Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19925
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:05 pm

WIederling wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Isn’t this just classic capitalism at work? The best rises to the top. Don’t like it? Nothing stopping you from starting your own “Facebook” or “Twitter”.


Depends on what the metric of "best" is.

Best for "profits"? Sure!

But as a society you want best for the community.
Markets won't provide that. IMU they work strongly against it.


Definition of the term "best" is left as an exercise for the reader.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:33 pm

c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws


They keep buying companies because they can. It takes away their competition. Survival of the fittest. And they can turn around and make more money off the shrinking marketplace. If there are only two or three social media outlets as opposed to twelve or thirteen, that is free market, right? That is what we are supposed to support. The free market. Right? The fewer choices the better because free market.

You correctly understand the motivation of the motivation but you forget that the US already have law against such behavior and Facebook is now being sued over it, and that the law does not say it'a okay if there are more smaller competitors out there.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2 ... ys-general


Anyone is free to start their own social media site. Free market. Zuckerberg is using the law to his advantage. Just like all rich people do with the tax code. Those CEOs and board members who take stock options but only show a $1 salary because selling stock has a lower tax rate than income tax.

So, you can still start a social media company. No one is stopping anyone. If Zuck happens to "find" some things about your social media company that he says he can incorporate into his platform and you are now partnering, what's wrong with that? Why hate the free market and capitalism and letting people use the law to their advantage?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
apodino
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:47 pm

seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

They keep buying companies because they can. It takes away their competition. Survival of the fittest. And they can turn around and make more money off the shrinking marketplace. If there are only two or three social media outlets as opposed to twelve or thirteen, that is free market, right? That is what we are supposed to support. The free market. Right? The fewer choices the better because free market.

You correctly understand the motivation of the motivation but you forget that the US already have law against such behavior and Facebook is now being sued over it, and that the law does not say it'a okay if there are more smaller competitors out there.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2 ... ys-general


Anyone is free to start their own social media site. Free market. Zuckerberg is using the law to his advantage. Just like all rich people do with the tax code. Those CEOs and board members who take stock options but only show a $1 salary because selling stock has a lower tax rate than income tax.

So, you can still start a social media company. No one is stopping anyone. If Zuck happens to "find" some things about your social media company that he says he can incorporate into his platform and you are now partnering, what's wrong with that? Why hate the free market and capitalism and letting people use the law to their advantage?


Here is one issue I have with Zuckerberg. Facebook and Twitter command a lions share of the social media market. This gives them enormous corporate power. As Peter Parker once said, with great power comes great responsibility. The issue with Zuckerberg is there is absolutely no check on his power. Normally in a Publicly traded company, the Board of Directors serves at the whim of the shareholders and its the shareholders that will hold a BOD and a CEO accountable. However, Facebook has a dual class stock structure (which I think should be outlawed, but that's a different thread) Because of this, the stock that is traded on stock exchanges is one class, but the actually voting shares are a different class that is not traded. Since Zuckerberg holds a majority of these shares, he can do whatever he wants with Facebook, anyone else's opinion be damned, and he is guaranteed to stay there for life. The only power people have is to stop using FB.

I agree that he is using the law to his advantage the way most rich people do. These people also have the most campaign money to donate to politicians and pay for lobbyists. This way the laws are always written to their favor, and people like you and me pay the price. This is corruption pure and simple, and too much corporate power in the hands of a few people is not a good thing either. This is where pure capitalism has failed us, and its an issue that really needs to be addressed by populists in both parties for this nation to thrive going forward. Rachel Bovard is a figure on the right who has written extensively on this issue and I encourage anyone to read what she has written.

Lastly, I wanted to mention the fairness doctrine. This seems to be something that the Left wants and the Right is against, yet it seems to me like this is something that would actually help the right more than the left if what they say about censorship is true. I don't understand it completely, but I was wondering if anyone might weigh on that.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11231
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:11 pm

apodino wrote:
Here is one issue I have with Zuckerberg. Facebook and Twitter command a lions share of the social media market. This gives them enormous corporate power. As Peter Parker once said, with great power comes great responsibility. The issue with Zuckerberg is there is absolutely no check on his power. Normally in a Publicly traded company, the Board of Directors serves at the whim of the shareholders and its the shareholders that will hold a BOD and a CEO accountable. However, Facebook has a dual class stock structure (which I think should be outlawed, but that's a different thread) Because of this, the stock that is traded on stock exchanges is one class, but the actually voting shares are a different class that is not traded. Since Zuckerberg holds a majority of these shares, he can do whatever he wants with Facebook, anyone else's opinion be damned, and he is guaranteed to stay there for life. The only power people have is to stop using FB.

I agree that he is using the law to his advantage the way most rich people do. These people also have the most campaign money to donate to politicians and pay for lobbyists. This way the laws are always written to their favor, and people like you and me pay the price. This is corruption pure and simple, and too much corporate power in the hands of a few people is not a good thing either. This is where pure capitalism has failed us, and its an issue that really needs to be addressed by populists in both parties for this nation to thrive going forward. Rachel Bovard is a figure on the right who has written extensively on this issue and I encourage anyone to read what she has written.

Lastly, I wanted to mention the fairness doctrine. This seems to be something that the Left wants and the Right is against, yet it seems to me like this is something that would actually help the right more than the left if what they say about censorship is true. I don't understand it completely, but I was wondering if anyone might weigh on that.

Good points.

I hate things like the DCMA and how it makes it that you don't and can't "own" anything digital. You can't tweak your cars software, farmers can't fix their tractors themselves or with who they wish. The songs, movies, games and books etc you buy and download online aren't yours, you merely own a license to use it and that license can be revoked without compensation. (This is why I always try to find hard copy versions of each. You do actually own those by law.)

Online social media giants do need some tweaking of the rules they operate under, but not by twitter bluster and loud morons. The legislature needs to consider what is best for the public and make a few changes. Of course you are right that "the public" to the legislature is mostly those entities that can help fund their campaigns. So the super wealthy and large corporations hold sway most often. I don't know how to fix that so we can then fix the other.

As to "fairness" I did have to laugh when this first came up at how much the "we conservatives want our voice heard!" was like that. But of course balance isn't what Abbott and Costello and others want, they want to be able to flood the airwaves and media with screeching voices purporting stupid things or extreme viewpoints with no restraint. That is not the Fairness Doctrine, that is the Trump doctrine (tell a lie often enough and people will believe it). And that is what Abbot and his ilk want.
Image
https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-lou-costello-19590304-story.html
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:50 pm

seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

They keep buying companies because they can. It takes away their competition. Survival of the fittest. And they can turn around and make more money off the shrinking marketplace. If there are only two or three social media outlets as opposed to twelve or thirteen, that is free market, right? That is what we are supposed to support. The free market. Right? The fewer choices the better because free market.

You correctly understand the motivation of the motivation but you forget that the US already have law against such behavior and Facebook is now being sued over it, and that the law does not say it'a okay if there are more smaller competitors out there.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2 ... ys-general


Anyone is free to start their own social media site. Free market. Zuckerberg is using the law to his advantage. Just like all rich people do with the tax code. Those CEOs and board members who take stock options but only show a $1 salary because selling stock has a lower tax rate than income tax.

So, you can still start a social media company. No one is stopping anyone. If Zuck happens to "find" some things about your social media company that he says he can incorporate into his platform and you are now partnering, what's wrong with that? Why hate the free market and capitalism and letting people use the law to their advantage?

Antitrust law does not require opponent being materially impossible to form a new company to be established.
And as with tax code, rules are being modified and established as legislators see fit, representing the opinion of their constituency, and that is what they're doing here.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14930
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:52 pm

apodino wrote:
seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
You correctly understand the motivation of the motivation but you forget that the US already have law against such behavior and Facebook is now being sued over it, and that the law does not say it'a okay if there are more smaller competitors out there.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2 ... ys-general


Anyone is free to start their own social media site. Free market. Zuckerberg is using the law to his advantage. Just like all rich people do with the tax code. Those CEOs and board members who take stock options but only show a $1 salary because selling stock has a lower tax rate than income tax.

So, you can still start a social media company. No one is stopping anyone. If Zuck happens to "find" some things about your social media company that he says he can incorporate into his platform and you are now partnering, what's wrong with that? Why hate the free market and capitalism and letting people use the law to their advantage?


Here is one issue I have with Zuckerberg. Facebook and Twitter command a lions share of the social media market. This gives them enormous corporate power. As Peter Parker once said, with great power comes great responsibility. The issue with Zuckerberg is there is absolutely no check on his power. Normally in a Publicly traded company, the Board of Directors serves at the whim of the shareholders and its the shareholders that will hold a BOD and a CEO accountable. However, Facebook has a dual class stock structure (which I think should be outlawed, but that's a different thread) Because of this, the stock that is traded on stock exchanges is one class, but the actually voting shares are a different class that is not traded. Since Zuckerberg holds a majority of these shares, he can do whatever he wants with Facebook, anyone else's opinion be damned, and he is guaranteed to stay there for life. The only power people have is to stop using FB.

I agree that he is using the law to his advantage the way most rich people do. These people also have the most campaign money to donate to politicians and pay for lobbyists. This way the laws are always written to their favor, and people like you and me pay the price. This is corruption pure and simple, and too much corporate power in the hands of a few people is not a good thing either. This is where pure capitalism has failed us, and its an issue that really needs to be addressed by populists in both parties for this nation to thrive going forward. Rachel Bovard is a figure on the right who has written extensively on this issue and I encourage anyone to read what she has written.

Lastly, I wanted to mention the fairness doctrine. This seems to be something that the Left wants and the Right is against, yet it seems to me like this is something that would actually help the right more than the left if what they say about censorship is true. I don't understand it completely, but I was wondering if anyone might weigh on that.


Good points on Zuckerberg stock and fairness, but again, I don’t agree with the characterization FB and Twitter dominate the marketplace. How is the market defined? Arguably social media is segmented into various functions at this point - YouTube has 3 billion unique visitors a month but nobody would call them a competitor to Instagram.

FB owns five of the top 25 platforms and Twitter ranks well below many platforms in active users. They do not have the dominance overall in the market the way, say Coca Cola dominates theirs.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
alfa164
Posts: 3951
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:15 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
There is precedent, Ma Bell and Microsoft used to behave the same way.


Ma Ball was a public utility, with a true monopoly on telephone transmission. Social media sites are a completely different animal.

And Microsoft? I must have missed the part where they were broken-up by the government or successfully sued for for their size. Nor have I seen any attention-grabbing state governor try to pass a law claiming jurisdiction over them....
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9056
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:45 pm

alfa164 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
There is precedent, Ma Bell and Microsoft used to behave the same way.


Ma Ball was a public utility, with a true monopoly on telephone transmission. Social media sites are a completely different animal.

And Microsoft? I must have missed the part where they were broken-up by the government or successfully sued for for their size. Nor have I seen any attention-grabbing state governor try to pass a law claiming jurisdiction over them....


You don't think FaceBook, Twitter(Microblogging) and Google(Search) are monopolies because there are tiny namesake competitors.

Most are moving their HQs to Texas because top management can avoid taxes, so Texas Governor and legislators have a say.

Facebook completely in bed with RW nationalist government in India.
Twitter rarely deletes offensives posts by RW in India, never bans any offending verified accounts close to government. Banned Trump in US.
AWS is hosting a RW microblogging platform called Koo in India. Deplatformed Parler in US.

You see the inconsistencies, I prefer SMPs follow the same moral guidelines.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:51 am

alfa164 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
There is precedent, Ma Bell and Microsoft used to behave the same way.


Ma Ball was a public utility, with a true monopoly on telephone transmission. Social media sites are a completely different animal.

And Microsoft? I must have missed the part where they were broken-up by the government or successfully sued for for their size. Nor have I seen any attention-grabbing state governor try to pass a law claiming jurisdiction over them....


You could use Unix or Apple or Apache. Microsoft is not a monopoly. There are other search engines besides Google. There are other social media sites besides FB. This site could be considered social media. There is no monopoly and the government is not trying to control any of them.

I do not agree with Zuckerburg's opinions. Yet, he allows alternate views. I still get al-Jezeera and Rachel Maddow on my FB feed. But, what about those posts and groups that encourage death and violence?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:14 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
You don't think FaceBook, Twitter(Microblogging) and Google(Search) are monopolies because there are tiny namesake competitors.


networking participants vs services.

search engines are services.
you can change search engines. makes sense anyway to use more than one. ( The differences are sometimes interesting by themselves.)

Facebook, Twitter, .... are networking entities.
they _interconnect_ users.
strong forces at work that push for monopolies in that domain. ( no interconnect between competitors like with telephone services ( landlline, mobile )
If you want to have a good chance to be read/heard you have to use the biggest provider. -> forces a monopoly.

Now think about that monopolist having funny ideas who should be able to post and what he should be able to post.

you see the poison working in news sources where the tone of reporting follows the interests of advertisement placers ( and the actual owners too :: Murdock burn! ).
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:45 am

seb146 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
There is precedent, Ma Bell and Microsoft used to behave the same way.


Ma Ball was a public utility, with a true monopoly on telephone transmission. Social media sites are a completely different animal.

And Microsoft? I must have missed the part where they were broken-up by the government or successfully sued for for their size. Nor have I seen any attention-grabbing state governor try to pass a law claiming jurisdiction over them....


You could use Unix or Apple or Apache. Microsoft is not a monopoly. There are other search engines besides Google. There are other social media sites besides FB. This site could be considered social media. There is no monopoly and the government is not trying to control any of them.

I do not agree with Zuckerburg's opinions. Yet, he allows alternate views. I still get al-Jezeera and Rachel Maddow on my FB feed. But, what about those posts and groups that encourage death and violence?

Then how will you explain Microsoft actually lost antitrust lawsuit in Europe amd Korea?

WIederling wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
You don't think FaceBook, Twitter(Microblogging) and Google(Search) are monopolies because there are tiny namesake competitors.


networking participants vs services.

search engines are services.
you can change search engines. makes sense anyway to use more than one. ( The differences are sometimes interesting by themselves.)

Facebook, Twitter, .... are networking entities.
they _interconnect_ users.
strong forces at work that push for monopolies in that domain. ( no interconnect between competitors like with telephone services ( landlline, mobile )
If you want to have a good chance to be read/heard you have to use the biggest provider. -> forces a monopoly.

Now think about that monopolist having funny ideas who should be able to post and what he should be able to post.

you see the poison working in news sources where the tone of reporting follows the interests of advertisement placers ( and the actual owners too :: Murdock burn! ).

I am not aware of any law saying only hardware count and software doesn't
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10292
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:46 am

It is not as if every facebook posts goes to a queue and is screened by Zuckerberg´s minions before being published, so facebook does not control the content posted. Facebook only becomes involved after users report posted content for a violation of site standards which are also based on legal standards. And legally once facebook has been made aware of a possible illegal content, they need to act unless they want to commit an illegal act themselves.

Say somebody posts a guide to built a bomb to blow up some government building. Once facebook is notified of that content, they have to take it down, if they do not want to become an accessory in domestic or international terrorism. It is basically the same if somebody posts a personal insult against another person. Or hate speech or whatever.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:01 am

seahawk wrote:
It is not as if every facebook posts goes to a queue and is screened by Zuckerberg´s minions before being published, so facebook does not control the content posted. Facebook only becomes involved after users report posted content for a violation of site standards which are also based on legal standards. And legally once facebook has been made aware of a possible illegal content, they need to act unless they want to commit an illegal act themselves.

Say somebody posts a guide to built a bomb to blow up some government building. Once facebook is notified of that content, they have to take it down, if they do not want to become an accessory in domestic or international terrorism. It is basically the same if somebody posts a personal insult against another person. Or hate speech or whatever.

Facebook actually have 20,000 people dedicated to reviewing content, and it also used AI and machine learning to identify problematic content instead of simply relying on report.
https://marketingland.com/facebooks-con ... 245630/amp
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10292
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:03 am

Do you think that is a lot, if you consider the huge amount of Spam and Fake accounts created each day?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:04 am

Can anyone cite a single example where this new proposed law would have prevented either the removal of what someone had posted to a social media site or prevented someone being banned from a social media site?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:34 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Can anyone cite a single example where this new proposed law would have prevented either the removal of what someone had posted to a social media site or prevented someone being banned from a social media site?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Like Tiktok banning people talking about Uyghur human right problem could be deemed illegal after this law is passed, I think
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:41 am

c933103 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Can anyone cite a single example where this new proposed law would have prevented either the removal of what someone had posted to a social media site or prevented someone being banned from a social media site?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Like Tiktok banning people talking about Uyghur human right problem could be deemed illegal after this law is passed, I think

That’s limiting the message based on the message and not based on an inherent property of the person giving the message. Your post (number 6 in this thread) states your belief that the bill targets action against members and not the messages themselves. In this post your example is of one targeting based on the post. So no. Try again. Please cite an example where this bill would have had an impact.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14930
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:42 am

c933103 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It is not as if every facebook posts goes to a queue and is screened by Zuckerberg´s minions before being published, so facebook does not control the content posted. Facebook only becomes involved after users report posted content for a violation of site standards which are also based on legal standards. And legally once facebook has been made aware of a possible illegal content, they need to act unless they want to commit an illegal act themselves.

Say somebody posts a guide to built a bomb to blow up some government building. Once facebook is notified of that content, they have to take it down, if they do not want to become an accessory in domestic or international terrorism. It is basically the same if somebody posts a personal insult against another person. Or hate speech or whatever.

Facebook actually have 20,000 people dedicated to reviewing content, and it also used AI and machine learning to identify problematic content instead of simply relying on report.
https://marketingland.com/facebooks-con ... 245630/amp


FB is running in the BILLIONS of DAU. Do you think 20K people can actually handle that? Easy answer: no. They respond to what the AI flags...and it doesn't catch everything.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:40 am

c933103 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
You don't think FaceBook, Twitter(Microblogging) and Google(Search) are monopolies because there are tiny namesake competitors.


networking participants vs services.

search engines are services.
you can change search engines. makes sense anyway to use more than one. ( The differences are sometimes interesting by themselves.)

Facebook, Twitter, .... are networking entities.
they _interconnect_ users.
strong forces at work that push for monopolies in that domain. ( no interconnect between competitors like with telephone services ( landlline, mobile )
If you want to have a good chance to be read/heard you have to use the biggest provider. -> forces a monopoly.

Now think about that monopolist having funny ideas who should be able to post and what he should be able to post.

you see the poison working in news sources where the tone of reporting follows the interests of advertisement placers ( and the actual owners too :: Murdock burn! ).

I am not aware of any law saying only hardware count and software doesn't


Where did you extract the software / hardware thing from what I wrote?
Murphy is an optimist
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9056
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:50 pm

WIederling wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
You don't think FaceBook, Twitter(Microblogging) and Google(Search) are monopolies because there are tiny namesake competitors.


networking participants vs services.

search engines are services.
you can change search engines. makes sense anyway to use more than one. ( The differences are sometimes interesting by themselves.)

Facebook, Twitter, .... are networking entities.
they _interconnect_ users.
strong forces at work that push for monopolies in that domain. ( no interconnect between competitors like with telephone services ( landlline, mobile )
If you want to have a good chance to be read/heard you have to use the biggest provider. -> forces a monopoly.

Now think about that monopolist having funny ideas who should be able to post and what he should be able to post.

you see the poison working in news sources where the tone of reporting follows the interests of advertisement placers ( and the actual owners too :: Murdock burn! ).


You are making them sound like non-profit philanthropists, serving a global cause. At the speed and volume they are spreading false information, they became detrimental to democracies.

Who would you use Bing?? No one knows what Yahoo is into now-a-days.

This is not a right vs left issue. Short memories, HRC lost 2016 because of Facebook greed, Russia is just a cover story.

Just because every one banned Trump, don't think SMPs are left leaning, they are stanch RW supporters, starting with Zack. Just in the USA they are using protections given by the constitution.

Looks like folks forgot about Microsoft's failed claim that Internet Explorer is an integral part of Windows. Glad that trick didn't survive.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14930
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:12 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
WIederling wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
You don't think FaceBook, Twitter(Microblogging) and Google(Search) are monopolies because there are tiny namesake competitors.


networking participants vs services.

search engines are services.
you can change search engines. makes sense anyway to use more than one. ( The differences are sometimes interesting by themselves.)

Facebook, Twitter, .... are networking entities.
they _interconnect_ users.
strong forces at work that push for monopolies in that domain. ( no interconnect between competitors like with telephone services ( landlline, mobile )
If you want to have a good chance to be read/heard you have to use the biggest provider. -> forces a monopoly.

Now think about that monopolist having funny ideas who should be able to post and what he should be able to post.

you see the poison working in news sources where the tone of reporting follows the interests of advertisement placers ( and the actual owners too :: Murdock burn! ).


You are making them sound like non-profit philanthropists, serving a global cause. At the speed and volume they are spreading false information, they became detrimental to democracies.

Who would you use Bing?? No one knows what Yahoo is into now-a-days.

This is not a right vs left issue. Short memories, HRC lost 2016 because of Facebook greed, Russia is just a cover story.

Just because every one banned Trump, don't think SMPs are left leaning, they are stanch RW supporters, starting with Zack. Just in the USA they are using protections given by the constitution.

Looks like folks forgot about Microsoft's failed claim that Internet Explorer is an integral part of Windows. Glad that trick didn't survive.


Hey, we get it. You're mad that nationalist zealots in India aren't being shut down. You don't buy their explanations, but that doesn't change the facts. Individuals spreading disinformation were banned when reported (like Trump) but the official POTUS account was not. Dorsey et al can explain why (we don't close down official government Twitter sites so everyone can see what they're saying - different treatment from individuals) but you still won't buy it until your political objective is met. That's why you're onto this, right?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9056
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:06 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
Hey, we get it. You're mad that nationalist zealots in India aren't being shut down. You don't buy their explanations, but that doesn't change the facts. Individuals spreading disinformation were banned when reported (like Trump) but the official POTUS account was not. Dorsey et al can explain why (we don't close down official government Twitter sites so everyone can see what they're saying - different treatment from individuals) but you still won't buy it until your political objective is met. That's why you're onto this, right?


What happened to the theory of me being a RW supporter?

The point is SMPs are not about facts, morals, values or political affiliation, they are about money. If there is money to be made they can lean right or left, or they can be lean right in one country and lean left is another same time.

Hard to defend corporations without any values and prove public are at fault.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 13515
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:20 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
Hey, we get it. You're mad that nationalist zealots in India aren't being shut down. You don't buy their explanations, but that doesn't change the facts. Individuals spreading disinformation were banned when reported (like Trump) but the official POTUS account was not. Dorsey et al can explain why (we don't close down official government Twitter sites so everyone can see what they're saying - different treatment from individuals) but you still won't buy it until your political objective is met. That's why you're onto this, right?


What happened to the theory of me being a RW supporter?

The point is SMPs are not about facts, morals, values or political affiliation, they are about money. If there is money to be made they can lean right or left, or they can be lean right in one country and lean left is another same time.

Hard to defend corporations without any values and prove public are at fault.


You still fail to understand the issue. The corporations are private entities. If you don't like their terms of service. Don't use them.
They have a right to refuse service to anyone.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did..So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.--Mark Twain
 
alfa164
Posts: 3951
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:38 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
You don't think FaceBook, Twitter(Microblogging) and Google(Search) are monopolies because there are tiny namesake competitors.


Not exactly. Facebook faces (no pun intended) stiff competition in the social media space:

Facebook: 2.7 billion users
YouTube: 2.3 billion users
WhatsApp: 2.0 billion users
Messenger: 1.3 billion users
Tumblr: 642 Million users

... and Twitter is nowhere near a monopoly; it is among the smallest social communication platforms:

Twitter : 353 million users
QQ: 617 million users
Instagram: 1 billion users
Snapchat: 498 million users
TikTok: 699 million users
WeChat: 1.2 billion users

https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-statistics/


As far as search engines go, Google is by far the biggers, for one reason: it is simply the best. Nobody stopped other engines from achieving the results Google has... but those other companies simply haven done it, Having said that, even search engine usage is a bit more nuanced, with wide variations between different parts of the world. See:

https://99firms.com/blog/search-engine- ... by%2053%25.


dtw2hyd wrote:
Most are moving their HQs to Texas because top management can avoid taxes, so Texas Governor and legislators have a say.


State governments have no say over the rights of platforms, regardless of where those companies have their headquarters; social media companies are controlled by Section 230 of the Commercial Decency Act. Abbott's publicity stunt is just that - a publicity stunt, designed to take the attention away from his and his cohorts' lack of preparedness for the winter weather disaster in Texas.


dtw2hyd wrote:
Facebook completely in bed with RW nationalist government in India. Twitter rarely deletes offensives posts by RW in India, never bans any offending verified accounts close to government. Banned Trump in US.


The RW nationalist government in India is a repulsive, demagogic, pandering party... but to blame its rise solely on social media would be to overlook the basic divides in society that made it possible for it to rear its ugly head and prey on the bigoted, biased, and ill-informed population that is its base of support. Just like Trump... and, just like Trump, there will hopefully be a reckoning as people realize the politics of fear is not the proper vehicle in a democratic world.


I sympathize with your goals, but allowing a state - and then, ultimately allowing each state - to set its own rules for worldwide social media companies would be an unenforceable, drastic, and counterproductive move. It is not the solution to any problems social media has.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:52 pm

alfa164 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
You don't think FaceBook, Twitter(Microblogging) and Google(Search) are monopolies because there are tiny namesake competitors.


Not exactly. Facebook faces (no pun intended) stiff competition in the social media space:

Facebook: 2.7 billion users
YouTube: 2.3 billion users
WhatsApp: 2.0 billion users
Messenger: 1.3 billion users
Tumblr: 642 Million users

... and Twitter is nowhere near a monopoly; it is among the smallest social communication platforms:

Twitter : 353 million users
QQ: 617 million users
Instagram: 1 billion users
Snapchat: 498 million users
TikTok: 699 million users
WeChat: 1.2 billion users



For rhe purpose of law enforcement in a state or country, the market share of them in the whole world is unimportant, only the narket share in a particular market should be looked at
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:54 pm

WIederling wrote:
c933103 wrote:
WIederling wrote:

networking participants vs services.

search engines are services.
you can change search engines. makes sense anyway to use more than one. ( The differences are sometimes interesting by themselves.)

Facebook, Twitter, .... are networking entities.
they _interconnect_ users.
strong forces at work that push for monopolies in that domain. ( no interconnect between competitors like with telephone services ( landlline, mobile )
If you want to have a good chance to be read/heard you have to use the biggest provider. -> forces a monopoly.

Now think about that monopolist having funny ideas who should be able to post and what he should be able to post.

you see the poison working in news sources where the tone of reporting follows the interests of advertisement placers ( and the actual owners too :: Murdock burn! ).

I am not aware of any law saying only hardware count and software doesn't


Where did you extract the software / hardware thing from what I wrote?

Your post seems to claim telephone comoany should suvkect to the law because they provide hardware of copper wires connecting people together, while internet platforms nowadays only provide software from their server to serve and.connect people together and thus doesn't apply
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:55 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It is not as if every facebook posts goes to a queue and is screened by Zuckerberg´s minions before being published, so facebook does not control the content posted. Facebook only becomes involved after users report posted content for a violation of site standards which are also based on legal standards. And legally once facebook has been made aware of a possible illegal content, they need to act unless they want to commit an illegal act themselves.

Say somebody posts a guide to built a bomb to blow up some government building. Once facebook is notified of that content, they have to take it down, if they do not want to become an accessory in domestic or international terrorism. It is basically the same if somebody posts a personal insult against another person. Or hate speech or whatever.

Facebook actually have 20,000 people dedicated to reviewing content, and it also used AI and machine learning to identify problematic content instead of simply relying on report.
https://marketingland.com/facebooks-con ... 245630/amp


FB is running in the BILLIONS of DAU. Do you think 20K people can actually handle that? Easy answer: no. They respond to what the AI flags...and it doesn't catch everything.

"Doesn't catch everything" is not "nothing"
I am just pointing out the explanation of Facebook moderation mechanism is incomplete/incorrect
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:57 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
c933103 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Can anyone cite a single example where this new proposed law would have prevented either the removal of what someone had posted to a social media site or prevented someone being banned from a social media site?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Like Tiktok banning people talking about Uyghur human right problem could be deemed illegal after this law is passed, I think

That’s limiting the message based on the message and not based on an inherent property of the person giving the message. Your post (number 6 in this thread) states your belief that the bill targets action against members and not the messages themselves. In this post your example is of one targeting based on the post. So no. Try again. Please cite an example where this bill would have had an impact.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The scope of the law's applicability and whether it apply to my example, can only be argued at cohrt after the law actually passed
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
alfa164
Posts: 3951
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:06 pm

c933103 wrote:
Your post seems to claim telephone comoany should suvkect to the law because they provide hardware of copper wires connecting people together, while internet platforms nowadays only provide software from their server to serve and.connect people together and thus doesn't apply


Nope. Ma Bell was subject to anti-trust law because, in that ancient day and age, they (1) were a public utility, granted an operational license by the government; (2) they were a monopoly, owning the only telephone lines and equipment, and refusing any other company rights to utilize those lines and equipment (this was before the days of duplexing, etc.), and (3) they used that monopolistic power to prevent other companies from entering into the same business as they were in, disadvantaging their customers and their potential competitors in the process.

None of those conditions apply to the social media companies.


c933103 wrote:
For rhe purpose of law enforcement in a state or country, the market share of them in the whole world is unimportant, only the narket share in a particular market should be looked at


Wrong again. For the purpose of law enforcement of a social media company, a state or county has no role; social media companies' policies are not subject to the jurisdiction of local officials - no matter what their market share is in that State or county. There is nothing for them to "look at", other than to harass a company or pander to their ill-informed base.


c933103 wrote:
The scope of the law's applicability and whether it apply to my example, can only be argued at cohrt after the law actually passed


In plain English, this answer is commonly known as a "cop out".

;)
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:24 pm

c933103 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Like Tiktok banning people talking about Uyghur human right problem could be deemed illegal after this law is passed, I think

That’s limiting the message based on the message and not based on an inherent property of the person giving the message. Your post (number 6 in this thread) states your belief that the bill targets action against members and not the messages themselves. In this post your example is of one targeting based on the post. So no. Try again. Please cite an example where this bill would have had an impact.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The scope of the law's applicability and whether it apply to my example, can only be argued at cohrt after the law actually passed

So you can’t find an example where someone has been censored for who they are and not what they said.

:thumbsup:

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:41 pm

c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:

Ma Ball was a public utility, with a true monopoly on telephone transmission. Social media sites are a completely different animal.

And Microsoft? I must have missed the part where they were broken-up by the government or successfully sued for for their size. Nor have I seen any attention-grabbing state governor try to pass a law claiming jurisdiction over them....


You could use Unix or Apple or Apache. Microsoft is not a monopoly. There are other search engines besides Google. There are other social media sites besides FB. This site could be considered social media. There is no monopoly and the government is not trying to control any of them.

I do not agree with Zuckerburg's opinions. Yet, he allows alternate views. I still get al-Jezeera and Rachel Maddow on my FB feed. But, what about those posts and groups that encourage death and violence?

Then how will you explain Microsoft actually lost antitrust lawsuit in Europe amd Korea?


Because EU law and Korean law are different than American law.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:58 pm

alfa164 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Your post seems to claim telephone comoany should suvkect to the law because they provide hardware of copper wires connecting people together, while internet platforms nowadays only provide software from their server to serve and.connect people together and thus doesn't apply


Nope. Ma Bell was subject to anti-trust law because, in that ancient day and age, they (1) were a public utility, granted an operational license by the government; (2) they were a monopoly, owning the only telephone lines and equipment, and refusing any other company rights to utilize those lines and equipment (this was before the days of duplexing, etc.), and (3) they used that monopolistic power to prevent other companies from entering into the same business as they were in, disadvantaging their customers and their potential competitors in the process.

None of those conditions apply to the social media companies.

seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

You could use Unix or Apple or Apache. Microsoft is not a monopoly. There are other search engines besides Google. There are other social media sites besides FB. This site could be considered social media. There is no monopoly and the government is not trying to control any of them.

I do not agree with Zuckerburg's opinions. Yet, he allows alternate views. I still get al-Jezeera and Rachel Maddow on my FB feed. But, what about those posts and groups that encourage death and violence?

Then how will you explain Microsoft actually lost antitrust lawsuit in Europe amd Korea?


Because EU law and Korean law are different than American law.

Well, I am not an American and thus I am not familiar with American law, but if you two don't think Facebook either have monopoly status or violated antitrust law under the law of the United States, then you better phone your state government and federal government, as FTC and 48 states around the US are coming together to have their lawyers sue Facebook over exactly this issue, and it would be a waste of your taxpayer money to have them doing such thing if Facebook is indeed innocent.

alfa164 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
For rhe purpose of law enforcement in a state or country, the market share of them in the whole world is unimportant, only the narket share in a particular market should be looked at


Wrong again. For the purpose of law enforcement of a social media company, a state or county has no role; social media companies' policies are not subject to the jurisdiction of local officials - no matter what their market share is in that State or county. There is nothing for them to "look at", other than to harass a company or pander to their ill-informed base.

What?????
My reply mean,
For the purpose of /antitrust/ law enforcement in a state or country, the market share of them in the whole world is unimportant, only the market share in a particular market should be looked at
The social media company's policy would at most serve as evidence on court on whether they have anticompetitive behavior or not.

flipdewaf wrote:
c933103 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
That’s limiting the message based on the message and not based on an inherent property of the person giving the message. Your post (number 6 in this thread) states your belief that the bill targets action against members and not the messages themselves. In this post your example is of one targeting based on the post. So no. Try again. Please cite an example where this bill would have had an impact.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The scope of the law's applicability and whether it apply to my example, can only be argued at cohrt after the law actually passed

So you can’t find an example where someone has been censored for who they are and not what they said.

:thumbsup:

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It require proving the company's intention, in the same way that prove an employee being fired by the company may be caused by relationship with union or sexual or racial discrimination, which are illegal but take many argument and evident on court to find a company have committed wrongdoing.
That's what I mean by saying it can only be argued at court
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14930
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:38 pm

c933103 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Your post seems to claim telephone comoany should suvkect to the law because they provide hardware of copper wires connecting people together, while internet platforms nowadays only provide software from their server to serve and.connect people together and thus doesn't apply


Nope. Ma Bell was subject to anti-trust law because, in that ancient day and age, they (1) were a public utility, granted an operational license by the government; (2) they were a monopoly, owning the only telephone lines and equipment, and refusing any other company rights to utilize those lines and equipment (this was before the days of duplexing, etc.), and (3) they used that monopolistic power to prevent other companies from entering into the same business as they were in, disadvantaging their customers and their potential competitors in the process.

None of those conditions apply to the social media companies.

seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Then how will you explain Microsoft actually lost antitrust lawsuit in Europe amd Korea?


Because EU law and Korean law are different than American law.

Well, I am not an American and thus I am not familiar with American law, but if you two don't think Facebook either have monopoly status or violated antitrust law under the law of the United States, then you better phone your state government and federal government, as FTC and 48 states around the US are coming together to have their lawyers sue Facebook over exactly this issue, and it would be a waste of your taxpayer money to have them doing such thing if Facebook is indeed innocent.


FB is a target du jour and a highly selective one. Dems are after them over Cambridge Analytica and the GOP over ‘silencing’ of MAGA groups. Those issues have little to do with antitrust, but politics involves horse trading at the end of the day.

The EU, Mexico, Israel and many others I don’t recall now have gone after Coca Cola on antitrust practices but the US Congress and FTC have handled them with kid gloves. They and Pepsico control more than 70% of the soft drink market. Their business units don’t ‘offend’ anyone so they’re left alone - is that it?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:21 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:

Nope. Ma Bell was subject to anti-trust law because, in that ancient day and age, they (1) were a public utility, granted an operational license by the government; (2) they were a monopoly, owning the only telephone lines and equipment, and refusing any other company rights to utilize those lines and equipment (this was before the days of duplexing, etc.), and (3) they used that monopolistic power to prevent other companies from entering into the same business as they were in, disadvantaging their customers and their potential competitors in the process.

None of those conditions apply to the social media companies.

seb146 wrote:

Because EU law and Korean law are different than American law.

Well, I am not an American and thus I am not familiar with American law, but if you two don't think Facebook either have monopoly status or violated antitrust law under the law of the United States, then you better phone your state government and federal government, as FTC and 48 states around the US are coming together to have their lawyers sue Facebook over exactly this issue, and it would be a waste of your taxpayer money to have them doing such thing if Facebook is indeed innocent.


FB is a target du jour and a highly selective one. Dems are after them over Cambridge Analytica and the GOP over ‘silencing’ of MAGA groups. Those issues have little to do with antitrust, but politics involves horse trading at the end of the day.

The EU, Mexico, Israel and many others I don’t recall now have gone after Coca Cola on antitrust practices but the US Congress and FTC have handled them with kid gloves. They and Pepsico control more than 70% of the soft drink market. Their business units don’t ‘offend’ anyone so they’re left alone - is that it?

Coca Cola have got into antitrust investigation in Hong Kong because, but not simply out of market share, instead because the local distributor have threatened to cut off some smaller shops if they try to sell cokes cheaper than major supermarkets. If they didn't engage in such anticompetitive behavior elsewhere then I don't see reason of them being targeted simply being large
As for Facebook, if you read what FTC said themselves, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... polization , Facebook's problem is 1. They have acquired Instagram and Whatsapp to eliminate them as a threat to their monopoly in the market instead of competing against them, and 2. only allowed developers to use Facebook's API if they aren't developing functionalities that Facebook also have, for example banning Twitter from using their API after Twitter launched Vine. These two concerns have no direct relation with content moderation, and have no direct relation with privacy control either. You might argue some politicians might have other priority in picking their target, but those factors shouldn't matter inside the court.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14930
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:06 am

c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:

Well, I am not an American and thus I am not familiar with American law, but if you two don't think Facebook either have monopoly status or violated antitrust law under the law of the United States, then you better phone your state government and federal government, as FTC and 48 states around the US are coming together to have their lawyers sue Facebook over exactly this issue, and it would be a waste of your taxpayer money to have them doing such thing if Facebook is indeed innocent.


FB is a target du jour and a highly selective one. Dems are after them over Cambridge Analytica and the GOP over ‘silencing’ of MAGA groups. Those issues have little to do with antitrust, but politics involves horse trading at the end of the day.

The EU, Mexico, Israel and many others I don’t recall now have gone after Coca Cola on antitrust practices but the US Congress and FTC have handled them with kid gloves. They and Pepsico control more than 70% of the soft drink market. Their business units don’t ‘offend’ anyone so they’re left alone - is that it?

Coca Cola have got into antitrust investigation in Hong Kong because, but not simply out of market share, instead because the local distributor have threatened to cut off some smaller shops if they try to sell cokes cheaper than major supermarkets. If they didn't engage in such anticompetitive behavior elsewhere then I don't see reason of them being targeted simply being large
As for Facebook, if you read what FTC said themselves, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... polization , Facebook's problem is 1. They have acquired Instagram and Whatsapp to eliminate them as a threat to their monopoly in the market instead of competing against them, and 2. only allowed developers to use Facebook's API if they aren't developing functionalities that Facebook also have, for example banning Twitter from using their API after Twitter launched Vine. These two concerns have no direct relation with content moderation, and have no direct relation with privacy control either. You might argue some politicians might have other priority in picking their target, but those factors shouldn't matter inside the court.


1. Hard to prove without deep understanding of core functions. Instagram’s a major tool for under-30 marketing whereas WhatsApp’s selling point is encrypted chat and VOIP. Both are different from FB’s microblogging, community page and analytics functions.

2. Small potatoes compared to what Amazon does with AWS.

I’m saying politicians have no idea how these industries, systems, and companies actually work, and should not be basing their targeting for regulation off shrieking from the base or MSNBC/Fox TV host opinions.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:39 am

Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

FB is a target du jour and a highly selective one. Dems are after them over Cambridge Analytica and the GOP over ‘silencing’ of MAGA groups. Those issues have little to do with antitrust, but politics involves horse trading at the end of the day.

The EU, Mexico, Israel and many others I don’t recall now have gone after Coca Cola on antitrust practices but the US Congress and FTC have handled them with kid gloves. They and Pepsico control more than 70% of the soft drink market. Their business units don’t ‘offend’ anyone so they’re left alone - is that it?

Coca Cola have got into antitrust investigation in Hong Kong because, but not simply out of market share, instead because the local distributor have threatened to cut off some smaller shops if they try to sell cokes cheaper than major supermarkets. If they didn't engage in such anticompetitive behavior elsewhere then I don't see reason of them being targeted simply being large
As for Facebook, if you read what FTC said themselves, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... polization , Facebook's problem is 1. They have acquired Instagram and Whatsapp to eliminate them as a threat to their monopoly in the market instead of competing against them, and 2. only allowed developers to use Facebook's API if they aren't developing functionalities that Facebook also have, for example banning Twitter from using their API after Twitter launched Vine. These two concerns have no direct relation with content moderation, and have no direct relation with privacy control either. You might argue some politicians might have other priority in picking their target, but those factors shouldn't matter inside the court.


1. Hard to prove without deep understanding of core functions. Instagram’s a major tool for under-30 marketing whereas WhatsApp’s selling point is encrypted chat and VOIP. Both are different from FB’s microblogging, community page and analytics functions.

2. Small potatoes compared to what Amazon does with AWS.

I’m saying politicians have no idea how these industries, systems, and companies actually work, and should not be basing their targeting for regulation off shrieking from the base or MSNBC/Fox TV host opinions.

Many judges also have limited understanding to detail of these technical sphere development, but they would try to make sense of the situation and rule whether law are being broken or not according to evidence available as presented by lawyers.
AWS being a product not designed for general public use, politicians most likely have much limited recognition of them and thus didn't work quite actively against them.
As for the Facebook vs WhatsApp vs Instagram's different function, the FTC article seems to suggest while the function are different, they would take users away from Facebook and they are thus competing in term of number of users, if I am reading correctly
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14930
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:14 am

c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Coca Cola have got into antitrust investigation in Hong Kong because, but not simply out of market share, instead because the local distributor have threatened to cut off some smaller shops if they try to sell cokes cheaper than major supermarkets. If they didn't engage in such anticompetitive behavior elsewhere then I don't see reason of them being targeted simply being large
As for Facebook, if you read what FTC said themselves, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... polization , Facebook's problem is 1. They have acquired Instagram and Whatsapp to eliminate them as a threat to their monopoly in the market instead of competing against them, and 2. only allowed developers to use Facebook's API if they aren't developing functionalities that Facebook also have, for example banning Twitter from using their API after Twitter launched Vine. These two concerns have no direct relation with content moderation, and have no direct relation with privacy control either. You might argue some politicians might have other priority in picking their target, but those factors shouldn't matter inside the court.


1. Hard to prove without deep understanding of core functions. Instagram’s a major tool for under-30 marketing whereas WhatsApp’s selling point is encrypted chat and VOIP. Both are different from FB’s microblogging, community page and analytics functions.

2. Small potatoes compared to what Amazon does with AWS.

I’m saying politicians have no idea how these industries, systems, and companies actually work, and should not be basing their targeting for regulation off shrieking from the base or MSNBC/Fox TV host opinions.

Many judges also have limited understanding to detail of these technical sphere development, but they would try to make sense of the situation and rule whether law are being broken or not according to evidence available as presented by lawyers.
AWS being a product not designed for general public use, politicians most likely have much limited recognition of them and thus didn't work quite actively against them.
As for the Facebook vs WhatsApp vs Instagram's different function, the FTC article seems to suggest while the function are different, they would take users away from Facebook and they are thus competing in term of number of users, if I am reading correctly


They would have to do a detailed analysis of which user groups are concurrent and which user groups are competitive between services, and then delineate those across various functions. Just seeing a couple clips of the questions members of Congress asked reps from FB and Google, it was painfully obvious it was akin to 7 year olds asking a teacher/parent why the sky is blue. But you're right in that they probably a. can't define a cloud service and b. have no idea Amazon is the largest systemic cloud vendor
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
LMP737
Posts: 6246
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:50 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I thankfully didn't have the problems above, and so I am able to have concerns of Big tech censoring opposing viewpoint.

As to choosing an electric provider:
Rule #1: Never go with autopay for an Electric or Water account.
Rule # 2: Never go with a Variable Rate tied to the Wholesale price of Energy.

I have followed these rules since before electric deregulation in Texas in 2002.


Oh, so you're totally insulated from the affects of this because your pipes didn't burst, your bill didn't go up and your bank account didn't get wiped out.

Have you asked yourself who is going to pay for this big mess? Not only the massive utility bills, but the long term costs that will be passed onto someone. Who is going to pay for the upgrades obviously needed to the states power grid? Or, how long will it take to winterize the Texas power grid? Winter 2021-2022 is going to be here sooner than you think. What happens if you get another cold snap ten to twelve months from now?

What about the cost of all the damage to peoples homes from burst pipes? Does their homeowners policy cover it? Assume that it does, insurance companies are going to take a big hit over this either way. When that happens to insurance companies what what usually happens? They pass the cost onto you know who.

Then of course there are the people who had their bank accounts and even savings wiped out. Do they get refunded? If so, who foots the bill? If not, what do you tink are the long term consequences of so many people being clobbered financially?

But hey, if you rather worry about big tech.....................
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 3:20 am

LMP737 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:

I thankfully didn't have the problems above, and so I am able to have concerns of Big tech censoring opposing viewpoint.

As to choosing an electric provider:
Rule #1: Never go with autopay for an Electric or Water account.
Rule # 2: Never go with a Variable Rate tied to the Wholesale price of Energy.

I have followed these rules since before electric deregulation in Texas in 2002.


Oh, so you're totally insulated from the affects of this because your pipes didn't burst, your bill didn't go up and your bank account didn't get wiped out.

Have you asked yourself who is going to pay for this big mess? Not only the massive utility bills, but the long term costs that will be passed onto someone. Who is going to pay for the upgrades obviously needed to the states power grid? Or, how long will it take to winterize the Texas power grid? Winter 2021-2022 is going to be here sooner than you think. What happens if you get another cold snap ten to twelve months from now?

What about the cost of all the damage to peoples homes from burst pipes? Does their homeowners policy cover it? Assume that it does, insurance companies are going to take a big hit over this either way. When that happens to insurance companies what what usually happens? They pass the cost onto you know who.

Then of course there are the people who had their bank accounts and even savings wiped out. Do they get refunded? If so, who foots the bill? If not, what do you tink are the long term consequences of so many people being clobbered financially?

But hey, if you rather worry about big tech.....................

This is a bit off topic but winterizing an entire grid for something 1-in-a-100 years is not really cost effective, even sending backup generator into everyone's home might be cheaper. But then the question is, with climate change in mind how much frequent will such event become in the future.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 5:47 am

c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:

Well, I am not an American and thus I am not familiar with American law, but if you two don't think Facebook either have monopoly status or violated antitrust law under the law of the United States, then you better phone your state government and federal government, as FTC and 48 states around the US are coming together to have their lawyers sue Facebook over exactly this issue, and it would be a waste of your taxpayer money to have them doing such thing if Facebook is indeed innocent.


FB is a target du jour and a highly selective one. Dems are after them over Cambridge Analytica and the GOP over ‘silencing’ of MAGA groups. Those issues have little to do with antitrust, but politics involves horse trading at the end of the day.

The EU, Mexico, Israel and many others I don’t recall now have gone after Coca Cola on antitrust practices but the US Congress and FTC have handled them with kid gloves. They and Pepsico control more than 70% of the soft drink market. Their business units don’t ‘offend’ anyone so they’re left alone - is that it?

Coca Cola have got into antitrust investigation in Hong Kong because, but not simply out of market share, instead because the local distributor have threatened to cut off some smaller shops if they try to sell cokes cheaper than major supermarkets. If they didn't engage in such anticompetitive behavior elsewhere then I don't see reason of them being targeted simply being large
As for Facebook, if you read what FTC said themselves, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... polization , Facebook's problem is 1. They have acquired Instagram and Whatsapp to eliminate them as a threat to their monopoly in the market instead of competing against them, and 2. only allowed developers to use Facebook's API if they aren't developing functionalities that Facebook also have, for example banning Twitter from using their API after Twitter launched Vine. These two concerns have no direct relation with content moderation, and have no direct relation with privacy control either. You might argue some politicians might have other priority in picking their target, but those factors shouldn't matter inside the court.


And which president got to fill many of the court seats? So, yes, that matters as well.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
alfa164
Posts: 3951
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:35 am

c933103 wrote:
This is a bit off topic but winterizing an entire grid for something 1-in-a-100 years is not really cost effective, even sending backup generator into everyone's home might be cheaper. But then the question is, with climate change in mind how much frequent will such event become in the future.


Do you have any facts to support that statement? Can you show us that the cost of winterizing the grid would have cost more than the costs of damages Texans suffered three weake ago - because the grid had not been winterized?

And do you have any proof that this was a "1-in-100 years" phenomenon? Obviously not, because this happened previously only 10 years ago:

“Clearly we need to change our regulatory focus to protect the people, not profits,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, a now-retired former director of Public Citizen, an Austin-based consumer advocacy group who advocated for changes after in 2011 when Texas faced a similar energy crisis."

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/17/texas-power-grid-failures/

"Ed Hirs, an energy fellow at the University of Houston, rejected ERCOT’s claim that this week’s freeze was unforeseeable. “That’s nonsense,” he said. “Every eight to 10 years we have really bad winters. This is not a surprise.”

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2021/0218/Why-wasn-t-Texas-power-grid-prepared-for-cold-weather


Sorry... these constant excuses have no credibility any longer.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:31 am

seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

FB is a target du jour and a highly selective one. Dems are after them over Cambridge Analytica and the GOP over ‘silencing’ of MAGA groups. Those issues have little to do with antitrust, but politics involves horse trading at the end of the day.

The EU, Mexico, Israel and many others I don’t recall now have gone after Coca Cola on antitrust practices but the US Congress and FTC have handled them with kid gloves. They and Pepsico control more than 70% of the soft drink market. Their business units don’t ‘offend’ anyone so they’re left alone - is that it?

Coca Cola have got into antitrust investigation in Hong Kong because, but not simply out of market share, instead because the local distributor have threatened to cut off some smaller shops if they try to sell cokes cheaper than major supermarkets. If they didn't engage in such anticompetitive behavior elsewhere then I don't see reason of them being targeted simply being large
As for Facebook, if you read what FTC said themselves, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... polization , Facebook's problem is 1. They have acquired Instagram and Whatsapp to eliminate them as a threat to their monopoly in the market instead of competing against them, and 2. only allowed developers to use Facebook's API if they aren't developing functionalities that Facebook also have, for example banning Twitter from using their API after Twitter launched Vine. These two concerns have no direct relation with content moderation, and have no direct relation with privacy control either. You might argue some politicians might have other priority in picking their target, but those factors shouldn't matter inside the court.


And which president got to fill many of the court seats? So, yes, that matters as well.

If you are concerned with it then you should pressure your politicians to work on a more neutral process of court seat nomination, provided that if you are American
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:45 am

alfa164 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
This is a bit off topic but winterizing an entire grid for something 1-in-a-100 years is not really cost effective, even sending backup generator into everyone's home might be cheaper. But then the question is, with climate change in mind how much frequent will such event become in the future.


Do you have any facts to support that statement? Can you show us that the cost of winterizing the grid would have cost more than the costs of damages Texans suffered three weake ago - because the grid had not been winterized?

I am not saying nothing should be done, but I am not certain about the cost effectiveness of such measure if the frequency is low, and that more ad-hoc and decentralized approach might cost less, even though I haven't analyzed/compared the cost
And do you have any proof that this was a "1-in-100 years" phenomenon? Obviously not, because this happened previously only 10 years ago:

“Clearly we need to change our regulatory focus to protect the people, not profits,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, a now-retired former director of Public Citizen, an Austin-based consumer advocacy group who advocated for changes after in 2011 when Texas faced a similar energy crisis."

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/17/texas-power-grid-failures/

I have read report that the low temperature experienced in Texas is something one in a hundred years, but haven't noticed the blackout also occurred when the temperature wasn't that low.
"Ed Hirs, an energy fellow at the University of Houston, rejected ERCOT’s claim that this week’s freeze was unforeseeable. “That’s nonsense,” he said. “Every eight to 10 years we have really bad winters. This is not a surprise.”

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2021/0218/Why-wasn-t-Texas-power-grid-prepared-for-cold-weather


Sorry... these constant excuses have no credibility any longer.

Yes, an infrequent event is not an unforeseeable event.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:41 am

c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Coca Cola have got into antitrust investigation in Hong Kong because, but not simply out of market share, instead because the local distributor have threatened to cut off some smaller shops if they try to sell cokes cheaper than major supermarkets. If they didn't engage in such anticompetitive behavior elsewhere then I don't see reason of them being targeted simply being large
As for Facebook, if you read what FTC said themselves, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... polization , Facebook's problem is 1. They have acquired Instagram and Whatsapp to eliminate them as a threat to their monopoly in the market instead of competing against them, and 2. only allowed developers to use Facebook's API if they aren't developing functionalities that Facebook also have, for example banning Twitter from using their API after Twitter launched Vine. These two concerns have no direct relation with content moderation, and have no direct relation with privacy control either. You might argue some politicians might have other priority in picking their target, but those factors shouldn't matter inside the court.


And which president got to fill many of the court seats? So, yes, that matters as well.

If you are concerned with it then you should pressure your politicians to work on a more neutral process of court seat nomination, provided that if you are American


Besides "nine months is too close to an election to seat a Supreme Court justice" vs. "we MUST seat this Supreme Court justice a mere two weeks before an election!" Maybe not allowing the minority party to have unchecked power? Not allowing Republicans to do whatever they want because they are forever the victims?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:34 am

seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

And which president got to fill many of the court seats? So, yes, that matters as well.

If you are concerned with it then you should pressure your politicians to work on a more neutral process of court seat nomination, provided that if you are American


Besides "nine months is too close to an election to seat a Supreme Court justice" vs. "we MUST seat this Supreme Court justice a mere two weeks before an election!" Maybe not allowing the minority party to have unchecked power? Not allowing Republicans to do whatever they want because they are forever the victims?

What sort of unchecked power for minority party were you talking about?
As for things like timing of supreme court appointment, of course that's a reflection of American court appointment system being too pokiticalized and should be neutralized
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9056
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:38 pm

alfa164 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
You don't think FaceBook, Twitter(Microblogging) and Google(Search) are monopolies because there are tiny namesake competitors.


Not exactly. Facebook faces (no pun intended) stiff competition in the social media space:

Facebook: 2.7 billion users
YouTube: 2.3 billion users
WhatsApp: 2.0 billion users
Messenger: 1.3 billion users
Tumblr: 642 Million users

... and Twitter is nowhere near a monopoly; it is among the smallest social communication platforms:

Twitter : 353 million users
QQ: 617 million users
Instagram: 1 billion users
Snapchat: 498 million users
TikTok: 699 million users
WeChat: 1.2 billion users

https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-statistics/


As far as search engines go, Google is by far the biggers, for one reason: it is simply the best. Nobody stopped other engines from achieving the results Google has... but those other companies simply haven done it, Having said that, even search engine usage is a bit more nuanced, with wide variations between different parts of the world. See:

https://99firms.com/blog/search-engine- ... by%2053%25.


dtw2hyd wrote:
Most are moving their HQs to Texas because top management can avoid taxes, so Texas Governor and legislators have a say.


State governments have no say over the rights of platforms, regardless of where those companies have their headquarters; social media companies are controlled by Section 230 of the Commercial Decency Act. Abbott's publicity stunt is just that - a publicity stunt, designed to take the attention away from his and his cohorts' lack of preparedness for the winter weather disaster in Texas.


dtw2hyd wrote:
Facebook completely in bed with RW nationalist government in India. Twitter rarely deletes offensives posts by RW in India, never bans any offending verified accounts close to government. Banned Trump in US.


The RW nationalist government in India is a repulsive, demagogic, pandering party... but to blame its rise solely on social media would be to overlook the basic divides in society that made it possible for it to rear its ugly head and prey on the bigoted, biased, and ill-informed population that is its base of support. Just like Trump... and, just like Trump, there will hopefully be a reckoning as people realize the politics of fear is not the proper vehicle in a democratic world.


I sympathize with your goals, but allowing a state - and then, ultimately allowing each state - to set its own rules for worldwide social media companies would be an unenforceable, drastic, and counterproductive move. It is not the solution to any problems social media has.


Facebook, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram are part of the same group, not competitors.
All posts are just opinions.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:46 pm

It's actually pretty simple, Texas passed this law, the companies that don't want to follow it deny access to their sites for any IP addresses in that state.

Then Texans can scream and cry that they are being treated unfairly by the big bad social media companies.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:57 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
It's actually pretty simple, Texas passed this law, the companies that don't want to follow it deny access to their sites for any IP addresses in that state.

Then Texans can scream and cry that they are being treated unfairly by the big bad social media companies.

Not without precedent in other countries like Australia
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Tue Mar 09, 2021 5:43 pm

c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
If you are concerned with it then you should pressure your politicians to work on a more neutral process of court seat nomination, provided that if you are American


Besides "nine months is too close to an election to seat a Supreme Court justice" vs. "we MUST seat this Supreme Court justice a mere two weeks before an election!" Maybe not allowing the minority party to have unchecked power? Not allowing Republicans to do whatever they want because they are forever the victims?

What sort of unchecked power for minority party were you talking about?
As for things like timing of supreme court appointment, of course that's a reflection of American court appointment system being too pokiticalized and should be neutralized


Look how much power Republicans have right now but, more important, look at district maps in many states. Republicans are the minority party in many states, if based only on population. However, because they control the state legislatures in those states, they can water down the votes of other parties and remain in control. Some of those maps are insane.

Yes, the court system is too politicized. McConnell told us he would not seat any judges appointed by any Democratic president. He held up nominees for years and left benches empty until 2016 when the floodgates opened and he decided the courts should be packed to the extreme right.

Here are a couple of articles on Republican gerrymandering

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/19/83626080 ... ng-in-2021
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... ymandering
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArchGuy1, Bing [Bot], FGITD and 29 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos