No it isn't the definition of Oligopoly - Give me a break here - the definition is way bigger than that. And friggen use your brain - what part of there were many companies competing with STD Oil .. but it was still and Monopoly/Oligopoly - can you not figure out on your own >>> Really .. like WTF - Where do I have to begin ? I will give you one example of "Oligopolism" but if you like I can give you many many . Drug price fixing - Collusion - anti competitive practice in our healthcare system ..from both sides .. the bureaucracy and the Oligopolies.. in some cases working together .. because that's what Oligopolies do . .the influence tax law and regulation to tilt the scales in their favor. Did you not realize that we pay 5-10-50 x more for the same pill - same manufacture .. did you never wonder hmmmm how is this possible as our system is at least more fair and free than "Sweden" or other EU nation .. never a twitch ? no .. not a spark .. no glimmer of a thought on this issue ? Oligopolism is in large part about control and maintenance of market share - and you don't have to have "ALL OF IT" as the morons think - it is not a black vs white paradiam - Market dominance gives rise to the anti competitive opportunity - and the Social Media space is one such cesspool - buying up competitors left right and center .. which can also be an anti competitive practice - but not always .. it is not YES or NO .. "Black vs White" as there are other considerations that you are completely unaware of that come into play. You have no understanding of Free Speech - no understanding of the use of propaganda - and how without an informed electorate there is no such thing as a functional democratic process. You have never thought about how information is controlled - for example part of your spoon fed propaganda diet did not include an understanding of the founding principles - or what free speech is .. nor did 12 years of Education which is largely to blame for the complete lack of understanding of both Red and Blue of what a friggen constitutional republic is - and the founding principles.
Not many - You realize that like 10 families control near all the Fortune 100 companies - own the media - banks - Energy - Insurance - and healthcare oligopolies in this nation - which is but a pittance of the total wealth and power welded - oh .. forgot the "Military Industrial Complex" - the organization that dictates our foreign policy .. Thats what you get when you have a "Pay to Play" system like ours - - thats where Politicians and Bureaucrats "Get Paid" to do what they are told. Remember this - that at the end of the day - extreme capitalism and extreme socialism end up at the same place - a few people owning most all resources and means of production - the rest of us serfs just pawns and cannon fodder - to what you are told and maintain the Status Quo .. and be punished if you don't.
By “social media” you mean companies right ? You want the government to censor speech and to regulate companies. Be honest in what you are proposing/supporting. If you dont like what they are doing, why dont you start your own social media platform ?
Can you list the 10 families? What is the solution, or is there even one? Should I just be content to be one of the well paid pawns?
You locked yourself in a room and lost the key. The definition of an oligopoly necessarily includes that the cost of entry into the market is extremely high. Any nerd can create a social network in the basement of his house. So Facebook and Twitter AREN'T oligopolies. That's one thing settled. Look, the only thing I can tell you is to go read the Constitution again. The chances of this law not being carved up by the Supreme Court are 0%. And to think that DeSantis wants to protect free speech with this law is insane.
This has nothign to do with "YOU" - and why you would make it about that .. perhaps you only know.. but what you don't know - is what "Well Paid" means - so who knows whether you are or not .. but regardless - Why are you talking about yourself .. who cares .. lots of people still do well - but less and less as time progresses. What does any of this have to do with Oligopolism ??? Not sure if it is 10 - just a number thrown out .. but its not many. I call it the "Rockefeller Rothschild Consortia" - some of the other Families have their names posted on some of the largest banks "Melon" for example - Morgan"
Never said it didn't - try to make a post without putting words in my mouth .. and try to understand what you read - instead of making things up that you think were said.
You don't understand the constitution - as evidenced by you crying "Constitution Constitution" . in a conversation about the founding principles and what a constitutional republic is all about. Where in the Constitution do I find this pray tell ? Where it explains how the constitution is to be interpreted - are you sure you don't mean "The Declaration of Independence" typical error - but, by those who are not aware of the distinction.
You want government to force Jewish bakers to make a swastika birthday cake for a neo-nazi's birthday celebration - what's the difference?
That won't last long. The Supreme Court will uphold it. Time to get rid of these ultra leftist judges.
So, you disagree with whatever state it was that forced the Christian bakers to baker a celebratory cake for a gay couple. Good to know. Why do you hate gays?
Not just the hosts but the users as well under certain situations. For example if a person or business or government building were attacked by BLM/ANTIFA after being targeted with rhetoric trending on social media then both the platform itself and the people who spawned the rhetoric should be held responsible. I'm perfectly honest in what I'm supporting. If bigots want to use technology as an aid to rallying the mob against people they don't like then free speech be damned because at that point it doesn't even apply. You don't get to crowd source violence and then wine about meaaaaaa fweee spweeeeech, and since the platforms themselves have demonstrated a comprehensive ability to detect and stop trends in real time (when its something they don't like) then they too should be held responsible as facilitators.
No. The platforms have the right to choose whom they allow to participate, and those who they do not. The same as a private business has a right to refuse service. But those that do participate are responsible for their own speech, not the provider. Section 230 is a law that provides that. But remember, there is no right to lie in the constitution. The right to be heard is in the constitution, but the content of the speech is not protected
Section 230, like any law, defines the scope of what it impacts. These big tech social media giants unequivocally breach the definitions of the law they hide behind and thus it shouldn't qualify. One day a good court will have a good case and we can finally get a proper ruling on this. Until then big-tech can live in both worlds acting as publisher but listing as platform. And I just have to ask. Why are you so interested in protecting big tech? Look how much they invade your privacy, look how careless they are with your personal data, look at how they allow violent mobs to coordinate attacks against people and businesses. Is it really just because they're all left-wing? Like, would you feel the same way if Twitter was helping White Republicans plan an attacks on Black Democrats? Or if Facebook was suppressing Rachael Maddow instead of Andy Ngo?
Don’t confuse my stance on the law, with support for “big tech”. For me, the “big tech” you are talking about, the big social media platforms FB, Twitter, etc are platforms for the speech, but they are not responsible for the speech. Holding them responsible for what others say is like holding a microphone and speakers responsible for the content of the speaker holding it. Section 230 was rightfully created to protect them for that very reason. And also, these social media platforms, being corporations, should be afforded the same protections as any other company who currently employs private citizens, and that right is to decide who represents them, and who does not.
