Quid pro Joe?
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 13:37 last edited by
-
@George-K said in Quid pro Joe?:
@Jolly said in Quid pro Joe?:
Platforms.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As Ax and others have said, "If you don't like what Facebook and Twitter are doing, establish your own platform."
It's a nice concept, but these two behemoths are well-established, and everyone uses them. They are de-facto platforms, and they hold absolute censorship power over those who post on those platforms.
In the early 20th century, there were monopolies which controlled communications via copper wires. They controlled access, but not content.
Today, content, what you say, is restricted.
They are private businesses. It’s pitiful to see “conservatives” like @Jolly who argued that a cake baker should be allowed to refuse baking a wedding cake for same-sex wedding now wants to deny other private businesses the right to refuse publishing/replicating specific contents using their private platforms. The likes of Twitter and Facebook don’t owe you shit.
I am sympathetic to anti-monopoly arguments to break these behemoths into separate, smaller businesses. You are welcome to take your media consummation business elsewhere. You are welcome to build competing businesses. But I have no sympathy for giving you power to dictate how other private businesses should decide what opinions to publish/distribute on their platform.
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 13:40 last edited by@Axtremus said in Quid pro Joe?:
@George-K said in Quid pro Joe?:
@Jolly said in Quid pro Joe?:
Platforms.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As Ax and others have said, "If you don't like what Facebook and Twitter are doing, establish your own platform."
It's a nice concept, but these two behemoths are well-established, and everyone uses them. They are de-facto platforms, and they hold absolute censorship power over those who post on those platforms.
In the early 20th century, there were monopolies which controlled communications via copper wires. They controlled access, but not content.
Today, content, what you say, is restricted.
They are private businesses. It’s pitiful to see “conservatives” like @Jolly who argued that a cake baker should be allowed to refuse baking a wedding cake for same-sex wedding now wants to deny other private businesses the right to refuse publishing/replicating specific contents using their private platforms. The likes of Twitter and Facebook don’t owe you shit.
I am sympathetic to anti-monopoly arguments to break these behemoths into separate, smaller businesses. You are welcome to take your media consummation business elsewhere. You are welcome to build competing businesses. But I have no sympathy for giving you power to dictate how other private businesses should decide what opinions to publish/distribute on their platform.
You never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you are.
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 13:45 last edited by
Meanwhile, from the Post's owner:
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 14:24 last edited by
I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.
But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".
I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.
In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).
If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?
-
Meanwhile, from the Post's owner:
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 14:25 last edited by@jon-nyc I thought this was funny: 555555
QUOTE
In response to an email inquiry for this report asking him if he believes Biden will win in a landslide and his thoughts on Trump’s handling of coronavirus, Murdoch responded, “No comment except I’ve never called Trump an idiot,”
UNQUOTE -
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 14:25 last edited by
-
I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.
But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".
I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.
In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).
If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 14:26 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Quid pro Joe?:
I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.
But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".
I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.
In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).
If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?
Public service.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Quid pro Joe?:
I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.
But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".
I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.
In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).
If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?
Public service.
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 14:29 last edited by@Jolly Makes sense. If Facebook, Twitter, etc can be agreed that they are doing a public service, then maybe they should be under government rules.
If I were on there side, I would be asking for something in return. For the utilities, what is the benefit that they get? No competition? Guaranteed pricing? Something else?
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 15:14 last edited by
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 15:22 last edited by