Is this ok with you?

[W_Heisenberg]

Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?

The social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter do not have any obligation whatsoever to help your country, Russia, spread anti-Biden propaganda in a pathetic and weak attempt to influence our election, Mr. Rba1776 or should I say, Mr. "13 messages, two weeks before the election."

 

[roguenuke]

They are a monopoly or a near monopoly. There isn't a competitor that is even close.
They are such a monopoly or near monopoly that they've become near utilities on the Information Super Highway.



Fair. I am identifying a problem.

The hardest part is going to be what is the best, most correct and effective, yet least intrusive, thing to do about the problem? And, no, heavy handed government regulation of social media platforms doesn't have my support at this time.



Agreed. See my statement above.

They are not a monopoly. What good do they control to the exclusion of all others? It isn't information because there are dozens of websites sharing the very info people are complaining about. This would be like claiming cork boards held a monopoly on jobs and rooms for rent and babysitting postings because most people preferred to freely post them there than to post in other places, on other types of platforms.

 

[eohrnberger]

They are not a monopoly. What good do they control to the exclusion of all others? It isn't information because there are dozens of websites sharing the very info people are complaining about. This would be like claiming cork boards held a monopoly on jobs and rooms for rent and babysitting postings because most people preferred to freely post them there than to post in other places, on other types of platforms.

Clearly we disagree on this point.
My contention is that the large social media platforms have such a large share of the user base that viable and realistic competitors are pretty much locked out of that market.

User choice isn't the only factor which needs to be considered when determining of a company is a monopoly or not.

 

[Deuce]

I’m entirely comfortable with Twitter removing falsified bullshit from its network, yes.

Right wingers want to swing the election through slander and fraud, Twitter has no obligation to facilitate that.

 

[Deuce]

Clearly we disagree on this point.
My contention is that the large social media platforms have such a large share of the user base that viable and realistic competitors are pretty much locked out of that market.

User choice isn't the only factor which needs to be considered when determining of a company is a monopoly or not.

Weird how none of that mattered to you when ISPs were in question regarding Net Neutrality.

 

[eohrnberger]

Weird how none of that mattered to you when ISPs were in question regarding Net Neutrality.

I've always been against municipalities limiting choices customers have for ISPs.

Fundamentally, ISPs need to be able to manage their networks. If customers don't like how they manage their networks, have negative experiences with a particular ISP, and there are viable competitors, customer choices in the market, the competition for customers will sort all that out all on it's own without heavy handed government interference.

 

[JasperL]

Point being they're NOT being held liable of comments, "factcheck" and editorializing. If they want to exercise freedom of speech, them like everyone else they should be held responsible just like everyone else. AND if they choose to modify or restrict the freedom of others they need to be held responsible.

Some guy you invited into your home, no charge, comes into your kitchen and insults your wife. How should you be held responsible for restricting his freedom to stay in your kitchen, insulting your family? Fine? Jail? Just a requirement to let him keep drinking your liquor and eating your food until he decides to leave on his own?

How about at your place of work. Someone walks into the front door screaming about how you or you boss is a agent of George Soros and the Deep State. How long are you required to let him sit in your lobby and interrupting your business, since throwing him out on his ass is a restriction on his freedom of speech, among other freedoms? If you throw him out, what is your liability to him for restricting his freedoms?

 

[roguenuke]

Clearly we disagree on this point.
My contention is that the large social media platforms have such a large share of the user base that viable and realistic competitors are pretty much locked out of that market.

User choice isn't the only factor which needs to be considered when determining of a company is a monopoly or not.

No one is in reality though locked out of the market. They are quite free to create whatever platform they like.

 

[eohrnberger]

No one is in reality though locked out of the market. They are quite free to create whatever platform they like.

True. But the large social media platforms have an insurmountable lead in user base, at present, that there is no realistic and effective competition, and it is this market condition that makes the social media platforms effective monopolies.

 

[Bullseye]

Some guy you invited into your home, no charge, comes into your kitchen and insults your wife. How should you be held responsible for restricting his freedom to stay in your kitchen, insulting your family? Fine? Jail? Just a requirement to let him keep drinking your liquor and eating your food until he decides to leave on his own?

How about at your place of work. Someone walks into the front door screaming about how you or you boss is a agent of George Soros and the Deep State. How long are you required to let him sit in your lobby and interrupting your business, since throwing him out on his ass is a restriction on his freedom of speech, among other freedoms? If you throw him out, what is your liability to him for restricting his freedoms?

A couple of the most ridiculous hypotheticals I've seen in a long time, Jasper. Well done.

 

[d0gbreath]

It's not just ok with me, I like it.

 

[BlueTex]

True. But the large social media platforms have an insurmountable lead in user base, at present, that there is no realistic and effective competition, and it is this market condition that makes the social media platforms effective monopolies.

Myspace has an insurmountable lead in the user base, then along came facebook... Do you know who bought Myspace in 2005?

 

[roguenuke]

True. But the large social media platforms have an insurmountable lead in user base, at present, that there is no realistic and effective competition, and it is this market condition that makes the social media platforms effective monopolies.

They are not selling either a good or service to the users that use their sites though. They are simply providing a platform. Their customers, those that pay them, have lots of other sites as well to advertise on. Their customers are advertisers and game developers, not those who post on facebook. Their service is to get those advertisers to the public, those games out to the public.

 

[Cardinal]

BUllshit. If you tried to link to the story, they shut down your account. Most people woud consider shutting down you account being censored, but evidently not in the Kool-Aid crowd.

Nobody is obligated to assist in the spread of obvious disinformation.

 

[eohrnberger]

Myspace has an insurmountable lead in the user base, then along came facebook... Do you know who bought Myspace in 2005?

They are not selling either a good or service to the users that use their sites though. They are simply providing a platform. Their customers, those that pay them, have lots of other sites as well to advertise on. Their customers are advertisers and game developers, not those who post on facebook. Their service is to get those advertisers to the public, those games out to the public.

Neither of these things change the market realities in my post.

 

[Cardinal]

True. But the large social media platforms have an insurmountable lead in user base, at present, that there is no realistic and effective competition, and it is this market condition that makes the social media platforms effective monopolies.

That doesn’t mean they’re obliged to assist you in spreading obvious disinformation any more than a movie theater is obliged to assist you in yelling fire in a crowded theater.

 

[Lursa]

Clearly we disagree on this point.
My contention is that the large social media platforms have such a large share of the user base that viable and realistic competitors are pretty much locked out of that market.

User choice isn't the only factor which needs to be considered when determining of a company is a monopoly or not.

I dont think they have a monopoly either. Anyone can create and publish a social site on the Internet. We are posting on one right now...it just has a narrower focus.

When it comes to a monopoly, do you see it as them shutting out others in the market? Because obviously, they arent. It would also seem to imply that all other social sites desired that huge membership level and reach, which I dont believe. I guess everyone would like to be rich like Zuckerberg but I dont see them as a monopoly unless you can define for me "specifically" what they have a monopoly over?

Sorry to jump into the conversation but these are the things that came to mind as I read the conv.

 

[BlueTex]

Neither of these things change the market realities in my post.

Why do you suppose facebook bought instagram and wants tiktok taken out of the market? By the way, that tiktok ban never happened... more tough Trump talk that never came to fruition...

 

[Rawley]

Nobody is obligated to assist in the spread of obvious disinformation.

You revelled in it for 3+ years with the obvious RUssia RUssia Russia disinformation. Why the change of heart?

 

[Cardinal]

You revelled in it for 3+ years with the obvious RUssia RUssia Russia disinformation. Why the change of heart?

I give your deflection an F-. If you want to spread disinformation, do it on a site that allows it or walk over to a friend's house and give him the disinformation directly.

 

[Rawley]

I give your deflection an F-. If you want to spread disinformation, do it on a site that allows it or walk over to a friend's house and give him the disinformation directly.

Backatacha

 

[eohrnberger]

Why do you suppose facebook bought instagram and wants tiktok taken out of the market? By the way, that tiktok ban never happened... more tough Trump talk that never came to fruition...

The US House antitrust subcommittee has made public the email exchanges between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former chief financial officer David Ebersman, revealing that the company (and Zuckerberg, in particular) wanted to buy Instagram to avoid competition as it could have hurt the social network.

Mark Zuckerberg bought Instagram as it was a 'threat' to Facebook

Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion in 2012, a shocking sum at that time for a company with 13 employees

www.business-standard.com

To avoid competition. Isn't buying out potential competitors a typical behavior of a monopoly?

According to this article's author, Facebook may very well buy TokTock.

Look at this chart, which shows the world’s most downloaded apps in 2019:

Why Facebook Might Be Considering A TikTok Takeover

Facebook’s recent actions hint that it could make a move with TikTok as soon as this year. All this bodes very well for Facebook stock.

www.forbes.com

Facebook already owns WhatsApp, as well as others:

• Instagram
• WhatsApp[/SIZE]
• Oculus VR
• Onavo
• Beluga

5 Companies Owned By Facebook

Instagram, What's App, Oculus VR, Onavo, and Beluga are major companies owned by Facebook.

www.investopedia.com

Looks more and more like Facebook is a monopoly and is behaving like a monopoly.

 

[JasperL]

A couple of the most ridiculous hypotheticals I've seen in a long time, Jasper. Well done.

You didn't understand the example. If Trump bureaucrats can tell Twitter what it can do and say and who it allows on its free forum, and what posts it can delete and what posts it must allow, and what links it must allow to be spread and which ones it can delete, then why can't Trump bureaucrats dictate who you allow to stay in your kitchen or your place of business?

If you kick someone out of your house, you are infringing on that person's 'free speech right!!' to insult you or your wife or kids!!! Well, when is it OK for someone to do that on their private property? When must a private property owner look to Trump bureaucrats to tell them who it can "censor" and who it cannot?

 

[Bullseye]

You didn't understand the example. If Trump bureaucrats can tell Twitter what it can do and say and who it allows on its free forum, and what posts it can delete and what posts it must allow, and what links it must allow to be spread and which ones it can delete, then why can't Trump bureaucrats dictate who you allow to stay in your kitchen or your place of business?

You just keep getting further and further into the weeds. Social media are exempt from liability for posts of others. But that exempt shouldn't apply when THEY post or alter another's. That's the issue. Passing users' content without change is protected. But adding semantic or blocking it for other than some very specific, e.g. insurrection, threats, etc. is not protected.

If you kick someone out of your house, you are infringing on that person's 'free speech right!!' to insult you or your wife or kids!!! Well, when is it OK for someone to do that on their private property? When must a private property owner look to Trump bureaucrats to tell them who it can "censor" and who it cannot?

This is stupid beyond belief.

 

[BlueTex]

You just keep getting further and further into the weeds. Social media are exempt from liability for posts of others. But that exempt shouldn't apply when THEY post or alter another's. That's the issue. Passing users' content without change is protected. But adding semantic or blocking it for other than some very specific, e.g. insurrection, threats, etc. is not protected.
This is stupid beyond belief.

Your opinion is not going to change the law.