^ You are so easily distracted. How very Hitler Brown Shirt of you once again confirming my stated opinion on what progressism real is - corporate fascism and most their followers are wannabe plutocrats Brown Shirts to be somebody and live to hate and rage as ordered. You do know in the end Hitler crushed the Brown Shirts after he no longer needed them, don't you? Either summary execution - like that 14 year veteran unarmed female Trump supporter was summarily executed OR by a fast guillotine - no hearing or trial but ASAP taken straight there at the continuous rate of 15 to 20 an hour. Actually, one of the top spots Jews has to escape corporate-fascist Germany and Europe was Russia, not Argentina. Your side fled to Argentina.
I won't disturb your love affair with Jack Dorsey. Might distract from the prayer closet you may have for him and the other plutocrats.
It is my understanding that Mr. Bezos is not an editor, nor is he involved with any editorial decisions. If I am mistaken in that understanding, it certainly does not call for any civil debater to allege dishonesty on my part. Do you know the meaning of the word? You are saying that I know that the truth is other than I present it to be. Where is your proof of this utterly false, ad hominem accusation? I guess it must be with your proof that I am wrong, that is, the positive evidence of your assertion about the way Bezos uses WAPO. I don't see that, anywhere, in your post. All I see is an unfounded, personal attack. Do you have a response?
Not sure how that's related. What qualifies FB and Twitter as monopolies? One criteria to be considered a monopoly is that there is a barrier to entry. Example? You can't open up your own water company or your own electric company. What is the barrier to entry for social media? There are hundreds upon thousands of platforms.
You really aren't aware of the issues for lawsuits filed by states and the federal government? That has been so debated and discussed - even in the New York Times and all mainstream media - that I'm not going to write out 7 maximum character messages for you. Look it up yourself. Then if you wish to discuss or debate any of the issues we can do so. Or you can listen to Elizabeth Warren often explaining specifically in great detail why Amazon and Google are illegal monopolies that has a crippling effect on the market and so many - for which Big Tech and the plutocrats used their total control of all info outlets attacker her, while banning her defense - destroying her campaign within a few days for free. (Come to think of it, all those videos, Tweets etc probably have been removed and the posters banned.)
I have my opinion, and even if the government takes over FB & Twitter, my opinion will not change. I reject government controlling social media. That is a very real slippery slope. Someone filed a lawsuit? Ok. It literally has nothing to do with my opinion.
I understand. You want the richest corporate-fascists to be able to do anything they want and have exemptions for all laws no one else has. Everyone has their gods. It is your right to worship Big Tech richest people and companies on earth as yours. I'm confident all Nazis wanted Goebel's for corporate-fascist profits and power too. Shouldn't the government not then control any company nor ours? Shouldn't the government not control you or I saying it is for the best public interests? Shouldn't we having zero rights not be paying for the existence of the Internet, their security, all special laws eliminated so they really are "in the market?" Shouldn't all anti-monopoly laws be eliminated?
You are completely misunderstanding me. This is my basic point: I do not support the government forcing a Jewish sign maker, make a sign for Nazi headquarters. Period. Part of free speech includes not having to participate in speech we don't like. The size of the sign maker's business is of no relevence, unless the said sign maker has conned the government into letting him be the only sign maker in the country.
The charge of of Big Tech being a monopoly that all conspire together to control the market isn't so much about uses and searchers. It is about advertisers and sales. It is about business. Exxon, Mobil and the other 8 largest oil companies price fix retail rates between them, while making a deal for discount purchasing from the refineries, for which the refineries charge much higher prices to independents or refuse to sell to independents, for which with nearly all gas stations being one of the 10 they all experience more sales and charge a higher fixed price. If the top oil suppliers are brought into this consortium, it works even better. And they'll probably get along great since their richest stockholders/owners all hold some stock in all those oil companies, refineries and crude oil suppliers, pipeline companies and oil tanker companies. Of course you as a consumer CAN drive 31 miles to buy gasoline for a dime less, if they are not sold out. Nothing stops you from buying oil wells, building refineries, pipelines, buying a ship to obtain your own gasoline for your little gas station - that ever anyone can buy from. Big Tech claims none of that constitutes a monopoly. If you can buy any gasoline anywhere in the country regardless of price - and if no one is prohibited from spending $100 billion to establish a network for their single gasoline station - it can't be called a monopoly. That is the most possible perversion of anti-trust laws and exactly diametrically opposite from anti-trust laws.
I understand your view that 90% of cake makers can all make a deal with each other to not sell cakes to Jews if the cake identifies them as Jews and can all agree to charge Jews twice as much for a cake. Or they all can agree to require anyone who buys a cake not agree in writing the aren't a Jew and that they are a Christian - or they are banned from cake buying - for which any of the bakeries or all of them can agree they don't like you - so one or all can put up your picture in their windows claiming you are a neo-nazi anti-Jew pedophile and have a speaker outside warning about you by name for people to protect their children from you - and specific law for bakeries allows them to do so.
What I most understand is that most Americans, particularly politicians and progressive Democrats, worship the ruling plutocrats as if their gods. Nobody should dare mess with their gods lest they righteously be destroyed personally, politically, socially and economically as that has always been the discretionary rights of the gods for thousands of years in lower class ordinary homo sapiens as how their societies were always built - total submission to authoritarian power - secular, religious, political and/or economic. The degree they are gods is singularly on how much submission and obedience, how much control, they have of the peasants. The more the peasants worship and sacrifice for them, the more powerful they are - and the less powerful the peasants are. That's how it always has worked - for people with little peasant minds like most people are.
Speaking of censorship.... Google Removes Parler, Popular With Trump Supporters, From App Store for Android Google of course claims that its due to violation of their rules that are against incitement to violence. Where as Parler is a true platform that will only take down posts that are illegal or pornographic in nature. As they say, "If you can say it in the streets of New York then you can say it on Parler". As the article notates you can still download Parler, but through what's called "side-walling" essentially you have to manually download it from the internet. What they don't say of course is most people don't know how to do such. Now I have no doubt that lefties will not consider such as censorship due to the fact that it can be side-walled. All the while ignoring that most don't know how to do such or even realize that they could do such. Which means reduced access. Which means purposefully interfering with competition.
I state a demonstrably false premise, and yet you fail to demonstrate how it is false, eh? That should let any non brain-dead reader know how, "honest," of a post, yours is (though, as previously questioned by me & not responded to by drluggit, honesty would also appear to be a word he fails to grasp the meaning of). You start from a place of bull sh**, and the whole retains a scatological cast.
No its not censorship because its a private company determining what they offer for sale/distribution on their platform. That isn't censorship in the least. Think of the Parler app as a wedding cake and google as the baker and the trumpists are the customers trying to buy the cake. I've found that complex nuanced issues can be explained by a simple analogy that can easily be grasped by those having already fully exercised their intellectual prowess in formulating their opinion about example.
Do you know what free speech is actually about? In any case, I noticed that you didn't address my last point. Everyone keeps saying that if you don't like what Twitter et al do then just make your own social media site. Well, that was done. Now its being removed from distribution apps that everyone uses. You like analogies. Here's one for you. Let's say that you are a major distributer of various products. Wal-Mart comes to you and says "Hey, we noticed that you supply the mom and pop store right next to our Wal-Mart Store at X location. I want you to stop supplying them with your product because we feel that they spread hate since they have an anti-abortion sign and if you don't then we will stop buying millions of dollars worth of products from you and take our money to your competitor." What do you say to this? You know that that mom & pop store exclusively buys products from you and one other distributer. What do you do?
Yeah he eliminated the brownshirts as part of the night of the long knives. course he replaced them with the far more loyal SS. So I guess he had that going for him. And that 14 year veteran's blood is on Trump's hands because she believe all the bullshit about a stolen election he was peddling and was prepared to fight, to have trial by combat. All because she believed the bleatings of a butt hurt lying sociopath. Progressivism is corporate fascism? All the depth of bumpersticker political acumen.
Why yes I know all about what free speech is actually about. So you believe that companies should be forced to carry products they don't want to? You say yes massah. Its friggin' walmart. You dance to their tune and get rich or you don't and you don't. Ain't capitalism grand?
That is a very good, & valid analogy, you make. Perhaps this is trying to expand the focus of the thread beyond its narrowly defined parameter of speech, to include expression, but I wondered how you felt when this economic motive drives business, "competition," that deprives a product from easy access to the market (the expression part will be explained, presently). I'm thinking about a particular story I saw about a town in Arizona, I believe, where it's so sunny that it is actually cheaper to put solar panels on your roof, & sell excess power back to the grid, rather than to buy from the power company. Will I be able to knock you over with a feather, after you learn that the town council passed an ordinance prohibiting (or severely obstructing) the installation of rooftop solar-panelling? And it was council members who were all recipients of large donations by the local power company who enacted this ordinance. Now, l don't want to focus on just this story; first of all, I'm not providing you any proof other than my word & my recollection; secondly, this is obviously a case of political corruption, which is its own, special category. But surely you acknowledge that powerful business interests flex their muscle to block out competing products, some of which represent new technologies or approaches which would be advantageous not only for the consumer, but for society, as a whole. Solar power's historic opposition by the fossil fuels industry is one general example of this. And choosing to use solar power could be construed as one's expressing their beliefs. Now I don't want to get into a legal argument-- certainly not with you-- or any real argument at all, for that matter. I'm just curious about how you, and others, think about limiting speech versus limiting other beneficial products & technologies. While one could make the argument that some of these things are still, technically, available, if difficult & unnecessarily expensive to access, that same argument could be applied to the complaint about Parler, or the fictional cake maker: these people still have access to markets, just not the best ones. I just find it interesting that the same arguments, as you & others here have noted, that are used to condemn monopolistic & unfair trade practices can be used to defend what many here are calling, "censorship." But my point is, that goes both ways, doesn't it? The quality of analogies here, notwithstanding, it seems these issues all require subtle, subjective distinctions. Or am I all wet?
You agreed to the TOS when you joined this forum. Therefore, if you get banned for violating the TOS, you are not being censored. I swear, words have meaning people. Trumpservatives and Trump himself agreed to the TOS when he joined Twitter, FB....etc. Therefore his permaban is NOT censorship. Google, Apple, etc all have TOS as well. If you violate those terms, you may be banned. Too bad, so sad.
