- Thread starter
- #41
My point exactly. A business is private property, whether it's open to the general public or not. As such, the owner of that property should be able to serve whomever they like or not. The market will respond to any demand. The SC got it wrong, IMO.
Agreed, but here is where you are mistaken. FB has such a dominant market position that there is no real competition. Companies in such situations are utility-like. When FB censors political points of view, it has a broad affect on our public discourse. No company should have that power.
I disagree. If people don't like FB's censorship, an alternative will arise to meet demand. No government meddling required.
Sorry to disappoint, but the era of the internet frontier with opportunities for everyone is over. Want an example? Look at how GOOG removed the GAB app from it's platform. Big Internet has built a wall, and is using its massive size to crush any competition from forming. This is why we have Anti-Trust laws; it's time to enforce them.
I do not believe in anti-trust laws. I believe in keeping government the hell out of business. The market always responds to demand. On this point, you'll not sway my opinion. I've heard all the arguments.
Yes, that sounds very utopian.
How does your philosophy handle a business being so big that if de facto controls the government?
Minimize government to the point that there's little to be gained by controlling it.