CDZ When to declare a website a monopoly?

[Toronado3800]

I have been thinking about the whole Facebook vs Alex Jones thing: Tech giants Facebook, Apple, YouTube ditch controversial Infowars star Alex Jones

What I have determined is if a website or search engine is large enough for big government protection from monopolies to be applied to them then the website needs to comply with American standards of free speech. This won't apply to airline sites obviously but newspapers who allow replies, social sites, that type of thing.

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time? I don't think the internet needs new rules applied to it so much as a understanding of the old rules. If two oil suppliers had this or that share of our market would they be monopolies? Maybe a different analogy applies?

 

[fncceo]

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time?

Is it possible to have two monopolies in the same service at the same time? Wouldn't that be a dual-opoly?

 

[Toronado3800]

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time?

Is it possible to have two monopolies in the same service at the same time? Wouldn't that be a dual-opoly?

Agreed.

At some point if there are only two of something in a city there is a significant danger of a convenient agreement which limits competition. So, here come monopoly regulations against a dual-opoly.

On a practical note, it seems easier to regulate the 4 largest of something than to say, "well if Facebook doesn't let him on then Twitter has to".

 

[fncceo]

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time?

Is it possible to have two monopolies in the same service at the same time? Wouldn't that be a dual-opoly?

Agreed.

At some point if there are only two of something in a city there is a significant danger of a convenient agreement which limits competition. So, here come monopoly regulations against a dual-opoly.

On a practical note, it seems easier to regulate the 4 largest of something than to say, "well if Facebook doesn't let him on then Twitter has to".

On the other hand ... there are many players in the social media space ...get a child to show you.

 

[Toronado3800]

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time?

Is it possible to have two monopolies in the same service at the same time? Wouldn't that be a dual-opoly?

Agreed.

At some point if there are only two of something in a city there is a significant danger of a convenient agreement which limits competition. So, here come monopoly regulations against a dual-opoly.

On a practical note, it seems easier to regulate the 4 largest of something than to say, "well if Facebook doesn't let him on then Twitter has to".

On the other hand ... there are many players in the social media space ...get a child to show you.

You sent me after stats, thank you. Google is starting to suck. I got the following list from Wikipedia for US sites but in short order I can't determine by stats with 5 minutes of work is how much more important Facebook / Instagram corp is compared to Twitch on a social level. I know professionally I don't care about advertising on Twitch yet, there is no return for my industry. Perhaps if I sold something 15 year olds or failure to launches cared about things would be different though.

Google google.com 1 () 1 () Internet services and products U.S.
YouTube youtube.com 2 () 3 () Video sharing U.S.
Facebook facebook.com 3 () 2 () Social network U.S.
Wikipedia wikipedia.org 5 () 5 () Encyclopedia U.S.
Reddit reddit.com 6 (13) 37 (6) Social news and entertainment U.S.
Yahoo! yahoo.com 7 (1) 7 (3) Portal and media U.S.
Amazon amazon.com 11 (3) 23 (12) E-commerce and cloud computing U.S.
Twitter twitter.com 13 (1) 10 (4) Social network U.S.
Instagram instagram.com 15 () 20 (2) Photo sharing and social media U.S. (Facebook)
Windows Live live.com 17 (6) 19 (12) Software plus services U.S.
Netflix netflix.com 28 (15) 33 (9) Streaming TV and movies U.S.
Twitch twitch.tv 32 (40) 88 (16) Streaming primarily on video games U.S.
LinkedIn linkedin.com 34 (13) 48 (4) Employment-oriented Social network U.S.
t.co t.co 36 () 105 (27) URL shortening for links on Twitter U.S.
Microsoft microsoft.com 38 (1) 68 (16) Software and technology U.S.
Bing bing.com 39 (7) 45 (9) Search engine U.S.
Microsoft Office office.com 40 (18) 48 (6) Online office suite U.S.
eBay ebay.com 41 (10) 44 (12) Online auctions and shopping U.S.
MSN msn.com 50 (17) 33 (1) Portal U.S.
WhatsApp whatsapp.com 68 (19) 42 (1) Instant messaging U.S.
Spotify spotify.com 69 98 Music streaming U.S
xHamster xhamster.com 76 (4) 39 (8) Pornography U.S.
AccuWeather accuweather.com 396 (16) 53 (10) Weather forecasting U.S.
Google URL Shortener goo.gl 714 47 URL shortening service U.S.
Google Web Light googleweblight.com 38,332 (2,104) 29 (40) Page optimizing service U.S.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have been thinking about the whole Facebook vs Alex Jones thing: Tech giants Facebook, Apple, YouTube ditch controversial Infowars star Alex Jones

What I have determined is if a website or search engine is large enough for big government protection from monopolies to be applied to them then the website needs to comply with American standards of free speech. This won't apply to airline sites obviously but newspapers who allow replies, social sites, that type of thing.

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time? I don't think the internet needs new rules applied to it so much as a understanding of the old rules. If two oil suppliers had this or that share of our market would they be monopolies? Maybe a different analogy applies?

You confuse the idea of free speech with the availability of an audience

You are not guaranteed an audience for whatever you say or write you are only guaranteed that the government cannot stop you from saying or writing it ( we'll just agree to the exceptions now so we don't have to cover threats etc)

Facebook. Twitter, etc cannot stop you from posting things on the internet. They cannot stop you from obtaining your own domain and from publishing whatever you want on your domain. Therefore, they cannot ever infringe on your first amendment rights.

 

[Toronado3800]

I have been thinking about the whole Facebook vs Alex Jones thing: Tech giants Facebook, Apple, YouTube ditch controversial Infowars star Alex Jones

What I have determined is if a website or search engine is large enough for big government protection from monopolies to be applied to them then the website needs to comply with American standards of free speech. This won't apply to airline sites obviously but newspapers who allow replies, social sites, that type of thing.

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time? I don't think the internet needs new rules applied to it so much as a understanding of the old rules. If two oil suppliers had this or that share of our market would they be monopolies? Maybe a different analogy applies?

You confuse the idea of free speech with the availability of an audience

You are not guaranteed an audience for whatever you say or write you are only guaranteed that the government cannot stop you from saying or writing it ( we'll just agree to the exceptions now so we don't have to cover threats etc)

Facebook. Twitter, etc cannot stop you from posting things on the internet. They cannot stop you from obtaining your own domain and from publishing whatever you want on your domain. Therefore, they cannot ever infringe on your first amendment rights.

No, no confusion. I understand your point and read in depth about it. I think only when we declare a site to have a monopoly are they forced to let me post. This site does not have to let me post. Facebook may (if I were in charge and felt they had a monopoly).

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have been thinking about the whole Facebook vs Alex Jones thing: Tech giants Facebook, Apple, YouTube ditch controversial Infowars star Alex Jones

What I have determined is if a website or search engine is large enough for big government protection from monopolies to be applied to them then the website needs to comply with American standards of free speech. This won't apply to airline sites obviously but newspapers who allow replies, social sites, that type of thing.

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time? I don't think the internet needs new rules applied to it so much as a understanding of the old rules. If two oil suppliers had this or that share of our market would they be monopolies? Maybe a different analogy applies?

You confuse the idea of free speech with the availability of an audience

You are not guaranteed an audience for whatever you say or write you are only guaranteed that the government cannot stop you from saying or writing it ( we'll just agree to the exceptions now so we don't have to cover threats etc)

Facebook. Twitter, etc cannot stop you from posting things on the internet. They cannot stop you from obtaining your own domain and from publishing whatever you want on your domain. Therefore, they cannot ever infringe on your first amendment rights.

No, no confusion. I understand your point and read in depth about it. I think only when we declare a site to have a monopoly are they forced to let me post. This site does not have to let me post. Facebook may (if I were in charge and felt they had a monopoly).

The only way for any company to have an internet monopoly is to ban private citizens from owning domain names.

As long as anyone can get a domain name there is no issue as far as first amendment rights go.

 

[Toronado3800]

I have been thinking about the whole Facebook vs Alex Jones thing: Tech giants Facebook, Apple, YouTube ditch controversial Infowars star Alex Jones

What I have determined is if a website or search engine is large enough for big government protection from monopolies to be applied to them then the website needs to comply with American standards of free speech. This won't apply to airline sites obviously but newspapers who allow replies, social sites, that type of thing.

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time? I don't think the internet needs new rules applied to it so much as a understanding of the old rules. If two oil suppliers had this or that share of our market would they be monopolies? Maybe a different analogy applies?

You confuse the idea of free speech with the availability of an audience

You are not guaranteed an audience for whatever you say or write you are only guaranteed that the government cannot stop you from saying or writing it ( we'll just agree to the exceptions now so we don't have to cover threats etc)

Facebook. Twitter, etc cannot stop you from posting things on the internet. They cannot stop you from obtaining your own domain and from publishing whatever you want on your domain. Therefore, they cannot ever infringe on your first amendment rights.

No, no confusion. I understand your point and read in depth about it. I think only when we declare a site to have a monopoly are they forced to let me post. This site does not have to let me post. Facebook may (if I were in charge and felt they had a monopoly).

The only way for any company to have an internet monopoly is to ban private citizens from owning domain names.

As long as anyone can get a domain name there is no issue as far as first amendment rights go.

True ideally. And I'm not above standing for a non practical ideal. I boycott the local MLB stadium.

Practically I expect to see a bunch of decade long monopolies "dual-opolies" like was mentioned earlier come up. Fewer companies owning a larger percentagr of clicks is the future I fear.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Here's a good piece on what's going on with facebook, at least.

A Four Person NATO-Funded Team Advises Facebook On Flagging 'Propaganda'


Snip - What's more is that the team of four total individuals running the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) is headed by a former National Security Council advisor for the last four years of the Obama administration, Graham Brookie, who is also its founder.

And in perhaps the most chilling line of the entire report, Reuters says, "But the lab and Atlantic Council bring geopolitical expertise and allow Facebook to distance itself from sensitive pronouncements." This is ostensibly to defuse any potential conflict of interest arising as Facebook seems a bigger presence in emerging foreign markets.

Facebook employees said privately over the past several months that Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg wants to outsource many of the most sensitive political decisions, leaving fact-checking to media groups and geopolitics to think tanks.

 

[Toronado3800]

Here's a good piece on what's going on with facebook, at least.

A Four Person NATO-Funded Team Advises Facebook On Flagging 'Propaganda'


Snip - What's more is that the team of four total individuals running the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) is headed by a former National Security Council advisor for the last four years of the Obama administration, Graham Brookie, who is also its founder.

And in perhaps the most chilling line of the entire report, Reuters says, "But the lab and Atlantic Council bring geopolitical expertise and allow Facebook to distance itself from sensitive pronouncements." This is ostensibly to defuse any potential conflict of interest arising as Facebook seems a bigger presence in emerging foreign markets.

Facebook employees said privately over the past several months that Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg wants to outsource many of the most sensitive political decisions, leaving fact-checking to media groups and geopolitics to think tanks.

What's the take on who he is listening to?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Here's a good piece on what's going on with facebook, at least.

A Four Person NATO-Funded Team Advises Facebook On Flagging 'Propaganda'


Snip - What's more is that the team of four total individuals running the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) is headed by a former National Security Council advisor for the last four years of the Obama administration, Graham Brookie, who is also its founder.

And in perhaps the most chilling line of the entire report, Reuters says, "But the lab and Atlantic Council bring geopolitical expertise and allow Facebook to distance itself from sensitive pronouncements." This is ostensibly to defuse any potential conflict of interest arising as Facebook seems a bigger presence in emerging foreign markets.

Facebook employees said privately over the past several months that Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg wants to outsource many of the most sensitive political decisions, leaving fact-checking to media groups and geopolitics to think tanks.

What's the take on who he is listening to?

Well. These social media companies want to be regulated. They have a common interest with the feds in terms of managing the narrative. It's why Zuck showed up in front of Congress, and it's why the others will be showing up next. It's a dog and pony show when Congress acts like they're reprimanding them. They aren't. What they're doing is compromising. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours kind of deal. What we have going on is effectively a merge of corporation and state. And there's a term for that.

Ultimately, when they become regulated, the companies themselves end up penning their own regulation. And, of course, the feds get what they want from the social media companies in return.

Here's Senator Warner's white paper which, btw, came out right before all of the mass censorship started. And after Zuck went to Congress.

Not surprisingly, it's entitled Potential Policy Proposals for Regulation of Social Media and Technology Firms

End of the day, he's listening to the feds. Thus fedbook. Ha.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have been thinking about the whole Facebook vs Alex Jones thing: Tech giants Facebook, Apple, YouTube ditch controversial Infowars star Alex Jones

What I have determined is if a website or search engine is large enough for big government protection from monopolies to be applied to them then the website needs to comply with American standards of free speech. This won't apply to airline sites obviously but newspapers who allow replies, social sites, that type of thing.

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time? I don't think the internet needs new rules applied to it so much as a understanding of the old rules. If two oil suppliers had this or that share of our market would they be monopolies? Maybe a different analogy applies?

You confuse the idea of free speech with the availability of an audience

You are not guaranteed an audience for whatever you say or write you are only guaranteed that the government cannot stop you from saying or writing it ( we'll just agree to the exceptions now so we don't have to cover threats etc)

Facebook. Twitter, etc cannot stop you from posting things on the internet. They cannot stop you from obtaining your own domain and from publishing whatever you want on your domain. Therefore, they cannot ever infringe on your first amendment rights.

No, no confusion. I understand your point and read in depth about it. I think only when we declare a site to have a monopoly are they forced to let me post. This site does not have to let me post. Facebook may (if I were in charge and felt they had a monopoly).

The only way for any company to have an internet monopoly is to ban private citizens from owning domain names.

As long as anyone can get a domain name there is no issue as far as first amendment rights go.

True ideally. And I'm not above standing for a non practical ideal. I boycott the local MLB stadium.

Practically I expect to see a bunch of decade long monopolies "dual-opolies" like was mentioned earlier come up. Fewer companies owning a larger percentagr of clicks is the future I fear.

The number of clicks any website gets is irrelevant to the first amendment.

As I said you are not guaranteed an audience or a venue when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. As long as you can say what you want, publish what you want, post on the internet what you want there is no issue

Aside from that a private party or business cannot violate your first amendment rights.

 

[Toronado3800]

I have been thinking about the whole Facebook vs Alex Jones thing: Tech giants Facebook, Apple, YouTube ditch controversial Infowars star Alex Jones

What I have determined is if a website or search engine is large enough for big government protection from monopolies to be applied to them then the website needs to comply with American standards of free speech. This won't apply to airline sites obviously but newspapers who allow replies, social sites, that type of thing.

Now, can we declare both Facebook and Twitter have monopolies in the same field at the same time? I don't think the internet needs new rules applied to it so much as a understanding of the old rules. If two oil suppliers had this or that share of our market would they be monopolies? Maybe a different analogy applies?

You confuse the idea of free speech with the availability of an audience

You are not guaranteed an audience for whatever you say or write you are only guaranteed that the government cannot stop you from saying or writing it ( we'll just agree to the exceptions now so we don't have to cover threats etc)

Facebook. Twitter, etc cannot stop you from posting things on the internet. They cannot stop you from obtaining your own domain and from publishing whatever you want on your domain. Therefore, they cannot ever infringe on your first amendment rights.

No, no confusion. I understand your point and read in depth about it. I think only when we declare a site to have a monopoly are they forced to let me post. This site does not have to let me post. Facebook may (if I were in charge and felt they had a monopoly).

The only way for any company to have an internet monopoly is to ban private citizens from owning domain names.

As long as anyone can get a domain name there is no issue as far as first amendment rights go.

True ideally. And I'm not above standing for a non practical ideal. I boycott the local MLB stadium.

Practically I expect to see a bunch of decade long monopolies "dual-opolies" like was mentioned earlier come up. Fewer companies owning a larger percentagr of clicks is the future I fear.

The number of clicks any website gets is irrelevant to the first amendment.

As I said you are not guaranteed an audience or a venue when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. As long as you can say what you want, publish what you want, post on the internet what you want there is no issue

Aside from that a private party or business cannot violate your first amendment rights.

I'd counter that if the private party has a monopoly on the medium they can, but your point is valid also, there are other websites. In the 1860's you had freedom of speech but not a guarantee the paper would publish your speech. Perhaps my personal distaste of monopolies is showing.

Curious, would you have supported blocking Faceboo from purchasing Instagram and whatever they have also bought up in the last few years?

Can a private company service provider like Comcast decide not to allow nuts (like me or you!) to upload to the web? My feeling is Comcast or Charter and AT&T are public utilities and we have to compell them to allow "21st Century Stalin Lovers" or whoever to run their website.

Does GoDaddy have to host "Modern Stalin Fans" or a small company like CloudAccess have to?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You confuse the idea of free speech with the availability of an audience

You are not guaranteed an audience for whatever you say or write you are only guaranteed that the government cannot stop you from saying or writing it ( we'll just agree to the exceptions now so we don't have to cover threats etc)

Facebook. Twitter, etc cannot stop you from posting things on the internet. They cannot stop you from obtaining your own domain and from publishing whatever you want on your domain. Therefore, they cannot ever infringe on your first amendment rights.

No, no confusion. I understand your point and read in depth about it. I think only when we declare a site to have a monopoly are they forced to let me post. This site does not have to let me post. Facebook may (if I were in charge and felt they had a monopoly).

The only way for any company to have an internet monopoly is to ban private citizens from owning domain names.

As long as anyone can get a domain name there is no issue as far as first amendment rights go.

True ideally. And I'm not above standing for a non practical ideal. I boycott the local MLB stadium.

Practically I expect to see a bunch of decade long monopolies "dual-opolies" like was mentioned earlier come up. Fewer companies owning a larger percentagr of clicks is the future I fear.

The number of clicks any website gets is irrelevant to the first amendment.

As I said you are not guaranteed an audience or a venue when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. As long as you can say what you want, publish what you want, post on the internet what you want there is no issue

Aside from that a private party or business cannot violate your first amendment rights.

I'd counter that if the private party has a monopoly on the medium they can, but your point is valid also, there are other websites. In the 1860's you had freedom of speech but not a guarantee the paper would publish your speech. Perhaps my personal distaste of monopolies is showing.

Curious, would you have supported blocking Faceboo from purchasing Instagram and whatever they have also bought up in the last few years?

Can a private company service provider like Comcast decide not to allow nuts (like me or you!) to upload to the web? My feeling is Comcast or Charter and AT&T are public utilities and we have to compell them to allow "21st Century Stalin Lovers" or whoever to run their website.

Does GoDaddy have to host "Modern Stalin Fans" or a small company like CloudAccess have to?

Since I do not think it is possible for any person or business to stifle anyone's free speech I have no problem with any web business buying other web businesses.

Now I do agree that internet providers such, Com cast, Charter, Verizon, any phone company that offers DSL or any satellite internet provider are public utilities in that they use public infrastructure such as telephone poles, underground wiring conduits and the public airways and cannot deny service for any other reason than nonpayment.

Go Daddy is a private entity and has the option not to host web sites if they so choose.

In the end the first amendment was written to protect the people from the government and not from other people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You confuse the idea of free speech with the availability of an audience

You are not guaranteed an audience for whatever you say or write you are only guaranteed that the government cannot stop you from saying or writing it ( we'll just agree to the exceptions now so we don't have to cover threats etc)

Facebook. Twitter, etc cannot stop you from posting things on the internet. They cannot stop you from obtaining your own domain and from publishing whatever you want on your domain. Therefore, they cannot ever infringe on your first amendment rights.

No, no confusion. I understand your point and read in depth about it. I think only when we declare a site to have a monopoly are they forced to let me post. This site does not have to let me post. Facebook may (if I were in charge and felt they had a monopoly).

The only way for any company to have an internet monopoly is to ban private citizens from owning domain names.

As long as anyone can get a domain name there is no issue as far as first amendment rights go.

True ideally. And I'm not above standing for a non practical ideal. I boycott the local MLB stadium.

Practically I expect to see a bunch of decade long monopolies "dual-opolies" like was mentioned earlier come up. Fewer companies owning a larger percentagr of clicks is the future I fear.

The number of clicks any website gets is irrelevant to the first amendment.

As I said you are not guaranteed an audience or a venue when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. As long as you can say what you want, publish what you want, post on the internet what you want there is no issue

Aside from that a private party or business cannot violate your first amendment rights.

I'd counter that if the private party has a monopoly on the medium they can, but your point is valid also, there are other websites. In the 1860's you had freedom of speech but not a guarantee the paper would publish your speech. Perhaps my personal distaste of monopolies is showing.

Curious, would you have supported blocking Faceboo from purchasing Instagram and whatever they have also bought up in the last few years?

Can a private company service provider like Comcast decide not to allow nuts (like me or you!) to upload to the web? My feeling is Comcast or Charter and AT&T are public utilities and we have to compell them to allow "21st Century Stalin Lovers" or whoever to run their website.

Does GoDaddy have to host "Modern Stalin Fans" or a small company like CloudAccess have to?

No.

And government forcing web hosting sites to accommodate certain content is a bad idea and likely unconstitutional.

That FB is big because it's popular doesn't render it a monopoly, nor does it warrant its regulation.

 

[Toronado3800]

No, no confusion. I understand your point and read in depth about it. I think only when we declare a site to have a monopoly are they forced to let me post. This site does not have to let me post. Facebook may (if I were in charge and felt they had a monopoly).

The only way for any company to have an internet monopoly is to ban private citizens from owning domain names.

As long as anyone can get a domain name there is no issue as far as first amendment rights go.

True ideally. And I'm not above standing for a non practical ideal. I boycott the local MLB stadium.

Practically I expect to see a bunch of decade long monopolies "dual-opolies" like was mentioned earlier come up. Fewer companies owning a larger percentagr of clicks is the future I fear.

The number of clicks any website gets is irrelevant to the first amendment.

As I said you are not guaranteed an audience or a venue when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. As long as you can say what you want, publish what you want, post on the internet what you want there is no issue

Aside from that a private party or business cannot violate your first amendment rights.

I'd counter that if the private party has a monopoly on the medium they can, but your point is valid also, there are other websites. In the 1860's you had freedom of speech but not a guarantee the paper would publish your speech. Perhaps my personal distaste of monopolies is showing.

Curious, would you have supported blocking Faceboo from purchasing Instagram and whatever they have also bought up in the last few years?

Can a private company service provider like Comcast decide not to allow nuts (like me or you!) to upload to the web? My feeling is Comcast or Charter and AT&T are public utilities and we have to compell them to allow "21st Century Stalin Lovers" or whoever to run their website.

Does GoDaddy have to host "Modern Stalin Fans" or a small company like CloudAccess have to?

No.

And government forcing web hosting sites to accommodate certain content is a bad idea and likely unconstitutional.

That FB is big because it's popular doesn't render it a monopoly, nor does it warrant its regulation.

If there was only one hosting company would or one ISP would you allow forcing content on them?

 

[Toronado3800]

No, no confusion. I understand your point and read in depth about it. I think only when we declare a site to have a monopoly are they forced to let me post. This site does not have to let me post. Facebook may (if I were in charge and felt they had a monopoly).

The only way for any company to have an internet monopoly is to ban private citizens from owning domain names.

As long as anyone can get a domain name there is no issue as far as first amendment rights go.

True ideally. And I'm not above standing for a non practical ideal. I boycott the local MLB stadium.

Practically I expect to see a bunch of decade long monopolies "dual-opolies" like was mentioned earlier come up. Fewer companies owning a larger percentagr of clicks is the future I fear.

The number of clicks any website gets is irrelevant to the first amendment.

As I said you are not guaranteed an audience or a venue when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. As long as you can say what you want, publish what you want, post on the internet what you want there is no issue

Aside from that a private party or business cannot violate your first amendment rights.

I'd counter that if the private party has a monopoly on the medium they can, but your point is valid also, there are other websites. In the 1860's you had freedom of speech but not a guarantee the paper would publish your speech. Perhaps my personal distaste of monopolies is showing.

Curious, would you have supported blocking Faceboo from purchasing Instagram and whatever they have also bought up in the last few years?

Can a private company service provider like Comcast decide not to allow nuts (like me or you!) to upload to the web? My feeling is Comcast or Charter and AT&T are public utilities and we have to compell them to allow "21st Century Stalin Lovers" or whoever to run their website.

Does GoDaddy have to host "Modern Stalin Fans" or a small company like CloudAccess have to?

No.

And government forcing web hosting sites to accommodate certain content is a bad idea and likely unconstitutional.

That FB is big because it's popular doesn't render it a monopoly, nor does it warrant its regulation.

We disagree a bit but you have made your point well!

Folks should learn from your style sir.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The only way for any company to have an internet monopoly is to ban private citizens from owning domain names.

As long as anyone can get a domain name there is no issue as far as first amendment rights go.

True ideally. And I'm not above standing for a non practical ideal. I boycott the local MLB stadium.

Practically I expect to see a bunch of decade long monopolies "dual-opolies" like was mentioned earlier come up. Fewer companies owning a larger percentagr of clicks is the future I fear.

The number of clicks any website gets is irrelevant to the first amendment.

As I said you are not guaranteed an audience or a venue when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. As long as you can say what you want, publish what you want, post on the internet what you want there is no issue

Aside from that a private party or business cannot violate your first amendment rights.

I'd counter that if the private party has a monopoly on the medium they can, but your point is valid also, there are other websites. In the 1860's you had freedom of speech but not a guarantee the paper would publish your speech. Perhaps my personal distaste of monopolies is showing.

Curious, would you have supported blocking Faceboo from purchasing Instagram and whatever they have also bought up in the last few years?

Can a private company service provider like Comcast decide not to allow nuts (like me or you!) to upload to the web? My feeling is Comcast or Charter and AT&T are public utilities and we have to compell them to allow "21st Century Stalin Lovers" or whoever to run their website.

Does GoDaddy have to host "Modern Stalin Fans" or a small company like CloudAccess have to?

No.

And government forcing web hosting sites to accommodate certain content is a bad idea and likely unconstitutional.

That FB is big because it's popular doesn't render it a monopoly, nor does it warrant its regulation.

If there was only one hosting company would or one ISP would you allow forcing content on them?

That's not going to happen

 

[Toronado3800]

True ideally. And I'm not above standing for a non practical ideal. I boycott the local MLB stadium.

Practically I expect to see a bunch of decade long monopolies "dual-opolies" like was mentioned earlier come up. Fewer companies owning a larger percentagr of clicks is the future I fear.

The number of clicks any website gets is irrelevant to the first amendment.

As I said you are not guaranteed an audience or a venue when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. As long as you can say what you want, publish what you want, post on the internet what you want there is no issue

Aside from that a private party or business cannot violate your first amendment rights.

I'd counter that if the private party has a monopoly on the medium they can, but your point is valid also, there are other websites. In the 1860's you had freedom of speech but not a guarantee the paper would publish your speech. Perhaps my personal distaste of monopolies is showing.

Curious, would you have supported blocking Faceboo from purchasing Instagram and whatever they have also bought up in the last few years?

Can a private company service provider like Comcast decide not to allow nuts (like me or you!) to upload to the web? My feeling is Comcast or Charter and AT&T are public utilities and we have to compell them to allow "21st Century Stalin Lovers" or whoever to run their website.

Does GoDaddy have to host "Modern Stalin Fans" or a small company like CloudAccess have to?

No.

And government forcing web hosting sites to accommodate certain content is a bad idea and likely unconstitutional.

That FB is big because it's popular doesn't render it a monopoly, nor does it warrant its regulation.

If there was only one hosting company would or one ISP would you allow forcing content on them?

That's not going to happen

I hope you are right!

Excluding isolated places....

Would you support the monopoly busting powers of big government to keep it from happening?