CDZ Should Trump bust up the Big Tech companies the way Roosevelt Trust Busted?

[Crepitus]

The only reason this is even being talked about is these outlets are generally not tRump fans. Pro-business conservatives would have fits at the very thought.

No...they are actively censoring political opinion which goes against their protected status....as it was explained by the guy who runs the Dailywire.....they either are like the phone company, and they don't edit content, or they are publishers who edit content and then become responsible for that content......the phone company can't be sued for what you say on their lines.....but they can't edit what you say either.....Facebook, Google, and the other Tech companies want to edit the content...and if so, that makes them publishers liable to be sued for what they produce on their sites....

They are private business providing a service, so unless you're ready to start baking gay wedding cakes you don't have a leg to stand on there. They do not produce the content only the medium. You might as well say you are going to sue the company that produces the paper magazines are printed on.

And also, my former point stands: if they were pro tRump you conservatives wouldn't even be talking about this.

Nope.....not that easy..... if they are editing content, they are no different from publishers of books, t.v. or magazines...therefore they are exposed to libel laws in everything they post......

If they want to avoid Libel laws, they have to be like the phone company, simply a format for communication with no responsibility for content.... and no power to edit that content....

Actually it is that easy. You and the other conservative types are just searching for justification.

No....we are being censored, and if the big techs are going to edit content, they need to be sued when that content is libel.....

Being kicked for violating the TOS is not censorship.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Information is power. If google controls 80% of the information in the world much less here in the us it is not good for human kind. Facebook and google can control the outcome of elections just through their algorithms. It doesn’t matter if it is trump or Obama, every American should be concerned about this. They are becoming bigger than the nation states and must be regulated. They are by definition monopolies bigger than anything in the 1900s. The average citizen only has power through his or her vote. If the vote can be manipulated, no matter which way, by a corporation that corporation needs to be reined in before it’s too late.

Oh by the way, good thread.

 

[2aguy]

Information is power. If google controls 80% of the information in the world much less here in the us it is not good for human kind. Facebook and google can control the outcome of elections just through their algorithms. It doesn’t matter if it is trump or Obama, every American should be concerned about this. They are becoming bigger than the nation states and must be regulated. They are by definition monopolies bigger than anything in the 1900s. The average citizen only has power through his or her vote. If the vote can be manipulated, no matter which way, by a corporation that corporation needs to be reined in before it’s too late.

Oh by the way, good thread.

I am just pointing out what I heard over at dailycaller....their business manager Jeremy Boreing explained the difference between these tech companies and the phone company and why they need to either stop editing content or be treated as publishers....he did it during one of their special gatherings of hosts they have for special events....the DailyWire Backstage podcast.....I think it was the one with Glen Beck.....

 

[danielpalos]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

Better infrastructure for better division of labor!

 

[JimBowie1958]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

yes