Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis To Sign Bill Banning Social Media ‘Deplatforming’

[colfax_m]

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

 

[bripat9643]

I think they do have a physical presence in the state. However, they are a common carrier, which means they cannot discriminate.

You’re as ignorant and dishonest as you are a hypocritical authoritarian hack.

Just because you think social media are being ‘mean’ to conservatives doesn’t warrant their illegal and un-Constitutional regulation.

They are ******* NAZIs who are censoring their customers in violation of government regulations. They are already being regulated. All I'm asking for is enforcement of the regulations.

 

[colfax_m]

If they are functioning as editors, then aren't entitled to protection under Rule 230

Dumbass. Section 230 specifically exists so they can function as editors.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

Please quote the decision where this was done. If anything, The court made it easier to prosecute. Just consider the prosecution of Microsoft over incorporating their browser into their OS.

 

[bripat9643]

If they are functioning as editors, then aren't entitled to protection under Rule 230

Dumbass. Section 230 specifically exists so they can function as editors.

Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.

 

[colfax_m]

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

Please quote the decision where this was done. If anything, The court made it easier to prosecute. Just consider the prosecution of Microsoft over incorporating their browser into their OS.

It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.

Bork was in the 80s, FYI.

Here’s more info that you probably won’t listen to.

Antitrust 2: The Paradox : Planet Money

How Robert Bork won the fight over the very meaning of competition in America, and paved the way for some of the biggest companies we've ever seen.

www.npr.org

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.

If they didn’t act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

Please quote the decision where this was done. If anything, The court made it easier to prosecute. Just consider the prosecution of Microsoft over incorporating their browser into their OS.

It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.

Bork was in the 80s, FYI.

Here’s more info that you probably won’t listen to.

Antitrust 2: The Paradox : Planet Money

How Robert Bork won the fight over the very meaning of competition in America, and paved the way for some of the biggest companies we've ever seen.

www.npr.org

In other words, you can't quote anything.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.

If they didn’t act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Wrong, turd. Relieving them of legal liability for what their users post relieves them of the need to edit. Publishers have always had the right to edit their content. Only common carriers don't have the right to edit their content.

 

[colfax_m]

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

Please quote the decision where this was done. If anything, The court made it easier to prosecute. Just consider the prosecution of Microsoft over incorporating their browser into their OS.

It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.

Bork was in the 80s, FYI.

Here’s more info that you probably won’t listen to.

Antitrust 2: The Paradox : Planet Money

How Robert Bork won the fight over the very meaning of competition in America, and paved the way for some of the biggest companies we've ever seen.

www.npr.org

In other words, you can't quote anything.

Tons of writing on this topic.

Anti-trust actions used to be anathema to conservatives. You guys aren’t conservatives anymore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/20/antitrust-was-defined-by-robert-bork-i-cannot-overstate-his-influence/

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.

If they didn’t act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Wrong, turd. Relieving them of legal liability for what their users post relieves them of the need to edit. Publishers have always had the right to edit their content. Only common carriers don't have the right to edit their content.

If they didn’t edit, they’d have no legal liability to be relieved of.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

Please quote the decision where this was done. If anything, The court made it easier to prosecute. Just consider the prosecution of Microsoft over incorporating their browser into their OS.

It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.

Bork was in the 80s, FYI.

Here’s more info that you probably won’t listen to.

Antitrust 2: The Paradox : Planet Money

How Robert Bork won the fight over the very meaning of competition in America, and paved the way for some of the biggest companies we've ever seen.

www.npr.org

In other words, you can't quote anything.

Tons of writing on this topic.

Anti-trust actions used to be anathema to conservatives. You guys aren’t conservatives anymore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/20/antitrust-was-defined-by-robert-bork-i-cannot-overstate-his-influence/

Quote something. I'm not reading your propaganda.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When companies engage in biased censorship and discrimination, that’s Exactly what the government is for and rightful to step in

Nope. No constitutional authority to do so.

The Big tech companies are government protected monopolies. As such, government has authority to regulate them.

No they are not. I rarely use Amazon except when they have the best price. I rarely use Google and I do not use a I-phone. If they were a monopoly, I would not be able to say that.

Google owns 90% of the search engine business. Facebook and Twitter control 90% of their markets. That was all the justifation needed to prosecute Standard Oil for restraint of trade.

Here is the problem with your post. Having a dominant market share is not proof of a monopoly.

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

Google has plenty of competitors. I rarely use Google. If Google was a monopoly then that would not be possible. If people choose to use Twitter and Facebook then that is their right to do so.

Google owns youTube, and all it's competitors are tiny. These same argument wee used to defend Standard Oil, but they were convicted.

One thing you're forgetting is that the government protects Google from lawsuits.

‘The federal court, however, ruled the FTC failed to prove that Facebook commands monopoly power in the domestic social-networking market.

“Although the court does not agree with all of Facebook’s contentions here, it ultimately concurs that the agency’s complaint is legally insufficient and must therefore be dismissed,” the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled. “The FTC has failed to plead enough facts to plausibly establish a necessary element of all of its Section 2 claims — namely, that Facebook has monopoly power in the market for Personal Social Networking (PSN) Services.”

“The complaint is undoubtedly light on specific factual allegations regarding consumer-switching preferences,” the court wrote. “These allegations — which do not even provide an estimated actual figure or range for Facebook’s market share at any point over the past ten years — ultimately fall short of plausibly establishing that Facebook holds market power.”’

MSN

And the reason why the lawsuit was thrown out is because a business cannot hold ‘market power’ in the infinite, unlimited digital realm that is the internet where there are more than ample opportunities for all views and opinions to be expressed.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.

If they didn’t act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Wrong, turd. Relieving them of legal liability for what their users post relieves them of the need to edit. Publishers have always had the right to edit their content. Only common carriers don't have the right to edit their content.

If they didn’t edit, they’d have no legal liability to be relieved of.

You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If they edit, they become publishers and become liable for what they publish. They created rule 230 to protect common carriers from what their users submit. They function as common carriers only if they don't edit what they publish. That's the definition of a common carrier, like the phone company.

 

[colfax_m]

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

Please quote the decision where this was done. If anything, The court made it easier to prosecute. Just consider the prosecution of Microsoft over incorporating their browser into their OS.

It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.

Bork was in the 80s, FYI.

Here’s more info that you probably won’t listen to.

Antitrust 2: The Paradox : Planet Money

How Robert Bork won the fight over the very meaning of competition in America, and paved the way for some of the biggest companies we've ever seen.

www.npr.org

In other words, you can't quote anything.

Tons of writing on this topic.

Anti-trust actions used to be anathema to conservatives. You guys aren’t conservatives anymore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/20/antitrust-was-defined-by-robert-bork-i-cannot-overstate-his-influence/

Quote something. I'm not reading your propaganda.

Antitrust Basics: Rule of Reason Standard vs. Consumer Welfare Standard - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Regulators have used two different standards to judge antitrust cases over the last century or so: the “rules of reason” standard and the “consumer welfare” standard. This post will briefly introduce them both.

cei.org

The consumer welfare standard slowly replaced the rule of reason starting in the 1970s, and gained mainstream acceptance by the 1980s. Under the consumer welfare standard, big is OK, so long as no consumers are harmed. This stricter standard has resulted in fewer antitrust prosecutions, and nearly two decades since the last landmark case, which ended in a draw against Microsoft.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

True.

Indeed, the concept of ‘size’ has become meaningless in the context of social media.

 

[bripat9643]

When companies engage in biased censorship and discrimination, that’s Exactly what the government is for and rightful to step in

Nope. No constitutional authority to do so.

The Big tech companies are government protected monopolies. As such, government has authority to regulate them.

No they are not. I rarely use Amazon except when they have the best price. I rarely use Google and I do not use a I-phone. If they were a monopoly, I would not be able to say that.

Google owns 90% of the search engine business. Facebook and Twitter control 90% of their markets. That was all the justifation needed to prosecute Standard Oil for restraint of trade.

Here is the problem with your post. Having a dominant market share is not proof of a monopoly.

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

Google has plenty of competitors. I rarely use Google. If Google was a monopoly then that would not be possible. If people choose to use Twitter and Facebook then that is their right to do so.

Google owns youTube, and all it's competitors are tiny. These same argument wee used to defend Standard Oil, but they were convicted.

One thing you're forgetting is that the government protects Google from lawsuits.

‘The federal court, however, ruled the FTC failed to prove that Facebook commands monopoly power in the domestic social-networking market.

“Although the court does not agree with all of Facebook’s contentions here, it ultimately concurs that the agency’s complaint is legally insufficient and must therefore be dismissed,” the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled. “The FTC has failed to plead enough facts to plausibly establish a necessary element of all of its Section 2 claims — namely, that Facebook has monopoly power in the market for Personal Social Networking (PSN) Services.”

“The complaint is undoubtedly light on specific factual allegations regarding consumer-switching preferences,” the court wrote. “These allegations — which do not even provide an estimated actual figure or range for Facebook’s market share at any point over the past ten years — ultimately fall short of plausibly establishing that Facebook holds market power.”’

MSN

And the reason why the lawsuit was thrown out is because a business cannot hold ‘market power’ in the infinite, unlimited digital realm that is the internet where there are more than ample opportunities for all views and opinions to be expressed.

That's an argument for anti-trust. They are still a common carrier for purposes of Rule 230.

Your logic about antitrust is horseshit, of course.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

Please quote the decision where this was done. If anything, The court made it easier to prosecute. Just consider the prosecution of Microsoft over incorporating their browser into their OS.

It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.

Bork was in the 80s, FYI.

Here’s more info that you probably won’t listen to.

Antitrust 2: The Paradox : Planet Money

How Robert Bork won the fight over the very meaning of competition in America, and paved the way for some of the biggest companies we've ever seen.

www.npr.org

In other words, you can't quote anything.

Tons of writing on this topic.

Anti-trust actions used to be anathema to conservatives. You guys aren’t conservatives anymore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/20/antitrust-was-defined-by-robert-bork-i-cannot-overstate-his-influence/

Quote something. I'm not reading your propaganda.

Antitrust Basics: Rule of Reason Standard vs. Consumer Welfare Standard - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Regulators have used two different standards to judge antitrust cases over the last century or so: the “rules of reason” standard and the “consumer welfare” standard. This post will briefly introduce them both.

cei.org

The consumer welfare standard slowly replaced the rule of reason starting in the 1970s, and gained mainstream acceptance by the 1980s. Under the consumer welfare standard, big is OK, so long as no consumers are harmed. This stricter standard has resulted in fewer antitrust prosecutions, and nearly two decades since the last landmark case, which ended in a draw against Microsoft.

<YAWN!>

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.

If they didn’t act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Wrong, turd. Relieving them of legal liability for what their users post relieves them of the need to edit. Publishers have always had the right to edit their content. Only common carriers don't have the right to edit their content.

If they didn’t edit, they’d have no legal liability to be relieved of.

You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If they edit, they become publishers and become liable for what they publish. They created rule 230 to protect common carriers from what their users submit. They function as common carriers only if they don't edit what they publish. That's the definition of a common carrier, like the phone company.

Common carriers never had legal liability. Section 230 didn’t make that happen and it has nothing to do with common carriers. You are confused.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.

There was a significant change to anti-trust litigation brought about by decades of conservative jurisprudence, specifically led by Robert Bork that basically gutted the DoJ’s ability to prosecute monopolies.

Size is no longer sufficient.

True.

Indeed, the concept of ‘size’ has become meaningless in the context of social media.

That's pure horseshit.