concerning is they silenced the NY Post when they published the story about Hunter Biden's laptop...calling it fake news when in fact it is true and there is an active federal investigation.  If these few companies that control our access to information can choose sides and determine what we are allowed to see then our system is done.  I am stunned that more people on here are not shocked...you took and oath to the Constitution, not a political party...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

Disagree here, I think your point is extremely overblown. You could replace “they” and “them” in your post with Twitter and Facebook. Twitter and Facebook are not the internet. Let me repeat. Twitter and Facebook are not “the internet.”

Now if you’re talking about the sensible regulation of over reaching, monopolistic large tech companies, I’m all ears. But that’s not your post. Instead, you’re mad that a company has a political leaning. Newsflash: all companies do. Find a different company.

The internet in its current form is a worldwide international marvel, not just an American free speech machine. And if you go on it and actually look outside Twitter and Facebook, you can find literally every group of people still has their place and their voice. I’m not keen to make the American internet into the Chinese version anytime soon.

Also, they don’t control your access to information. YOU control your access to information, and, sure, the fact that a bunch of dumbasses get their news from Facebook is a huge contributing factor to the problem. But that’s not facebooks fault. That’s your great Aunt Kay being an idiot who doesn’t look at multiple sources.

I don’t see Twitter or Facebook limiting the ability for Fox or MSNBC or CNN or the Washington Post to put out their own stories. I don’t see Facebook shutting down 4chan. It’s not like Twitter took Parler off the web.

My rub with a lot of this is you could just as easily argue that former president Trump getting online and spouting lies and misinformation is as destructive or even more destructive to the country. Yet there’s no discussion there? Hell, I think you’d be hard pressed to argue against that. Here’s just a few of the gems of falsehood and disinformation Trump has produced and spread using Twitter and Facebook that have helped us get to where we are today:

1) President Obama isn’t born in the US and isn’t a US citizen. YGBSM.

2) “Just stay calm, it will go away” in reference to COVID. Turned out his plan isn’t working so great, maybe should have followed science/his own advisors.

3) “VOTER FRAUD IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY, IT IS FACT” - thousands of bipartisan government workers have argued that there is no meaningful amount of fraud. The other side has failed to prevent any actual evidence. Yet this is the speech you are trying to protect?

4) “Republicans will always protect people with pre-existing conditions” while stripping away protections

5) “Tarrifs are making us rich” in 2018 as economic experts showed that we were and still are the people who pay the lions share of the costs

6) Single payer healthcare is a “radical left socialist” movement that Dems are using to turn America into Venezuela. When 90% of first world democratic nations have something like it.

7) “We’ve pulled off an economic turnaround of historic proportions” in 2018 when the economy was doing just fine coming out of Obama’s second term.

8: “There was no crime” in the Mueller probe, which resulted in charges brought down on nearly 50 people close to Trump. Oh, and it still has the words in there about “individual #1,” if you ever actually read it

9) “We’re building the wall as we speak” in 2018, as they were not in fact doing so

10) Hell, choose between the 30,000 false or misleading claims that the Washington post found. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

At what point do straight lies and misinformation from the president no longer deserve coverage? At what point does lying lose its “press protections?” At what point can a sitting US presidents misinformation cause a threat to America. Because there is a point. And there is not a good political way to reign it in.

And I’ll use your overblown oath example. You’re an officer who swore an oath to the constitution to defend from all enemies, including domestic. This bro tore our country apart and made enough people think that the election results were deliberately and simultaneously faked across 6 different states that he got a mob to legitimately invade the legislative branch of our government. And you think that should be protected? He’s off his rocker, and why should companies be required to host his lies?

What I got out of this is, actually, those in office should have to be held accountable for anything they say. If they say things that are provably false at the time they say them, then that should be illegal. Free speech and free press doesn’t equal politicians getting to lie to our faces on every platform that exists.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Negatory

[jazzdude]

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech. 
...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

We haven't abdicated control of the press to a few tech giants-it's never been easier for an individual to express themselves and communicate (or publish) with wider audiences, even if you're blocked from using Facebook/Twitter/Google/AWS. I mean, the fact that we're having this conversation on BaseOps.net and not Facebook shows that Facebook doesn't control everything. But I do agree that there may be a problem, though I don't think it's a free speech problem, rather a business monopoly problem.

A lot of the problems you point to are really problems with monopolies; maybe the big tech companies should be broken apart for being anti competitive (Facebook's strategy after all was to buy up any potential competitors such as instagram, whatsapp, and a while host of small startups). Hard to say twitter is a monopoly though, because other options exist, just not as popular (namely, the open source mastodon). Fortunately, we're starting to see some legal action on this front (FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization)

Apple brings up other interesting conversations. What rights do you have on a device you purchased? Should you be able to repair your own devices instead of having to use an Apple approved repair company and some approved parts (though this argument is being hard fought, primarily farmers against John Deere https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/03/its-payback-time-right-to-repair-movement-targets-john-deere/ )?

Apple always had a walled garden in their ecosystem, and heavily curate what they allow in. The apple app store has never been a free market-it's a captive market that they fully control in a closed environment. You can't even side load apps onto apple devices without jailbreaking the device first, which comes with consequences and lost features. So if that's what you want to do, their are other phone brands you can buy. Even being kicked off Google Play store is not a problem; you can side load apps on Android, because it's built on an open architecture.

This leads to the following questions: does apple have a right to block a competitive app store from being installed on their phone (keep their walled garden), or is that a anti-competitive, monopolistic action? Free market would point to the former. I believe it's the latter (and why I haven't made the jump to iPhone)

That being said, apple doesn't really make money selling iPhones, they make their money taking a large cut off revenue from every app that runs on iPhone. An iphone app developer can get kicked off the app store if apple feels like they aren't getting their cut. This one is going to court (Epic Games vs Apple https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/24/21531873/epic-apple-fortnite-app-store-lawsuit ), so we'll see how it'll pan out. If apple loses that case, good chance their stock will take a hit, since that case attacks their core money maker.

Unfortunately, Republicans generally have been soft on breaking up monopolies (FTC suing Facebook last year was surprising), so we'll see how the new administration moves on these issues.

[ClearedHot]

37 minutes ago, Negatory said:

And I’ll use your overblown oath example. You’re an officer who swore an oath to the constitution to defend from all enemies, including domestic. This bro tore our country apart and made enough people think that the election results were deliberately and simultaneously faked across 6 different states that he got a mob to legitimately invade the legislative branch of our government. And you think that should be protected? He’s off his rocker, and why should companies be required to host his lies?

Overblown...thanks for proving my point...there is no longer civil discussion.  Free speech is free only when you agree with it.  I don't care for Trump, but who decides what is truth or a lie?  You have completely walked past the fact that Twitter locked the account of the NY Post because they deemed the story to be false information when in fact it has proven to be 100% true...the laptop is Hunter's.  Facebook then attempted to purge the story as well.  That should be frightening to everyone...this has nothing to do with Trump.  Two of the major controllers of information to the American public stepped in to silence negative information that proved to be true about the Biden family and used the cloak of 230 as protection.  Previous to this event these things only happen in places like Russia and North Korea.

[ClearedHot]

47 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I seem to remember a great deal of social media and news coverage regarding complaints about BLM, Kathy Griffin, and Hunter Biden.  Lots of coverage of the details and the reaction from the right.  Not sure what media you consume.  

Even if social media exerts bias on what does and doesn't get posted on their platforms, there are many other currently-available avenues to communicate via the internet.  Also, I mentioned in another post that if you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy you can start your own social media platform.  You're not beholden to anyone. Go for it! 

You are absolutely right! My oath was to defend the constitution, not a flag, political party or specific person.  It is a really complicated situation. You've got the issue of a private company having the ability to control its destiny. You've got public accommodation laws to prevent things like minorities not being able to get mortgages. Then you've got the issue of very partisan people like a Hawley, Schumer, McConnell, or Pelosi having a direct say in what a private company can or can't discuss.  If I had the answers, I wouldn't be doing this. 

On a related topic: Fox, Newsmax, talk radio and other right leaning news outlets ARE part of mainstream media.  They have global reach and huge, growing viewer/readership. The tired old "liberal mainstream media" whining is obsolete.  

Yes, there was a lot of coverage about those events and organizations, thanks for pointing that out...and they all still have active social media accounts...even the leader of Iran has an active Twitter account which he uses to call for the destruction of Israel and the United States...how is that possible using the logic employed against Trump?

The "go start your own company" argument is trash, the monopolies given by 230 serve to block any real competition and when a company (Parler), does try to offer an alternative the tech monopolies immediately shut them down (Amazon and Apple), using the they don't police content argument...a double standard that says we get 230 protections but they don't.

Interesting you bring up Fox and Newsmax...the cancel culture is so strong that other outlets like CNN are ACTIVELY calling for both of these networks to be shutdown.

[Negatory]

49 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Overblown...thanks for proving my point...there is no longer civil discussion.  Free speech is free only when you agree with it.  I don't care for Trump, but who decides what is truth or a lie?  You have completely walked past the fact that Twitter locked the account of the NY Post because they deemed the story to be false information when in fact it has proven to be 100% true...the laptop is Hunter's.  Facebook then attempted to purge the story as well.  That should be frightening to everyone...this has nothing to do with Trump.  Two of the major controllers of information to the American public stepped in to silence negative information that proved to be true about the Biden family and used the cloak of 230 as protection.  Previous to this event these things only happen in places like Russia and North Korea.

Not at all. I don't agree with a lot of free speech, but I still want it protected. But there is a different between an opinion I don't agree with and an actual mistruth. Have any opinion in the world, that's fine. But I don't think lying about facts deserves a pass.

And brother, what do you mean the 100% truth about the laptop? What was hidden precisely? A last minute hail mary to smear Joe Biden based off of circumstantial evidence presented by Rudy Giuliani? What you actually have to prove is that a 50 year old drug addict's dealings directly are tied to his father's finances. There has never been even an iota of proof that Joe Biden has been involved with anything related to Hunter Biden's tax problems or foreign business. Yes, there is an FBI investigation into Hunter Biden. No, there is no substance into investigating Joe Biden, like OANN and Tucker Carlson try to insinuate.

You do realize that in late October 2020, FOX news even decided not to run the story based on the extreme lack of evidence. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-passed-on-chance-to-break-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns-report

This one's not a giant conspiracy against conservative voices, give me a break. Every news outlet from Antifa to Fox agreed that running a circumstantial story with no substance was not real press.

Also, because we're all about maxims, how about "innocent until proven guilty?" You defending the ability for anyone to throw any political attacks they want, regardless of veracity/evidence and without accountability, is not something that I think I'm going to agree with you about.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Negatory

[ClearedHot]

15 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Not at all. I don't agree with a lot of free speech, but I still want it protected. But there is a different between an opinion I don't agree with and an actual mistruth. Have any opinion in the world, that's fine. But I don't think lying about facts deserves a pass.

And brother, what do you mean the 100% truth about the laptop? What was hidden precisely? A last minute hail mary to smear Joe Biden based off of circumstantial evidence presented by Rudy Giuliani? What you actually have to prove is that a 50 year old drug addict's dealings directly are tied to his father's finances. There has never been even an iota of proof that Joe Biden has been involved with anything related to Hunter Biden's tax problems or foreign business. Yes, there is an FBI investigation into Hunter Biden. No, there is no substance into investigating Joe Biden, like OANN and Tucker Carlson try to insinuate.

You do realize that in late October 2020, FOX news even decided not to run the story based on the extreme lack of evidence. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-passed-on-chance-to-break-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns-report

This one's not a giant conspiracy against conservative voices, give me a break. Every news outlet from Antifa to Fox agreed that running a circumstantial story with no substance was not real press.

Also, because we're all about maxims, how about "innocent until proven guilty?" You defending the ability for anyone to throw any political attacks they want, regardless of veracity/evidence and without accountability, is not something that I think I'm going to agree with you about.

Again, who determines the truth....a Facebook fact checker...Snopes...gimmie a break.  Again, i don't support Trump but I never saw him call for violence as opposed to Madonna, BLM, Antifa, the leader of Iran who have all called for violence yet their accounts remain active.

Is 100% of the laptop story true, that remains to be seen, but there are frightening portions that appear to be valid and MUST be investigated.   What is true and proven so far:

1.  It was Hunter's laptop - he asked for it back.

2.  The Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski has gone on record and validated the shady dealings...yet the mainstream press turns a blind eye.

3.  The counter email accounts have been validated...the sent emails are real.  There should be great concern that there is mention of "10% for the big guy."  Now is that just Hunter talking...no idea but certainly worth an real investigation.

4.  The suggested business dealings are not just shady, they impact national security.  Assisting the Chinese government is acquiring interest in companies that have a direct impact on U.S. National security...again MUST be investigated.

if you investigate over what has been proven to be a fake dossier that was paid for by Hillary why don't you investigate this???  COMPLETE BIAS....what was your comment about innocent until proven guilty? Come on man.

Interestingly the laptop repair shop owner is now suing Twitter and others...he has a strong case and will likely win big like Nick Sandmann who was similarly smeared by a host of new organizations like CNN that are now paying big bucks to settle.

I have a small amount of faith that a small group of dedicated Justice Department and FBI folks are following the rats nest...sadly the result would be to install the most radical former member of the Senate in the Oval office.

[FLEA]

17 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Again, who determines the truth....a Facebook fact checker...Snopes...gimmie a break.  Again, i don't support Trump but I never saw him call for violence as opposed to Madonna, BLM, Antifa, the leader of Iran who have all called for violence yet their accounts remain active.

Is 100% of the laptop story true, that remains to be seen, but there are frightening portions that appear to be valid and MUST be investigated.   What is true and proven so far:

1.  It was Hunter's laptop - he asked for it back.

2.  The Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski has gone on record and validated the shady dealings...yet the mainstream press turns a blind eye.

3.  The counter email accounts have been validated...the sent emails are real.  There should be great concern that there is mention of "10% for the big guy."  Now is that just Hunter talking...no idea but certainly worth an real investigation.

4.  The suggested business dealings are not just shady, they impact national security.  Assisting the Chinese government is acquiring interest in companies that have a direct impact on U.S. National security...again MUST be investigated.

if you investigate over what has been proven to be a fake dossier that was paid for by Hillary why don't you investigate this???  COMPLETE BIAS....what was your comment about innocent until proven guilty? Come on man.

Interestingly the laptop repair shop owner is now suing Twitter and others...he has a strong case and will likely win big like Nick Sandmann who was similarly smeared by a host of new organizations like CNN that are now paying big bucks to settle.

I have a small amount of faith that a small group of dedicated Justice Department and FBI folks are following the rats nest...sadly the result would be to install the most radical former member of the Senate in the Oval office.

Say nothing to the fact that tech companies did nothing to censor the 3 years of lies politicians told about Russia-gate and the Trump dossier. 

[Swamp Yankee]

9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

The only reason any of us know Bret Weinstein's name is because he had the temerity to call a spade a spade when he stood up to the extreme, racist, left wing mob that attempted to enact a "day without white people" on his campus. He (rightfully) took a stand against that effort and has been in the limelight ever since. Probably because he's not woke enough. So most of his exposure on the internet is derivative of that one-off event, hence why 95% of it is complaining about democrats...since it was a reaction to democrats.

It's the same fundamental story behind Jordan Petersen. These are "normal" guys (professors, scientists, etc.) who wake up one morning and go "WTF is going on around here?" and they call it out. Call me crazy, but we need more of that. For goodness sakes, he's an evolutionary biologist at Evergreen State College...none of that suggests secret conservative mastermind.

And the only reason we hear about him via Joe Rogan (left, right, centerish) and Sam Harris (leftish) is because no one on the true "left" wants to engage in an honest way with what he's saying. That says way more about the left than it does about Bret Weinstein and it certainly doesn't implicate him as a (gasp) conservative.

I agree with most of what you said.  The initial incident that brought Weinstein to awareness was a classic example of liberal college ridiculousness.  Overall, I enjoy listening to folks like Rogan, Harris, Weinsteins, and Peterson.  The long-form discussion on the IDW has transformed media and shows that the average citizen is capable of in-depth, nuanced thought.  The simpleminded Fox News and MSNBC 30-sec soundbites are frankly insulting to all of us.  However, I do think that once some of the supposed moderates and liberals get a taste of IDW attention, they maintain their iconoclast image by railing against the left and NEVER criticizing the right.  The IDW audience skews right and hey, there are books to sell and podcasts listenerships to grow.  However, you'd think they'd have at least something to criticize.... The left is not always wrong and the right is not always right. 

I disagree that the left doesn't want to engage in terms of considering the other side's arguments.  For example, Sam Harris is much more willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint.  Ben Shapiro just goes on the attack in order to win the argument.  There's a difference between defending your position at all costs vs. listening to understand and arrive at the best possible solution.  The former is for war and court cases.  The latter helps shape the best mutual results in a shared society. 

On a separate note, I now have a child at one of those "elite northeast liberal colleges". While that initially made me groan and gave me agita, I've seen that most of the kids just play at being liberals for a few years. Once they graduate, 75% head off to Wall Street, med school, or law school. It's funny.  

[jazzdude]

I don't care for Trump, but who decides what is truth or a lie? 

Who do you propose should be the arbiter of truth? Should a private entity be compelled to host opinions they disagree with by the government?

Previous to this event these things only happen in places like Russia and North Korea.

Those examples have government exerting direct control on information.

[Negatory]

This is all somewhat ironic, because fairness issues up until very recently were primarily based around the extremely conservative talk radio bias that has existed for decades.

Rules that would force private entities to protect political speech existed before under the fairness doctrine, which was repealed during the Reagan presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Opposition

Many have attempted to revive it, but attempts have almost been unilaterally opposed by conservatives up until this point because it was politically in their favor to maintain a monopoly on things like radio messaging. Now that one private entity is showing an obvious anti-far-right bias, conservatives cry foul and say "not fair!" The hypocrisy is glaring.

[Swamp Yankee]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Yes, there was a lot of coverage about those events and organizations, thanks for pointing that out...and they all still have active social media accounts...even the leader of Iran has an active Twitter account which he uses to call for the destruction of Israel and the United States...how is that possible using the logic employed against Trump?

The "go start your own company" argument is trash, the monopolies given by 230 serve to block any real competition and when a company (Parler), does try to offer an alternative the tech monopolies immediately shut them down (Amazon and Apple), using the they don't police content argument...a double standard that says we get 230 protections but they don't.

Interesting you bring up Fox and Newsmax...the cancel culture is so strong that other outlets like CNN are ACTIVELY calling for both of these networks to be shutdown.

So what body enforces what tech companies are allowed to do with their own platforms? The federal government? No thanks.   But let's just say it is the government. As a result, companies will lose some of their ability to manage their businesses and thus financial outcomes.  Does the government now need to subsidize them as a result? That doesn't sounds great either.  What's the penalty if the company refuses to comply?  

Social media has monopolies for sure, just like any industry.  In automobiles, didn't stop Elon Musk re: Tesla.  Granted, most of us aren't incredible genius polymaths willing to work 100 hrs/wk (and get thousands of others to do so as well).  Didn't stop Uber, etc. I guess I'm enough of an optimistic, perhaps naive, capitalist to think that innovation and persistence eventually breaks through all monopolies. 

[jazzdude]

So what body enforces what tech companies are allowed to do with their own platforms? The federal government? No thanks.   But let's just say it is the government. As a result, companies will lose some of their ability to manage their businesses and thus financial outcomes.  Does the government now need to subsidize them as a result? That doesn't sounds great either.  What's the penalty if the company refuses to comply?  
Social media has monopolies for sure, just like any industry.  In automobiles, didn't stop Elon Musk re: Tesla.  Granted, most of us aren't incredible genius polymaths willing to work 100 hrs/wk (and get thousands of others to do so as well).  Didn't stop Uber, etc. I guess I'm enough of an optimistic, perhaps naive, capitalist to think that innovation and persistence eventually breaks through all monopolies. 

Tesla's an interesting case. Yes, they are to newer to market, and had to compete against the legacy car manufacturers. But they also had a lot of capital injected into their business by a wealthy person (Elon Musk) who took interest in their business and their vision, that actually allowed them to compete.

So yeah, the small guy can succeed, but only if they can get the right investors.

The problem with taking investors is you lose control. Money buys influence, piss off your investors and they pull their money.

[Swamp Yankee]

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

Tesla's an interesting case. Yes, they are to newer to market, and had to compete against the legacy car manufacturers. But they also had a lot of capital injected into their business by a wealthy person (Elon Musk) who took interest in their business and their vision, that actually allowed them to compete.

So yeah, the small guy can succeed, but only if they can get the right investors.

The problem with taking investors is you lose control. Money buys influence, piss off your investors and they pull their money.

 

True.  Amazing how a board member at a small company can send you on a wild goose chase due to some pet project.  

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I've seen that most of the kids just play at being liberals for a few years. Once they graduate, 75% head off to Wall Street, med school, or law school. It's funny.  

Real life will do that to you. It truly is remarkable that some liberals are able to live their entire lives as liberals. It take some real dedication. Of course, a lot of times it's a case of "liberalism for thee, but not for me." I mean, Bernie is keeping the millions from his book I assume and not giving it to the government to distribute.

[jazzdude]

True.  Amazing how a board member at a small company can send you on a wild goose chase due to some pet project.  

Exactly (and it's a problem for large companies that have a person or entity as a majority shareholder). Or force you to sell out to a big company so they can cash out on the takeover, potentially including your intellectual property.

In our capitalist society/economy, it's not what we say we value that sets what is important, it's where we spend our money. Money is a reflection of what is really valued (and a proxy for time and resources expended) and speaks much louder than words.

[jazzdude]

Think a company has a double standard? Stop doing business with that company. That will encourage them to apply an even/fair standard.

Twitter doesn't care that the leaders in Iran are tweeting what they are- it allows them access to the Iranian market, so they tolerate it for the money. If a significant portion of their user base was offended by that and leave twitter, then twitter might take action. All they are required to do is to comply with the laws of the country they are operating in, and that standard changes based on the country you access twitter from.

Remember with social media that you, the user, are not the consumer, you and your information are the product. Sure they provide a service, but it's not really free, and the sale of your information and advertising is what keeps them in business.

I will agree, though, that we are moving in a direction where maybe some aspects of social media are becoming important. (Remember not too long ago people were ridiculed for posting their lives on a blog, which isn't too far removed from what people do on Facebook?) It's why government and industry should encourage using open standards, and support data portability (to make it easier for even possible to pull your info off a platform and move to a different platform).

But to ClearedHot's point, those large companies (and not just social media companies) can exert a lot of influence, so yes, we need to figure out how to get to what we as a country believe is right.

People have been fighting against several large tech companies and throwing up warning flags for over a decade now, but largely that debate has fallen on deaf ears, both from politicians and the general public (who generally don't care as long as it doesn't affect them directly, like it is now for a small group of people).

EFF had been a leading voice in that regard. Here's their short analysis of the whole Trump/Twitter debate:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-media-companies-decision-block-president-trumps-accounts
Essentially, they support social media's right to censor and exercise their first amendment and section 230 rights, but very concerned about the transparency and fairness of the actions, and purpose a framework to ensure fairness that the platforms should self impose voluntarily as a best practice.

[Swamp Yankee]

14 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Exactly (and it's a problem for large companies that have a person or entity as a majority shareholder). Or force you to sell out to a big company so they can cash out on the takeover, potentially including your intellectual property.

In our capitalist society/economy, it's not what we say we value that sets what is important, it's where we spend our money. Money is a reflection of what is really valued (and a proxy for time and resources expended) and speaks much louder than words.

Reminds me of Ricky Gervais comments during the Golden Globes where he lambasted Tim Cook @ Apple and the other electronic media folk.  Something to the effect of 'you say you're woke, but if ISIS started a streaming service you'd call your agent.'

[FLEA]

22 minutes ago, TheLaughingCow said:

There are certain companies which are impossible, or extremely difficult, to stop supporting.

Facebook, Google, and Amazon all fall into that category since Facebook and Google track you across the internet to steal and sell your data.  Any time you use the internet you are supporting Amazon's cloud services.

I mean, I literally, actually, very well probably couldnt survive without Amazon right now, living overseas in lockdown. I have ZERO other ways to receive products. Stores havent been open here for months and Amazon is the only delivery service for consumer goods I know of in this country. Pretty much ANYTHING I can't get at a grocery store, I've been buying off Amazon for the last year. 

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Those examples have government exerting direct control on information.

Let's be real, the mainstream media, Facebook and Twitter have become extensions of the DNC.  It is one thing to openly advocate, it is another to use the power of your monopoly to control and suppress information in order to impact the outcome of an election.  Because of their monopoly status, the protections of 230 and change in society, they have become an extension of one political party.

While I agree with you on the car company examples I think there is a huge difference between buying a car and being the main supplier of information to the electorate.  Society has changed and recent surveys have shown 67% of Facebook users also use Facebook as their primary source of news.  When combined with 230 you now have a recipe for disaster.  Again...Facebook and Twitter actively suppressed negative stories about Biden and Openly championed negative stories about Trump.  The answer is not government regulation, it is to break up these monopolies and make sure there is fair access to news and information.

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

I mean, I literally, actually, very well probably couldnt survive without Amazon right now, living overseas in lockdown. I have ZERO other ways to receive products. Stores havent been open here for months and Amazon is the only delivery service for consumer goods I know of in this country. Pretty much ANYTHING I can't get at a grocery store, I've been buying off Amazon for the last year. 

And they do thus at the expense of the U.S. Tax payer.  In 2018 Amazon posted profit of $18 billion (I own a bunch, great for my portfolio), but they paid ZERO in taxes...actually it is worse than that....thanks to tax credits they got a refund of $139 Million.  While being subsidized they are flexing political muscle (no hidden secret the Bezos and Trump hate each other), and they ban a predominately conservative company from their servers under completely contrived rationale.  Amazon should be the first target of the government....but they won't be.

[slackline]

15 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

And they do thus at the expense of the U.S. Tax payer.  In 2018 Amazon posted profit of $18 billion (I own a bunch, great for my portfolio), but they paid ZERO in taxes...actually it is worse than that....thanks to tax credits they got a refund of $139 Million.  While being subsidized they are flexing political muscle (no hidden secret the Bezos and Trump hate each other), and they ban a predominately conservative company from their servers under completely contrived rationale.  Amazon should be the first target of the government....but they won't be.

I think you'd have a hard time getting anyone that they used a contrived rationale.  I'll give you the double standard, and readily admit social media is garbage, poisoning our ability to critically think, but nothing was contrived.  Ignoring the double standard, clear violations of ToS were present, warnings were given, and now they finally did what they should have been doing across the globe to left and right a long time ago.  Now they need to step up and apply this standard evenhandedly.  Here's me holding my breath...

I don't use any social media for this reason.  I agree, it's virtually impossible to not use Google or Amazon, but Facebook?  Nope, have none of it.  People value their social media more than they value their real lives, so good luck convincing people to jump ship en masse.  

[Swamp Yankee]

12 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Let's be real, the mainstream media, Facebook and Twitter have become extensions of the DNC.  It is one thing to openly advocate, it is another to use the power of your monopoly to control and suppress information in order to impact the outcome of an election.  Because of their monopoly status, the protections of 230 and change in society, they have become an extension of one political party.

While I agree with you on the car company examples I think there is a huge difference between buying a car and being the main supplier of information to the electorate.  Society has changed and recent surveys have shown 67% of Facebook users also use Facebook as their primary source of news.  When combined with 230 you now have a recipe for disaster.  Again...Facebook and Twitter actively suppressed negative stories about Biden and Openly championed negative stories about Trump.  The answer is not government regulation, it is to break up these monopolies and make sure there is fair access to news and information.

I agree Twitter has bias.  Facebook much less so.  Regardless....

The mainstream media includes Fox, Newsmax, OAN, talk radio, Wash Times, among others. Plenty of exposure for both the left and right.  Don't pretend it's 1992 with the NY Times and networks controlling the news.   You can make a stronger case for Fox being an extension of the RNC.  You can also post on Fox news comments all day - no one is stopping you - except when Fox decides to pause occasionally due to super hot and heavy openly racist comments.  Or go to 4chan if you want.  

If someone decides Facebook is their primary news source, that's on them. No one is forcing them to read "articles" about Bernie or QAnon while posting cat pics no one cares about.  Plenty of other outlets.  Try BBC (sts) for example. 

 

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, slackline said:

I think you'd have a hard time getting anyone that they used a contrived rationale.  I'll give you the double standard, and readily admit social media is garbage, poisoning our ability to critically think, but nothing was contrived.  Ignoring the double standard, clear violations of ToS were present, warnings were given, and now they finally did what they should have been doing across the globe to left and right a long time ago.  Now they need to step up and apply this standard evenhandedly.  Here's me holding my breath...

I don't use any social media for this reason.  I agree, it's virtually impossible to not use Google or Amazon, but Facebook?  Nope, have none of it.  People value their social media more than they value their real lives, so good luck convincing people to jump ship en masse.  

Please read contrived as double standard in my example.  They host other organizations that are doing the exact same thing so they reverted to ToS as part of the cancel culture.