Break up Facebook

[dblack]

They are not monopolies because they are not essential services, and there are competitors. While a lot of people do use more than one social media platform there are people who have stopped using Facebook to use Instagram. Or stopped using Instagram to use Snapchat. Facebook and Twitter are not services unto themselves. They are competing social media platforms.

None of this matters. Their arguments aren't genuine. They just want the power to beat up on businesses they don't like.

 

[dblack]

The threat is a huge power using that power to suppress free speech or speech it doesn't like ...

Only government should have that power!!!

 

[Blues Man]

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go. Though existing legislation will do the job; we just need antitrust enforcement.

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

local newspapers are pretty much gone. and while they may say "xyz show is at 123 club tonight" it won't tell me which of my friends are going. now i need to call many people at once to find out what i can do in a minute on FB.

so yes, does serve a purpose. never said it didn't. i also said it should be left alone to do what they want to do - so don't preach that my way. all i'm saying is regardless of how people may feel, companies tend to reach a certain level of growth that eventually makes them a target. FB playing into the left vs right war is their own downfall eventually but eventually they were going to get hacked up anyway.

I never said FB served no purpose did I?

No I did not.

I said it's not a monopoly and there is no need for it to be regulated

 

[iceberg]

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

local newspapers are pretty much gone. and while they may say "xyz show is at 123 club tonight" it won't tell me which of my friends are going. now i need to call many people at once to find out what i can do in a minute on FB.

so yes, does serve a purpose. never said it didn't. i also said it should be left alone to do what they want to do - so don't preach that my way. all i'm saying is regardless of how people may feel, companies tend to reach a certain level of growth that eventually makes them a target. FB playing into the left vs right war is their own downfall eventually but eventually they were going to get hacked up anyway.

I never said FB served no purpose did I?

No I did not.

I said it's not a monopoly and there is no need for it to be regulated

and i said i don't think it should be.

but it will be.

it's what we do.

 

[miketx]

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go. Though existing legislation will do the job; we just need antitrust enforcement.

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

Used to, when I was young we would actually talk face to face about such things.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nothing to see here, just Capitalist freedoms in action.

Monopolies are not 'Capitalist freedom', dude.

Facebook is not a monopoly

If it was you wouldn't be able to post your thoughts anywhere but Facebook

That is like saying a company that owns all petroleum in the world is not a monopoly because we can get energy from coal.

Facebook dominates the kind of social media that it is where you can share pics, videos, messages etc with the general public and friends. That is why Congress is concerned about it and they have had Zuckerman testify.

That you subscribe to an ideology designed to remove any constraints on corporations is not healthy.

 

[Zorro!]

Breaking up Facebook is not going to solve the problem. The issues are protecting:

- ownership of one's personal data

- freedom of speech / civil rights given that the internet platforms function as public accomodations. (If a restaurant can be forced to serve a meal as a civil right, the platforms should not be able to censor lawful speech).

Smaller platforms can still violate both of these.

It will solve the problem of Facebook silencing Conservatives.

 

[Zorro!]

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

local newspapers are pretty much gone. and while they may say "xyz show is at 123 club tonight" it won't tell me which of my friends are going. now i need to call many people at once to find out what i can do in a minute on FB.

so yes, does serve a purpose. never said it didn't. i also said it should be left alone to do what they want to do - so don't preach that my way. all i'm saying is regardless of how people may feel, companies tend to reach a certain level of growth that eventually makes them a target. FB playing into the left vs right war is their own downfall eventually but eventually they were going to get hacked up anyway.

I never said FB served no purpose did I?

No I did not.

I said it's not a monopoly and there is no need for it to be regulated

I'm not even sure we need new legislation, I think existing legislation is likely adequate.

There are many ways to eliminate opposing voices, from police oppression to mass slaughter to the stifling of the means to acquire salient information. The coercive method eventually engenders resentment, revolt and ultimately political collapse. Data suppression works better, not only muzzling people from expressing their views and convictions but preventing many common folk from even knowing they have been erased from the public conversation. Big Tech, in collaboration with the Democratic left, may well be President Trump’s most powerful enemy—and, indeed, the gravest threat to freedom and the life of a viable democracy.

One possible remedy is for Trump to use existing anti-trust law in order to break up the public monopoly on information enjoyed by the social media giants.

Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code protects an internet service provider, blog host or online forum operator from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

The issue that immediately arises involves the definition of “good faith,” stirring a hornet’s nest of juridical interpretations and disputable findings. The arbitrary removal of both the audience and the solvency of conservative bloggers and prominent internet figures seems obviously contestable as acts not of good faith but of tantamount bias.

Another solution would be by recognizing that these large social media systems with vast market share are actually public utilities to which federal regulations apply. Telecom companies make up over 90 percent of all web traffic and clearly operate in tandem to shut down speech based on opinion they deem objectionable. Author Robert Arvay is keenly aware of the danger. “A common feature in medieval fantasy movies is the wizard,” he writes, “the character whom no one understands and whose powers everyone needs to fear. In real life, the wizards are CEOs of high technology companies, including well known social media platforms and search engines. Their money has been able to buy legislation that allows them to control the public square, to censor those with whom they disagree.” Presumed heretics are thus excommunicated from the debate by the Church of Political Correctness.

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go

It's time for us to reassert our rights against the Tech Oligarchs.

 

[dblack]

Hypocrisy party!!!

Conservatives advocating for nationalizing social media. Liberals pretending they give a shit about freedom. Fake ***** all of you.

 

[Zorro!]

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go. Though existing legislation will do the job; we just need antitrust enforcement.

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

local newspapers are pretty much gone. and while they may say "xyz show is at 123 club tonight" it won't tell me which of my friends are going. now i need to call many people at once to find out what i can do in a minute on FB.

so yes, does serve a purpose. never said it didn't. i also said it should be left alone to do what they want to do - so don't preach that my way. all i'm saying is regardless of how people may feel, companies tend to reach a certain level of growth that eventually makes them a target. FB playing into the left vs right war is their own downfall eventually but eventually they were going to get hacked up anyway.

It wasn't like they haven't been getting repeated warnings.

The practice and effect of collaborative deplatforming is unmistakable. These companies are all on the same page. This is a form of racketeering, whose social repercussions are glaringly evident. Just ask Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Bosch Fawstin, Faith Goldy, Gavin McInnis, and Tommy Robinson, among others who have been banned or suspended, some intermittently, some permanently. Meanwhile, these same sites are rife with crackpots, conspiracy mongers, anti-Semites, and Muslim jihadists preaching hate and violence.

This is the purpose of antitrust law. It exists for a purpose: to prevent fraud, racketeering, and anticompetitive control of the marketplace. There are a series of antitrust laws and amendments dating from the 1890 Sherman Act, the most salient of which for present purposes is the Federal Trade Commission Act (or FTC). The general intent according to the FTC guide is “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers” and to ban “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices." It is crystal clear that the “acts and practices” of the major internet platforms are unfair and deceptive, prohibiting access to those whom they regard as political competitors via command of the technology and thus exercising control over ideas and opinions they regard as “exclusionary,” “extremist,” “alt-right,” “white nationalist” and—the all-purpose term—“hateful.”

Most of these terms are simply cowcatchers, meant to sweep perceived interlopers off the ideological tracks. They are shape-shifters, trickster words, empty categories that can be stuffed with random designations. “Hateful,” of course, can mean anything the skinwalkers want it to mean, anything they wish to suppress in favor of their own political message. These platforms thus exert a distinct monopoly over the dissemination of ideas and do so in order to produce a preferred electoral result. They can be regarded as cartels, defined as “a group of independent businesses whose concerted goal is to lessen or prevent competition.” Such independence may be apparent but what is common to all is the limiting of supply, which is forbidden by law. The definition is plainly appropriate with respect to restrictive measures applied to the “supply” of supposed schismatic, dissenting, contradictory or unorthodox sentiments, perspectives or beliefs.

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go

 

[dblack]

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

local newspapers are pretty much gone. and while they may say "xyz show is at 123 club tonight" it won't tell me which of my friends are going. now i need to call many people at once to find out what i can do in a minute on FB.

so yes, does serve a purpose. never said it didn't. i also said it should be left alone to do what they want to do - so don't preach that my way. all i'm saying is regardless of how people may feel, companies tend to reach a certain level of growth that eventually makes them a target. FB playing into the left vs right war is their own downfall eventually but eventually they were going to get hacked up anyway.

It wasn't like they haven't been getting repeated warnings.

The practice and effect of collaborative deplatforming is unmistakable. These companies are all on the same page. This is a form of racketeering, whose social repercussions are glaringly evident. Just ask Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Bosch Fawstin, Faith Goldy, Gavin McInnis, and Tommy Robinson, among others who have been banned or suspended, some intermittently, some permanently. Meanwhile, these same sites are rife with crackpots, conspiracy mongers, anti-Semites, and Muslim jihadists preaching hate and violence.

This is the purpose of antitrust law. It exists for a purpose: to prevent fraud, racketeering, and anticompetitive control of the marketplace. There are a series of antitrust laws and amendments dating from the 1890 Sherman Act, the most salient of which for present purposes is the Federal Trade Commission Act (or FTC). The general intent according to the FTC guide is “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers” and to ban “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices." It is crystal clear that the “acts and practices” of the major internet platforms are unfair and deceptive, prohibiting access to those whom they regard as political competitors via command of the technology and thus exercising control over ideas and opinions they regard as “exclusionary,” “extremist,” “alt-right,” “white nationalist” and—the all-purpose term—“hateful.”

Most of these terms are simply cowcatchers, meant to sweep perceived interlopers off the ideological tracks. They are shape-shifters, trickster words, empty categories that can be stuffed with random designations. “Hateful,” of course, can mean anything the skinwalkers want it to mean, anything they wish to suppress in favor of their own political message. These platforms thus exert a distinct monopoly over the dissemination of ideas and do so in order to produce a preferred electoral result. They can be regarded as cartels, defined as “a group of independent businesses whose concerted goal is to lessen or prevent competition.” Such independence may be apparent but what is common to all is the limiting of supply, which is forbidden by law. The definition is plainly appropriate with respect to restrictive measures applied to the “supply” of supposed schismatic, dissenting, contradictory or unorthodox sentiments, perspectives or beliefs.

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go

The main thing is to have government calling the shots, eh?

 

[Darkwind]

So, the Russians use of Facebook did not actually interfere with the election.

It's good to know.

 

[Zorro!]

Hypocrisy party!!!

Conservatives advocating for nationalizing social media. Liberals pretending they give a shit about freedom. Fake ***** all of you.

No. We are discussing breaking them up due to their concerted deplatforming operations.

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes has just published an article in The New York Times, arguing that “America was built on the idea that power should not be concentrated in any one person,” pointing out how a News Feed algorithm could “change the culture” and “influence elections.” “We are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies,” he writes; the government should regulate the company while banning subsidiary acquisitions that help to create an information monolith. Hughes is primarily concerned with the violation of privacy, but as we have seen, the rot goes much deeper. It is not only privacy that is abrogated, it is access, which is no less effective than a judicial gag order.

In the interests of fairness and the public weal, these syndicates must be monitored and regulated to ensure equal hospitality to different and competing shades of opinion, providing they do not explicitly advocate for violence, treason or criminal behavior as defined in law. If President Trump were to avail himself of anti-trust legislation,he could, as the law permits, approach the courts, in particular, the Department of Justice, to dismantle an information monopoly serving narrow private interests rather than fair business practice and the common good.

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go

 

[Zorro!]

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

local newspapers are pretty much gone. and while they may say "xyz show is at 123 club tonight" it won't tell me which of my friends are going. now i need to call many people at once to find out what i can do in a minute on FB.

so yes, does serve a purpose. never said it didn't. i also said it should be left alone to do what they want to do - so don't preach that my way. all i'm saying is regardless of how people may feel, companies tend to reach a certain level of growth that eventually makes them a target. FB playing into the left vs right war is their own downfall eventually but eventually they were going to get hacked up anyway.

It wasn't like they haven't been getting repeated warnings.

The practice and effect of collaborative deplatforming is unmistakable. These companies are all on the same page. This is a form of racketeering, whose social repercussions are glaringly evident. Just ask Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Bosch Fawstin, Faith Goldy, Gavin McInnis, and Tommy Robinson, among others who have been banned or suspended, some intermittently, some permanently. Meanwhile, these same sites are rife with crackpots, conspiracy mongers, anti-Semites, and Muslim jihadists preaching hate and violence.

This is the purpose of antitrust law. It exists for a purpose: to prevent fraud, racketeering, and anticompetitive control of the marketplace. There are a series of antitrust laws and amendments dating from the 1890 Sherman Act, the most salient of which for present purposes is the Federal Trade Commission Act (or FTC). The general intent according to the FTC guide is “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers” and to ban “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices." It is crystal clear that the “acts and practices” of the major internet platforms are unfair and deceptive, prohibiting access to those whom they regard as political competitors via command of the technology and thus exercising control over ideas and opinions they regard as “exclusionary,” “extremist,” “alt-right,” “white nationalist” and—the all-purpose term—“hateful.”

Most of these terms are simply cowcatchers, meant to sweep perceived interlopers off the ideological tracks. They are shape-shifters, trickster words, empty categories that can be stuffed with random designations. “Hateful,” of course, can mean anything the skinwalkers want it to mean, anything they wish to suppress in favor of their own political message. These platforms thus exert a distinct monopoly over the dissemination of ideas and do so in order to produce a preferred electoral result. They can be regarded as cartels, defined as “a group of independent businesses whose concerted goal is to lessen or prevent competition.” Such independence may be apparent but what is common to all is the limiting of supply, which is forbidden by law. The definition is plainly appropriate with respect to restrictive measures applied to the “supply” of supposed schismatic, dissenting, contradictory or unorthodox sentiments, perspectives or beliefs.

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go

The main thing is to have government calling the shots, eh?

WE are the Government.

 

[Zorro!]

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go. Though existing legislation will do the job; we just need antitrust enforcement.

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

If Facebook only reached the area of a local newspaper.

 

[Zorro!]

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go. Though existing legislation will do the job; we just need antitrust enforcement.

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

Facebook isn't going to disappear if they are no longer able to deplatform Conservatives and Constituionalists. Did the national phone system disappear when MA Bell was broken up? Did we suddenly have no gasoline when Standard Oil was broken up?

 

[dblack]

WE are the Government.

Awesome. You're even adopting the slogans of the socialists.

Your insidious agenda is not only the usual statist claptrap, it's also just plain dumb: When the liberals take over again, they'll use the same approach to clamp down on conservative media outlets. And then you'll flip to the other flop and pretend you give a shit a bout free markets. Disgusting.

 

[Zorro!]

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go. Though existing legislation will do the job; we just need antitrust enforcement.

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

I could care less if they talk to each other, we are against the concerted exclusion of Conservatives and Constitutionalists from the National Discussion.

 

[iceberg]

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go. Though existing legislation will do the job; we just need antitrust enforcement.

about a year or so ago i started making references into what would happen with Facebook and other "too big" social media companies. while i agree and am on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" mantra, i also said our government and mindset just doesn't work that way. i watched MS go from the total domination they had to their being called a monopoly despite the fact you did have options. MS, apple, linux. but the #'s were with MS so they become the focus and battleground and suddenly it's a whole new game.

social media is now most certainly in that mix. they drive a lot of our economy, our interactions, and if i just stopped using facebook for example, i'd lose touch with many people i do in fact consider friends. that's about the only reason i stay on facebook. find out what is happening and where the gang is going this weekend and being able to talk to a bulk of my friends at once about my own life.

i've just learned not to talk politics on there cause it's not worth the backlash. i do think SJW's are a dying breed and no one would give much of a shit about hambre today, for example. complete rage can only go so long before you just tire out and move on.

people are moving on these days.

what would you do with them? break up instagram / facebook / whatever? to what end? they can still talk to each other via api's as they want to so the integration wouldn't really end any time soon. people use them for different reasons or just stick to 1 anyway.

people just need to learn to stop letting stupid headlines lead them around and to actually study a topic before making up their mind about it.

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

Facebook isn't going to disappear if they are no longer able to deplatform Conservatives and Constituionalists. Did the national phone system disappear when MA Bell was broken up? Did we suddenly have no gasoline when Standard Oil was broken up?

where the hell did i say it was going to?

 

[iceberg]

So, the Russians use of Facebook did not actually interfere with the election.

It's good to know.

their ads on facebook were divisive in nature, not political candidate oriented.

go look up the god damn ads. so tired of people going WAH FACEBOOK WAH and never looked at the ads that were run.