Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum
They are fucking 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.You’re as ignorant and dishonest as you are a hypocritical authoritarian hack.I think they do have a physical presence in the state. However, they are a common carrier, which means they cannot discriminate.
Just because you think social media are being ‘mean’ to conservatives doesn’t warrant their illegal and un-Constitutional regulation.
Dumbass. Section 230 specifically exists so they can function as editors.If they are functioning as editors, then aren't entitled to protection under Rule 230
The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum
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.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.
Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.Dumbass. Section 230 specifically exists so they can function as editors.If they are functioning as editors, then aren't entitled to protection under Rule 230
It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum
What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.
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.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.
www.npr.org
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.Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.
In other words, you can't quote anything.It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum
What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.
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.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.
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.
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 act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.
Tons of writing on this topic.In other words, you can't quote anything.It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum
What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.
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.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.
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.
If they didn’t edit, they’d have no legal liability to be relieved of.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 act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.
Quote something. I'm not reading your propaganda.Tons of writing on this topic.In other words, you can't quote anything.It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum
What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.
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.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.
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.
Anti-trust actions used to be anathema to conservatives. You guys aren’t conservatives anymore.
‘The federal court, however, ruled the FTC failed to prove that Facebook commands monopoly power in the domestic social-networking market.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.The Big tech companies are government protected monopolies. As such, government has authority to regulate them.Nope. No constitutional authority to do so.When companies engage in biased censorship and discrimination, that’s Exactly what the government is for and rightful to step in
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.
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.
You lack the capacity to commit logic.If they didn’t edit, they’d have no legal liability to be relieved of.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 act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.
Quote something. I'm not reading your propaganda.Tons of writing on this topic.In other words, you can't quote anything.It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum
What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.
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.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.
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.
Anti-trust actions used to be anathema to conservatives. You guys aren’t conservatives anymore.
cei.org
True.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.
That's an argument for anti-trust. They are still a common carrier for purposes of Rule 230.‘The federal court, however, ruled the FTC failed to prove that Facebook commands monopoly power in the domestic social-networking market.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.The Big tech companies are government protected monopolies. As such, government has authority to regulate them.Nope. No constitutional authority to do so.When companies engage in biased censorship and discrimination, that’s Exactly what the government is for and rightful to step in
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.
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.
“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.”’
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.
<YAWN!>Quote something. I'm not reading your propaganda.Tons of writing on this topic.In other words, you can't quote anything.It was done over a number of decisions, whittling away at the very concept of a monopoly.The fact that your examples are nearly 100 years old should tell you something.According to the DOJ, it is. That's the only evidence they had against Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum
What do you imagine that is? The Alcoa example is from around WW II.
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.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.
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.
Anti-trust actions used to be anathema to conservatives. You guys aren’t conservatives anymore.
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.
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.
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.You lack the capacity to commit logic.If they didn’t edit, they’d have no legal liability to be relieved of.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 act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.
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.
That's pure horseshit.True.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.
Indeed, the concept of ‘size’ has become meaningless in the context of social media.
