Big Tech Taking Advantage of a "Tragedy"

Post Reply New Topic

And if that happen, we are in trouble. But that has never happened. Presenting hypotheticals is not evidence. I have my own blog and I print my own books. I also have done exhibitions and lectures. No one has prevented me from using my 1st amendment rights. It seem your argument is you want to compel Google to allow you a voice on their platforms unconditionally. That is not how the 1st amendment works.

We also have anti-monopoly laws (which is not the same as 1st amendment rights). Last time I checked, a number of people in Congress was looking into regulating these corporations. And a number of other governments have looked into regulating these companies as well.

So, what is your answer?

Because mine would be publicly funded services (government) that would allow for this freedom as you see fit. But it is the Right wing that are the ones continuously want to privatise everything. From postage to healthcare. I take a more socialist point of view where we take a more holistic approach of ensuring everyone has equal opportunities.

But until that happens, I also appreciate how the capitalist system, especially in the tech sectors, can be more influenced by more younger, savvier and progressive voices based more on evidence rather than misinformation more common in conservative circles.

No, I'm saying it's a misnomer to refer to a publicly-traded company as privately owned. I'm well-aware it's not a government-run corporation, thanks for the unnecessary lecture.

But it does speak to a greater point. When a corporation becomes large enough to go public, it's most certainly larger and more profitable than smaller companies in the same space. This is why regulation of these large corporations exists in the first place. A smaller, privately-owned company has less sway and influence over the public. A mega-corporation is in a different position entirely.

AT&T tried to claim that because it was a "private company," it could charge whatever it wished for long-distance telephone calls. They said the government had no business meddling in their affairs, since the government didn't own all of those phone lines and infrastructure, and people were free to not make long-distance calls or to go somewhere else

...problem was, AT&T was the ONLY "private" (i.e. non-government corporation) that owned those phone lines. It was impossible to "go somewhere else" as AT&T didn't permit anyone else to compete...

Whether the government owns and controls the company or if a private-sector grows to big for its britches, you effectively have the same scenario (though the non-government corporation probably runs its company for efficiently).

The role of government should not be to run the corporation. The role of government should be to regulate the corporation and not allow it to corner the market. No company corners the market overnight. But many eventually get there.

The Internet itself, interestingly, isn't really "owned" by any one party. There are different companies that control access in certain areas, and different web browser to chose from, but no corporation could ever own the Internet as a phenomena.

However, when any individual company (government or private sector) corners a market within the Internet, the gatekeepers control policy and content at their discretion.

By the way, Google would most certainly survive a trust-busting measure as AT&T did and would still be a pretty big player, but not the sole default player they've become.

You are so quick to insult people by implying they are ignorant when they don't agree with you. But being a publicly traded company does not mean you are a "mega" corporation. There is not particular size to be publicly traded. And the same goes for privately owned corporations. Koch Industries is valued at $115 billion.

You realise that a tiny business could be publicly traded, and a large business could be not, right? Large businesses even do things like buying back their stock to make themselves less publicly traded or arguably even remove it from being so. This could get really complex and filled with a lot of theory tor really go into the natures of being publicly traded with stocks or not.

What you are talking about is different, and is more along the lines of market regulation and competition. It is a lot of why my side of the political aisle will call for things like regulations to prevent things like price fixing by the private sector, and public (government) investment for things like infrastructure that should be publicly managed, not privately so in a way that is always looking for the bottom dollar.

It is why this topic is so actually ironic when the very people complaining in about things like getting banned from certain platforms are the exact same type of people that are fighting against public ownership and management. The answer is because these people do not actually want something publicly managed in ways that will benefit the most people, they want it privately so that they can hold the strongest grasp of things like pushing the facts most beneficial to them to hold things to the system most convenient to them. And it is just in this age where information can be vetted so much more reliably that it is not able to be enough, so the people who are still acting in the obviously misinformed or transparently harassing way are being called out.

Just making things smaller is an attempt of people who want to be able to get away with things that can only be done by restricting information that could allow whatever it is they want to push.

OK, that solves the monopoly issue. I think we all agree.

How do you solve the control of content? You have not articulated a solution for that.

I would actually suggest that anyone implying that the proposed ban of TikTok had anything to do with protecting "the Facebook/Twitter paradigm" show either a disappointing lack of knowledge regarding what was being proposed and the reason behind it, or is intentionally misrepresenting the reason behind it:

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/business/trump-tik-tok-wechat-ban.html

It is a shame when speaking one's mind is thought of as 'getting away with things.' That's the antithesis of free speech.

You are talking about the difference between having publicly funded and ensured health insurance, and having a whole bunch of different different health insurances doing their own thing. Or having the roads being publicly funded, owned and maintained, to be owned privately by all different people all over the places that could put their own tolls on each different road.

Of course there is a problem with one big private institution being able to put their own will over everyone else regardless of whether what would be good for the people. But breaking it up into tiny small businesses that are are all out for themselves and willing to see how much they can squeeze from people, is not the only answer. It creates many other problems where you are seeing a wastage of middle men that are mostly there to take more money, and could be done more efficiently with larger bodies. Arguably you are probably just opening up more cans of worms where you have more out to take advantage of others, or those with fringe beliefs that could get a hold of vital areas.

This whole thing is further complicated where as much as you want to pretend it is not a fact, these corporations are not just existing within America, where relevant stakeholders are all over the world. I take the American centric approach is getting a bit too close to aspects of American exceptionalism and arguably an aspect of colonialism, where there is only a care about sovereign protection of autonomy while ignoring the influence that is being put over the rest of the world. It is under that where we really should be switching to aspects of globalism that takes into account that we are all influencing each other and there should be an amount of responsibility to work together rather than just compete and take advantage of others because we fear that they would do the same to us.

And what counts as just speaking one's mind? Would it count as free speech if I started making harassing statements about you? Would it be free speech if I started sending pictures of gore to children?

I think we should agree that calls for violence and open harassment of others should not count as just speaking one's mind.

Free speech has never been absolute like you are claiming it has.

The problem is that there is a spectrum regarding "free speech" among people. These tend to fall into a few groups, ranging between "the Libertarian", who believes in free speech with no restriction through to the "authoritarian"\"totalitarian" who wants speech they disagree with stopped.

It is certainly insightful, seeing where various people stand on this spectrum...

Does freedom of speech protect claiming the government is filled with Satanic pedophiles who need to be violently resisted, planning that resistance and then celebrating actions of violence engaged in by that resistance?

Can we just get some examples of actually censured speech so we can see where people are on that spectrum, rather than assuming where they are on that spectrum?

For example I think that topics of sexuality should not be censured, and those who are sex workers should not face silencing for talking about their experiences, or even doing it in the first place.

Just recently the New York Times doxed a healthcare worker for having an Only Fans account, and led to her getting fired. That is an example of being silenced by purity culture of the Right.

Where do you stand on this spectrum?

One of Jordan Hall's truly fierce incendiary rants.