These platforms have all violated their 230 protection

[ColonelAngus]

They should be open to full liability for any content on their site since they decided to censor the right.

The DOJ needs to step in just like thry did with Microsoft. For you lefties who never know dick about history....Microsoft was labeled a monopoly by the DOJ, and Microspft actually invested in Apple to save it and have competition.

Without viable competitors, these social media publishers, Fakebook, Twatter, and Google need to be broken up.

 

[candycorn]

So much for conservatives and the myth that they are for limited government.

 

[Asclepias]

Not sure what youre saying. Twitter, Facebook and Google isnt keeping you from starting your own competitive platform.

 

[pknopp]

Find yourself a safe space.

 

[Toro]

They should be open to full liability for any content on their site since they decided to censor the right.

The DOJ needs to step in just like thry did with Microsoft. For you lefties who never know dick about history....Microsoft was labeled a monopoly by the DOJ, and Microspft actually invested in Apple to save it and have competition.

Without viable competitors, these social media publishers, Fakebook, Twatter, and Google need to be broken up.

Anti-trust statutes focus on market power and the ability to increase prices and harm consumers via market power and economic rent. The worry with MSFT was that it was going to be the sole operating system software provider, and was amassing a suite of software products with no competition, allowing them to charge whatever they want.

That's not the case here. There is no economic harm to the consumer. These platforms have lowered economic costs for consumers. They aren't monopolies either. And monopolies aren't illegal. They are only illegal if they are price gouging consumers.

What's ironic about conservatives wanting to strip section 230 would mean is that it almost certainly would have meant that many right-wing commentators and platforms would have been thrown off or banned from these platforms long ago.

 

[Toro]

So much for conservatives and the myth that they are for limited government.

Trump's base aren't conservatives as we've traditionally known them to be.

They are more than happy to use government power when it suits them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They should be open to full liability for any content on their site since they decided to censor the right.

The DOJ needs to step in just like thry did with Microsoft. For you lefties who never know dick about history....Microsoft was labeled a monopoly by the DOJ, and Microspft actually invested in Apple to save it and have competition.

Without viable competitors, these social media publishers, Fakebook, Twatter, and Google need to be broken up.

Anti-trust statutes focus on market power and the ability to increase prices and harm consumers via market power and economic rent. The worry with MSFT was that it was going to be the sole operating system software provider, and was amassing a suite of software products with no competition, allowing them to charge whatever they want.

That's not the case here. There is no economic harm to the consumer. These platforms have lowered economic costs for consumers. They aren't monopolies either. And monopolies aren't illegal. They are only illegal if they are price gouging consumers.

What's ironic about conservatives wanting to strip section 230 would mean is that it almost certainly would have meant that many right-wing commentators and platforms would have been thrown off or banned from these platforms long ago.

Who is the consumer?

Those who advertise on those platforms (with no other alternative) are consumers, are they not?

 

[Toro]

Who is the consumer?

Those who advertise on those platforms (with no other alternative) are consumers, are they not?

The consumer is the end buyer. Advertisers are not consumers in this case.

Advertisers have many platforms - TV, radio, etc. Digital is about half of all ad spend. The biggest digital platform is Google, with 30%. That means Google receives about 15% of all ad spend. Under the law, generally market power is above 40%.

 

[Indeependent]

Not sure what youre saying. Twitter, Facebook and Google isnt keeping you from starting your own competitive platform.

Google is known for buying out every competitor.

 

[BluesLegend]

Big tech's 100% bias in favor of Democrats is a Democrats wet dream so big tech is safe.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who is the consumer?

Those who advertise on those platforms (with no other alternative) are consumers, are they not?

The consumer is the end buyer. Advertisers are not consumers in this case.

Advertisers have many platforms - TV, radio, etc. Digital is about half of all ad spend. The biggest digital platform is Google, with 30%. That means Google receives about 15% of all ad spend. Under the law, generally market power is above 40%.

So, the consumer is who????

 

[Indeependent]

Big tech's 100% bias in favor of Democrats is a Democrats wet dream so big tech is safe.

The owners of Big Tech buy the signs and commercials.

 

[mamooth]

They should be open to full liability for any content on their site since they decided to censor the right.

But they're not censoring the right. They're censoring violent seditionists. Unless you think they also can't censor violent child molestors, you don't have grounds to complain.

Remember, the majority of those on the right aren't violent seditionists.

 

[JustAGuy1]

So much for conservatives and the myth that they are for limited government.

So much for Progs for being "tolerant" and hearing from all sides. Censorship defines you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They should be open to full liability for any content on their site since they decided to censor the right.

But they're not censoring the right. They're censoring violent seditionists. Unless you think they also can't censor violent child molestors, you don't have grounds to complain.

Remember, the majority of those on the right aren't violent seditionists.

What about being arbiters of truth and banning anyone making "false" statements? Did you forget about that shit?

 

[JustAGuy1]

They should be open to full liability for any content on their site since they decided to censor the right.

But they're not censoring the right. They're censoring violent seditionists. Unless you think they also can't censor violent child molestors, you don't have grounds to complain.

Remember, the majority of those on the right aren't violent seditionists.

Bullshit, they are targeting dissenting opinions. Why are you people such liars?

 

[mamooth]

Bullshit, they are targeting dissenting opinions.

Whatever gets you your victimhood fix, eh?

If you have a valid case, your side should take it to court. But they won't. And then you'll give us another conspiracy theory to explain that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They should be open to full liability for any content on their site since they decided to censor the right.

But they're not censoring the right. They're censoring violent seditionists. Unless you think they also can't censor violent child molestors, you don't have grounds to complain.

Remember, the majority of those on the right aren't violent seditionists.

Fascists

 

[Toro]

So, the consumer is who????

Everyone who uses the service. If you post on or read Twitter, you are a consumer of Twitter.

 

[justinacolmena]

Without viable competitors, these social media publishers, Fakebook, Twatter, and Google need to be broken up.

Slap those bleeding heart liberals with a ban hammer. People can register their own domain names with their own real life identification if they want to post what they drank last night and what they ate for breakfast this morning.