|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
110%er [5675]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12157
Joined: 9/28/08
|
big tech monopoly
Jan 12, 2021, 9:59 AM
|
|
A very good summary on the big tech monopoly situation:
We have a new challenge which has not been contemplated in our legal history. Big tech companies, in many ways, are far more powerful restrictors in the marketplace of ideas than our government has ever been. And unlike our government, which is subject to the will of the American voters and to rigorous check by the courts, big technology companies have effective monopolies in their chosen marketplaces and therefore have virtually no restraints on their power right now.
Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al, are all achieving the same results as China’s government. In so doing, they are providing many of the same results as China. The Big Tech thought police are afoot in this country and, sadly, they are taking actions they believe are making us safer, but which are in reality setting disastrous and terrifying precedents for the country.
https://www.outkick.com/why-big-tech-bannings-are-bad-for-americas-marketplace-of-ideas/
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: big tech monopoly
Jan 12, 2021, 10:00 AM
|
|
One good thing is, it seems liberals, conservatives, and even Trumptards, want them broken up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155901]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65819
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Oddly enough, everyone except the
Jan 12, 2021, 10:02 AM
|
|
elected leaders, on both sides, with the power to do so. It's enough to make someone wonder why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5675]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12157
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: big tech monopoly
Jan 12, 2021, 10:05 AM
[ in reply to Re: big tech monopoly ] |
|
Saw Tulsi Gabbard on Tucker Carlson (looking pretty good BTW), still on the "break-em-up" bandwagon...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49039]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38812
Joined: 12/31/97
|
She has about as much pull in congress as a 72 civic***
Jan 12, 2021, 11:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
What are your thoughts on high capacity semi automatic
Jan 12, 2021, 10:07 AM
|
|
weapons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41409
Joined: 4/20/01
|
sounds scary***
Jan 12, 2021, 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
The point, and how this is usually referenced
Jan 12, 2021, 11:48 AM
|
|
is that the writers of the constitution could never know about communications on the internet, and therefore the 1st amendment can't apply to internet companies. The block freedom of speech when they don't allow Parler, etc.
The perfect comparison to that is the 2nd amendment; the writers of the constitution could never have known about high capacity semi automatic weapons; should the second amendment be ignored as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: big tech monopoly
Jan 12, 2021, 10:13 AM
|
|
You're loving this Outkick site. Definitely a credible source when the writer SUDDENLY PUTS A SENTENCE IN ALL CAPS!!!11!!
I do love the Big Tech complaints we're getting from y'all.
DON'T TREAD ON ME BRUH ON FACEBOOK: "I want a civil war, public executions of lib Congressmen, imprisonment of journalists and the media shut down, my dictator in power, and white power!!!1!!1!"
FACEBOOK: "Okay, yeah, you're outta here, dude."
DTOM BRUH: "OMG why are you being like communist China?!?!?!"
Won't even get into the free market irony here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: big tech monopoly
Jan 12, 2021, 11:39 AM
|
|
Would have no issue IF the “rules” were applied evenly and they weren’t propped up with tax dollars from sec 230 exemptions. The more concerning piece isn’t some people getting an account deleted on any one platform, its Apple, google and amazon’s ability to cut off access to websites and apps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Please elaborate on these tax dollars from Section 230.***
Jan 12, 2021, 11:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Probably wrong about that...
Jan 12, 2021, 11:52 AM
|
|
I thought I heard that during the congressional hearings. May have misremembered or someone may have misspoke, but either way I can’t find anything to that regard. 230 does protect them from lawsuits... but no tax implications. My B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
If Section 230 is repealed without a good substitution,
Jan 12, 2021, 12:08 PM
|
|
then I would be shocked if Tigernet's message boards remain. People just don't understand the implications of fully repealing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: If Section 230 is repealed without a good substitution,
Jan 12, 2021, 2:57 PM
|
|
Don’t disagree. I Think what people mean is there should be accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
And rightfully so.
Jan 12, 2021, 12:57 PM
[ in reply to Probably wrong about that... ] |
|
This is why these companies MUST regulate this content. 230 protects them from getting hammered in a lawsuit when some idiot posts something that they can't take down fast enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: big tech monopoly
Jan 12, 2021, 10:29 AM
|
|
I am all for taking power away from the oligopoly but let's not forget, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance etc.
If you want to take away their power do something meaningful about campaign finance and lobbying. Otherwise you're just pisssingup a rope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Just imagine for a second.....you're back in time
Jan 12, 2021, 10:45 AM
|
|
Say in the 1970's or 1960's. You are sitting with Walter Cronkite and talking.
You tell him that one day, every single person will have a TV camera in their pocket. AND, every single person will have the ability to post a news story (be a journalist) to a place where literally billions of people could access it. AND, there would be absolutely no oversight or consequences for anything someone says. AND the company that makes the TV camera in the pocket, and the company that distributes/transmits the video, will have absolutely zero liability for the any nefarious use of their service.......
What do you think his reaction would be?
Tech companies are actually in a spot no company should ever be in really.
Go back 100 years earlier, before television and radio. If you wanted to get a message out, what did you do? You met with people in person and gave speeches. You could reach more people through the printing press, if you write a message, and it is published, and people read it. But at each stage in history, as a new form of communication has been discovered and used to convey information, there have ALWAYS been controls. Always. Newspapers for example. They've been out a very long time. The newspaper publisher could be held liable for what they printed. If the NY Times printed a bunch of lies, slanderous or false news, or nude pictures, or cuss words, they could be sued, fined, or even shut down. Radio. Same thing. A radio station was regulated. The airwaves were regulated. They license (still do) their frequency. If they transmit false information, defamatory speech, incite riots, or obscene audio, they get fined, and could be shut down. TV, same thing.
But along comes the internet. Perhaps the MOST pervasive and massive form of communication any living creature has ever had. Now going back up to the paragraph above, you may ask "what about phones"? Well, they're regulated differently. Phones were the first means of communication to truly reach everyone, where any and everyone became a speaker. But they were limited by the recipient being a single person as well. That's important. Phones allowed mass communication, but to a limited audience. Whoever picked up. As such, they were NOT regulated as severely. And how was the internet born you ask? Yep, over phone lines. So they simply applied phone laws to the internet, and the two things were regulated similarly, but they grew into VERY different technologies.
It is long past time for the internet to be regulated like every other form of speech that can be mass communicated. Since it isn't regulated, it's left up to the tech companies that provide the TECHNOLOGY to determine how to manage it. And certain tech companies may regulate one thing, ban right wing twitter users, but then allow left wing tweets inciting violence to fly all day long. Or another may pop up that lets right wing users incite violence, but bans left wing users. It puts those COMPANIES in positions that traditionally are reserved for government.
One of the things Trump promised, that I actually supported, that he of course didn't deliver on, was repealing/reforming Sec 230. Liberals framed that as stifling free speech. Well, it's been stifled throughout our entire history then by allowing lawsuits. Heck, it's been stifled more by regulations. There is no section 230 for newspapers, radio, or television. There shouldn't be for the internet. Free speech is not unlimited speech. Totally "free" speech destroys countries. That's why it's always been controlled and regulated throughout American history, throughout WORLD history, everywhere, in other forms of mass communication. It has to be. And the irony is not lost that if section 230 was altered, and liability was placed on the company providing the communication, Trump would have long ago been silenced. As would Antifa, and many other radical groups who have a larger voice than they should. ANd big tech has become BIG tech, and the largest companies ever in the history of the world, by enjoying the freedom from moderation, regulation, and civil lawsuits. GoogleAppleFacebookTwitter has an INCREDIBLY small civil liability exposure. Their fleet of street view cars, I promise, exposes them to FAR more liability than what their technology distributes daily. And that shouldn't be the case. Someone bully posts garbage on a forum or social media and someone kills themselves as a result. Not Facebook's fault. Although Facebook allowed the bully to harass the victim for years. That's why you see utter garbage in the comment sections under news stories. There's no liability, oversight, or consequences for speech PEOPLE WOULD NEVER SPEAK IN PERSON FACE TO FACE.
Anyway, it is what it is. I don't think you need to split the companies, or whatever. All you need to do is force them to be good citizens, and hold their users to the same standards of decency demanded in other forms of communication. The companies will modify themselves out of necessity. Just think of the liability Facebook or Twitter has based on the past 30 seconds of tweets and Facebook posts. I promise there are probably dozens of lawsuits already. And they will force their users to be civil and behave, just as newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, etc. have done for years by being regulated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Just imagine for a second.....you're back in time
Jan 12, 2021, 10:56 AM
|
|
You're probably onto something, and not just because as a lawyer I am always looking for more ways for people to sue each other.
The big change, which I see happening in the next 5 years, is that people will be forced to post under their real names. If Twitter and Facebook suddenly face liability for everything their users post, then they will take serious measures to make sure people are held accountable. Requiring real names is the first step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Bingo. The immunity big tech has is why they're BIG tech
Jan 12, 2021, 11:59 AM
|
|
It's also why internet discourse is so horrendous.
I'm not sure how you could enforce "real" names, but you can sure as heck verify the real person easily with some simple checks (text authentication, or a google or apple email address) or whatever else. Credit card works. A lot of stuff that's free would become pay, just for no other reason than to have your credit card on file for identification purposes. Crump knows who all the donors are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Bingo. The immunity big tech has is why they're BIG tech
Jan 12, 2021, 8:03 AM
|
|
It's doable. Facebook already makes it tough to change your name, which is a step in the right direction.
If you have a time to read a gigantic novel, check out this book which presents a speculative future and including issues of people's online identities (although it's not the main focus of the book).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall;_or,_Dodge_in_####
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11683
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Just imagine for a second.....you're back in time
Jan 12, 2021, 12:23 PM
[ in reply to Re: Just imagine for a second.....you're back in time ] |
|
I actually think there's going to be a compromise - real names no, but I do think most sites are going to require a single verified user account linked to your Real ID, a primary handle, and there's probably going to be a traffic-ticket type system where you rack up points by getting that handle banned for ToS violations on participating sites.
Too many points due to bans, and that's it for you on the Internetz or Social Media until you get your handle re-instated. Trolls would hate it and truthfully even I wouldn't like it a ton but that's where this is going, IMHO.
Clearly people are not going to exercise self-control on the Internetz, so like all good things our little laissez-faire digital anarchy - which has gone dark and sour - is about to come to a screaming halt as it is presently situated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155901]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65819
Joined: 5/6/13
|
sounds an awful lot like China's Social Credit System.***
Jan 12, 2021, 12:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11683
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: sounds an awful lot like China's Social Credit System.***
Jan 12, 2021, 1:28 PM
|
|
Actually I was thinking more like a driver's license.
You go around running over pedestrians or driving drunk, they take the thing.
Similarly, you go around threatening people and calling for militant revolution, yeah, you should probably get put in digital time-out until you learn to not do that.
Now, if those points start affecting your job, your credit rating, getting you publicly doxxed, or otherwise winding up on some public record...yeah, that does start looking like social credit and I would be against all of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155901]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65819
Joined: 5/6/13
|
We worry a lot about our politicians being compromised,
Jan 12, 2021, 11:52 AM
[ in reply to Just imagine for a second.....you're back in time ] |
|
but I never really hear the tech companies entering the discussion.
Maybe I'm in the tin hat club, but it's just not hard for me to imagine a scenario where a politician is leading the charge towards big tech divestiture and suddenly they have a courier drop off a printout of some less-than-Puritan searches they've made in the past, or the transcript of a text exchange with a mistress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
they have been allowed too much power, but your flat wrong
Jan 12, 2021, 10:50 AM
|
|
Your argument to use government to control tech platforms is more Chinese than any Democratic proposal ever submitted to date. It is the very definition of socialism, ie. asserting government control of a business.
These are private companies and they have intellectual property rights. Since the content you post becomes their product on their platform, your first amendment protections don't really apply. They have every right to kick you off for reasons to protect their platforms.
If I went to your house party, then called your Mom and Sister "#######" and "hoes", showed a dick-pic to your wife, then invited you and your friend's kids over to my meth lab, you wouldn't respond by saying, "well Prof, as much as I don't like your style, I'm obligated to allow you to stay here and do whatever you want".
No. You obviously wouldn't. You have freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences of that speech. Trump failed to realize that and thought he could control them.
I've adjusted my stance on this issue based on recent events. In a way, social media platforms have provided some balance in our current inflamed civil life. It is a major check on abusive authoritarian speech and in this situation it actually served the country's best interests.
Platforms will come and go, just like house parties. Last time I checked, you still have freedom to join the nastier platforms still out there. I'm sure they'd welcome you with open arms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14104
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: they have been allowed too much power, but your flat wrong
Jan 12, 2021, 12:02 PM
|
|
“social media platforms have provided some balance in our current inflamed civil life”
I flag this message as false, you will lose your acct for 3 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
will never happen, tnet needs my clicks***
Jan 12, 2021, 12:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55747]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 35292
Joined: 11/30/98
|
hate to agree with Clay Travis (SEC beeyatch) but he's right
Jan 12, 2021, 10:52 AM
|
|
And he's a lawyer and some of his best stuff comes when he draws on his legal knowledge.
A BETTER source of understanding is Scott Galloway's stuff. This one and Post Corona, which I am still reading.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34427200-the-four The Four The Four book. Read 1,179 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER USA TODAY BESTSELLER Amazon, Apple, Faceboo...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
If "big tech" is to be broken up, it should be done so
Jan 12, 2021, 11:51 AM
|
|
from the standpoint of anti-trust regulation. But are they monopolies? There are substitutes for facebook and google, and the product that you use is free and non compulsory.
One might say they are oligarchies, but so are the oil companies. Why aren't those broken up? Some say its due to national security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
^^^what he said
Jan 12, 2021, 12:38 PM
|
|
Something isn't automatically a monopoly just because it's big or popular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
