TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: Spinachcat on January 09, 2021, 10:03:38 PM

Title: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Spinachcat on January 09, 2021, 10:03:38 PM
Take a good look at these five men below. You may not know it but they are your dark overlords now. Private unelected citizens, they own and/or support most of the communication infrastructure in America today. Are you okay with that? We are all fools to place this much power in the hands of five men.

https://politicrossing.com/these-five-men-will-now-control-much-of-your-freedom/ (https://politicrossing.com/these-five-men-will-now-control-much-of-your-freedom/)

If you mushy middle bitches and leftist retards are giggling at the thought of "bad wrongthinkers" getting punished while you're exempt, just remember that YOU ARE NEXT the moment YOU don't agree with any instance of the narrative.

Enjoy your "digital freedom" while it lasts.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: GameDaddy on January 14, 2021, 01:55:49 AM
...um no. Jeff Bezos is trying to get me to join Amazon Pay with the lure of the largest client base in the world. I'm looking into it, but only because I'm pushing hard to earn a seven figure income this year..

 I was hosting some of my web servers over on AWS the year before last, but pulled everything and went back to GoDaddy last year, after some experiences with Amazon slamming me with huge unexpected web hosting bills. They also suck at doing DNS stuff, and of course messed up my SSH Servers something fierce. Had to go with GoDaddy so when I put up a website using SSH, people can visit and the site doesn't throw errors.

Them and Google and all the Big tech companies blocked self-signed CA Certificates, which are like the keys that positively ID your website and now insist on charging ridonkculous amounts of money to provide a signed certificate. Essentially it's a tax on small businesses, so I told them politely (sic) ... to take a fucking hike. at the end of 2019.

I'm thinking about getting rid of my gmail account and google account as well, but have to keep fakebook so I can keep in touch with all the muggles I know. Their days are numbered though. Their Nazi moves so far this year are duly noted as well, and I may accelerate my timetable. 
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 14, 2021, 02:23:06 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/y8LUXQk.jpg)

Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Melan on January 14, 2021, 06:10:30 AM
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/476327454429020162/799233415231701012/socmed_signs.jpg)
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: consolcwby on January 14, 2021, 10:49:46 PM
...um no. Jeff Bezos is trying to get me to join Amazon Pay with the lure of the largest client base in the world. I'm looking into it, but only because I'm pushing hard to earn a seven figure income this year..

 I was hosting some of my web servers over on AWS the year before last, but pulled everything and went back to GoDaddy last year, after some experiences with Amazon slamming me with huge unexpected web hosting bills. They also suck at doing DNS stuff, and of course messed up my SSH Servers something fierce. Had to go with GoDaddy so when I put up a website using SSH, people can visit and the site doesn't throw errors.

Them and Google and all the Big tech companies blocked self-signed CA Certificates, which are like the keys that positively ID your website and now insist on charging ridonkculous amounts of money to provide a signed certificate. Essentially it's a tax on small businesses, so I told them politely (sic) ... to take a fucking hike. at the end of 2019.

I'm thinking about getting rid of my gmail account and google account as well, but have to keep fakebook so I can keep in touch with all the muggles I know. Their days are numbered though. Their Nazi moves so far this year are duly noted as well, and I may accelerate my timetable.
Puh-pu-pu-pu-pu-pu! Such a text is DESPAIR INDUCING!
May your communist masters be kind to you and yours as your precious money becomes meaningless!
https://greatreset.com/
GET BACK JACK! YOUR FEUDAL MASTERS ARE BACK!
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: moonsweeper on January 14, 2021, 10:50:54 PM
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/476327454429020162/799233415231701012/socmed_signs.jpg)

Nice summary, Melan.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Daztur on January 15, 2021, 12:01:33 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/djOgkAt.jpg)
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: moonsweeper on January 15, 2021, 12:58:39 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/djOgkAt.jpg)

Call me when we have a free market...
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Lychee of the Exchequer on January 15, 2021, 03:23:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/djOgkAt.jpg)

The Reagan era called. It would like to have its pseudo-pithy repartee back
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 15, 2021, 08:20:52 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/djOgkAt.jpg)
Yes, the free market totally dragged Parler under -- oh wait, no, it didn't, it basically got dragged out into the corridor and shot in the head by Amazon under extremely questionable pretenses, with the connivance of Twitter and FB (who detested competition).

Ever heard of regulatory capture? Of course not. That would require you to read the book, not eat it.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 15, 2021, 09:34:42 AM
Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 10:40:22 AM
Yes, the free market totally dragged Parler under -- oh wait, no, it didn't, it basically got dragged out into the corridor and shot in the head by Amazon under extremely questionable pretenses, with the connivance of Twitter and FB (who detested competition).

Ever heard of regulatory capture? Of course not. That would require you to read the book, not eat it.

So the original post emphasizes out that it is "private unelected citizens" who control the infrastructure - but what is the alternative? Under a free market, companies can take out other companies - suppliers can refuse to sell, landlords can refuse to rent.

How should we change the regulatory system so that this can't happen?
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Arkansan on January 15, 2021, 12:02:03 PM
There is no free market, the very idea is nonsense. If the market is totally free then monopolies eventually form and regulate de facto. If you impose regulation against the formation of monopolies then you have no longer have a "free market".

The market will be regulated one way or another, all we have to ask ourselves is where we want that regulation.

Personally I think social media is the modern public square and should be held to the same first amendment standards that government agencies are.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 15, 2021, 12:06:21 PM
Social media is not public property.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 15, 2021, 12:40:45 PM
Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?
Effectively, Amazon was the landlord that evicted Parler from rental property (servers). Since they said it was because of terms of service violations, it would be like they evicted the tenant that was running dog fights on the property.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 15, 2021, 12:43:12 PM
How should we change the regulatory system so that this can't happen?
First ask, "Should we change the regulatory system so that this can't happen?" Then, maybe, add in the "How?"
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 15, 2021, 12:45:06 PM
Personally I think social media is the modern public square and should be held to the same first amendment standards that government agencies are.
The public square is funded through taxes. Do you want tax money going to fund social media? If not, then it should remain under the control of those that fund it.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 15, 2021, 01:07:06 PM
You can’t, however, pick and choose among the many tenants running dog fights on your property, and boot only one of them.  If you want to rely on dog fighting as your justification
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 01:26:24 PM
You can’t, however, pick and choose among the many tenants running dog fights on your property, and boot only one of them.  If you want to rely on dog fighting as your justification

With rental tenants, this depends on the nature of the rental contract. Legally, if multiple renters violate the terms of the contract, the landlord is *allowed* to evict them - but they usually aren't *required* to evict them.

It's the landlord's property, so they generally have a lot of discretion to do with it what they like. Maybe their drinking buddy is renting one of the properties, and they let their bud keep a cat even though the standard contract says "no pets". Or maybe they let the bud go for three months without paying, but they require other tenants to always pay on time or be evicted.

Some states and/or towns have specific renters-rights laws to put more restrictions on what landlords can do with their property, but of course those won't apply to Amazon and its servers.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Arkansan on January 15, 2021, 02:48:12 PM
Personally I think social media is the modern public square and should be held to the same first amendment standards that government agencies are.
The public square is funded through taxes. Do you want tax money going to fund social media? If not, then it should remain under the control of those that fund it.

I don't think it has to be as binary as that. We have to consider the fact that what constitutes the public square has changed over time, we are at a point where private companies can effectively censor communications between millions of people with little to no oversight. These companies have the ability to sway elections, create or destroy popular movements, control the flow of information, etc.

Personally I'd be perfectly fine with laws requiring social media companies to adhere to first amendment guidelines of face fines, etc.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 15, 2021, 02:52:45 PM
Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?
It's effectively a governmentality. When the state and major corporations are so intertwined, you can't say it's the action of the free individuals making free choices in the free market.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 15, 2021, 03:01:39 PM
Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?
Effectively, Amazon was the landlord that evicted Parler from rental property (servers). Since they said it was because of terms of service violations, it would be like they evicted the tenant that was running dog fights on the property.

Parler wasn't running dog fights.

A better example would be if a landlord evicted someone for being a Republican or Democrat.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: SHARK on January 15, 2021, 03:08:33 PM
Greetings!

The internet should be *free*. People are free or should be free--to say whatever they want on the internet. Too bad if someone doesn't like it. These companies engaging in censorship should be fucking banned themselves and shut down. It would be a great example if they were raided, all of their assets seized, and their owners and executives prosecuted and sent to prison, or just thrown to the alligators. That would make them fucking act right. In Poland, they have anti censorship laws aimed specifically at such internet companies as Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Pull the bullshit there and the government just fucking unplugs *you*. Uganda did this to Twitter as well. Just threw them the fuck out, *snap* just like that. Twitter's howling about it is hilarious. All of these scum need to be made to pay a steep and severe price for their hypocrisy, their tyranny, and their corruption.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 15, 2021, 03:29:17 PM
Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?
Effectively, Amazon was the landlord that evicted Parler from rental property (servers). Since they said it was because of terms of service violations, it would be like they evicted the tenant that was running dog fights on the property.

If we use this analogy they had an agreement that if Amazon found Parler running dog fights on the property then they would have 30 days to move out.

So welcome to sue-ville Amazon.  Should have stuck to your rental agreement sucker.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 03:41:27 PM
The internet should be *free*. People are free or should be free--to say whatever they want on the internet. Too bad if someone doesn't like it. These companies engaging in censorship should be fucking banned themselves and shut down. It would be a great example if they were raided, all of their assets seized, and their owners and executives prosecuted and sent to prison, or just thrown to the alligators.

SHARK - after being so ardently vocal about how horrible Marxists are, now you're crying that private resources have to be given away for free, and taken over by the government if they aren't given away free.

What you're talking about here is exactly Marxism -- nationalizing private resources in the name of the people.

The Internet is *not* free. The Internet costs *money*. Facebook and Twitter pay tons of money to buy Internet servers and develop the technology for their service. In a capitalist system, this means that they control what they paid for. They don't have to let you use their servers.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: moonsweeper on January 15, 2021, 03:43:40 PM
You can’t, however, pick and choose among the many tenants running dog fights on your property, and boot only one of them.  If you want to rely on dog fighting as your justification

With rental tenants, this depends on the nature of the rental contract. Legally, if multiple renters violate the terms of the contract, the landlord is *allowed* to evict them - but they usually aren't *required* to evict them.

It's the landlord's property, so they generally have a lot of discretion to do with it what they like. Maybe their drinking buddy is renting one of the properties, and they let their bud keep a cat even though the standard contract says "no pets". Or maybe they let the bud go for three months without paying, but they require other tenants to always pay on time or be evicted.

Some states and/or towns have specific renters-rights laws to put more restrictions on what landlords can do with their property, but of course those won't apply to Amazon and its servers.

That wasn't related to what he said.  What he said was that if you evict tenant A for violation X you are setting up a discrimination suit unless you evict the other tenants that have done the same thing.

side note:  government regulations have created more de facto monopolies, than would have existed otherwise.  Tax incentives for job creation, government subsidies, etc have all hampered competition.  In a free market, a monopoly only exists until someone comes along and undercuts the price.

Without bailouts/government aid...where would GM, GE. and a number of banks be right now...If your telling me that those companies can claim a right to discrimination of service and then use taxpayer money for their own purposes, sorry that ain't a free market...

Or go back to Operation Chokepoint...when FDIC insured banks are allowed (or encouraged by the government) to discriminate against someone while using that person's taxes as an insurance policy...please...


So, tell me more about how this laissez-faire 'free-market' idea is worse because someone might form a monopoly or a cartel...   ::)

Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 15, 2021, 03:48:28 PM
The Internet is *not* free. The Internet costs *money*. Facebook and Twitter pay tons of money to buy Internet servers and develop the technology for their service. In a capitalist system, this means that they control what they paid for. They don't have to let you use their servers.
As has been pointed out, the US is very far from being a capitalist system. You can't argue the natural right of free individuals to make their own decisions in the free market applies to the state and the corporations they're in bed with in a cronyist and corporatist system.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 15, 2021, 04:01:20 PM
You can’t, however, pick and choose among the many tenants running dog fights on your property, and boot only one of them.  If you want to rely on dog fighting as your justification

With rental tenants, this depends on the nature of the rental contract. Legally, if multiple renters violate the terms of the contract, the landlord is *allowed* to evict them - but they usually aren't *required* to evict them.

It's the landlord's property, so they generally have a lot of discretion to do with it what they like. Maybe their drinking buddy is renting one of the properties, and they let their bud keep a cat even though the standard contract says "no pets". Or maybe they let the bud go for three months without paying, but they require other tenants to always pay on time or be evicted.

Some states and/or towns have specific renters-rights laws to put more restrictions on what landlords can do with their property, but of course those won't apply to Amazon and its servers.

Then crying “because dog fights” isn’t much of a justification then, is it?  Now we’re down to I can do whatever I want because current law allows me to.  And crying dog fighting was always bullshit of the first order.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 15, 2021, 04:05:27 PM
Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?
Effectively, Amazon was the landlord that evicted Parler from rental property (servers). Since they said it was because of terms of service violations, it would be like they evicted the tenant that was running dog fights on the property.

Parler wasn't running dog fights.

A better example would be if a landlord evicted someone for being a Republican or Democrat.
I was just using an example that would be against the terms of service/law for a renter. If a landlord has posted terms for renting that are violated, they should be able to enforce them and have renters removed.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 15, 2021, 04:09:03 PM
Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?
Effectively, Amazon was the landlord that evicted Parler from rental property (servers). Since they said it was because of terms of service violations, it would be like they evicted the tenant that was running dog fights on the property.

If we use this analogy they had an agreement that if Amazon found Parler running dog fights on the property then they would have 30 days to move out.

So welcome to sue-ville Amazon.  Should have stuck to your rental agreement sucker.
That all depends on what the terms of service were. Supposedly Amazon gave them notice some time ago (I don't recall how long ago) and Parler took insufficient action to address it in the eyes of Amazon. Generally speaking, terms of service are massively favorable to the ones writing them, but I don't have the details on this particular agreement.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Catulle on January 15, 2021, 04:17:14 PM
Personally I'd be perfectly fine with laws requiring social media companies to adhere to first amendment guidelines of face fines, etc.

No doubt, though the rest of the world will no doubt have issues with so rolling out US hegemony. Not like there's any quid pro quo after all ;)
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 15, 2021, 04:33:53 PM
Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?
Effectively, Amazon was the landlord that evicted Parler from rental property (servers). Since they said it was because of terms of service violations, it would be like they evicted the tenant that was running dog fights on the property.

If we use this analogy they had an agreement that if Amazon found Parler running dog fights on the property then they would have 30 days to move out.

So welcome to sue-ville Amazon.  Should have stuck to your rental agreement sucker.
That all depends on what the terms of service were. Supposedly Amazon gave them notice some time ago (I don't recall how long ago) and Parler took insufficient action to address it in the eyes of Amazon. Generally speaking, terms of service are massively favorable to the ones writing them, but I don't have the details on this particular agreement.

Could be a good idea to find out what you are comparing to dog fighting.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: SHARK on January 15, 2021, 05:06:43 PM
The internet should be *free*. People are free or should be free--to say whatever they want on the internet. Too bad if someone doesn't like it. These companies engaging in censorship should be fucking banned themselves and shut down. It would be a great example if they were raided, all of their assets seized, and their owners and executives prosecuted and sent to prison, or just thrown to the alligators.

SHARK - after being so ardently vocal about how horrible Marxists are, now you're crying that private resources have to be given away for free, and taken over by the government if they aren't given away free.

What you're talking about here is exactly Marxism -- nationalizing private resources in the name of the people.

The Internet is *not* free. The Internet costs *money*. Facebook and Twitter pay tons of money to buy Internet servers and develop the technology for their service. In a capitalist system, this means that they control what they paid for. They don't have to let you use their servers.

Greetings!

Jhkim, perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by *FREE*--or maybe I was not specific enough. I'm not talking about people or corporations capacity to sell, make lawful profits, and such. I'm talking about ideology, behavior, speech. People should be free to write and speak and not be censored, supervised, fucking "fact checked" by nanny-state, Marxist jackasses like all of the blue check-marked employees and "monitors" at Twitter, Facebook, and so on.

As for seizing these companies, their accounts and assets--that is simply a good way to fuck them for their tyranny. They're Leftist scum, and should be punished without mercy. For their smugness, for their elitism, for their censorship, hypocrisy, and tyranny, they need to be absolutely ruined and thrown into the gutter, where they can wallow in the sewer.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 15, 2021, 05:18:38 PM
Jack Dorsey plans for censorship revealed:

Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 15, 2021, 05:21:58 PM
Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?
Effectively, Amazon was the landlord that evicted Parler from rental property (servers). Since they said it was because of terms of service violations, it would be like they evicted the tenant that was running dog fights on the property.

If we use this analogy they had an agreement that if Amazon found Parler running dog fights on the property then they would have 30 days to move out.

So welcome to sue-ville Amazon.  Should have stuck to your rental agreement sucker.
That all depends on what the terms of service were. Supposedly Amazon gave them notice some time ago (I don't recall how long ago) and Parler took insufficient action to address it in the eyes of Amazon. Generally speaking, terms of service are massively favorable to the ones writing them, but I don't have the details on this particular agreement.

Could be a good idea to find out what you are comparing to dog fighting.
That would mean actually giving a shit about Twitter. I don't use it. The only tweets I've ever read have been ones that others copy/paste into things I'm reading. When it's in a forum post, I don't care. When news articles do it and consider it news, I often just stop reading the article.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 15, 2021, 05:41:57 PM
I don’t really care anyway, checkmate

Admittedly, it always surprises me how many people post voluminously about what they admit later they never really cared about.  A hallmark of our culture
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 05:42:32 PM
SHARK - after being so ardently vocal about how horrible Marxists are, now you're crying that private resources have to be given away for free, and taken over by the government if they aren't given away free.

What you're talking about here is exactly Marxism -- nationalizing private resources in the name of the people.

The Internet is *not* free. The Internet costs *money*. Facebook and Twitter pay tons of money to buy Internet servers and develop the technology for their service. In a capitalist system, this means that they control what they paid for. They don't have to let you use their servers.

Jhkim, perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by *FREE*--or maybe I was not specific enough. I'm not talking about people or corporations capacity to sell, make lawful profits, and such. I'm talking about ideology, behavior, speech. People should be free to write and speak and not be censored, supervised, fucking "fact checked" by nanny-state, Marxist jackasses like all of the blue check-marked employees and "monitors" at Twitter, Facebook, and so on.

But Internet servers are private property, not public. If I try to put something onto *my* server, I can say whatever I like - just like how I can put a sign on my own lawn. However, if I put something onto a *Facebook* server, though, then they don't have to obey me. They can decide they don't want to host my signs.

What you're claiming is that Facebook's servers should be *FREE* -- a public service rather than a private one. You're arguing that Facebook shouldn't be allowed to control what gets put on their own servers.

It's like going to a house party, and the host kicks you out because he doesn't like you. The host owns the property - they aren't required to let you into their party.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 15, 2021, 05:51:46 PM
LOL @ the Veritas(tm) video!  They even added the ominous heartbeat. I wonder how it'd sound with a canned laughter track...ROFL!
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 15, 2021, 05:52:00 PM
I don’t really care anyway, checkmate

Admittedly, it always surprises me how many people post voluminously about what they admit later they never really cared about.  A hallmark of our culture
I care about a business having control over its own assets even if I don't use Twitter (or buy wedding cakes).
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 15, 2021, 05:54:08 PM
The original intent of 230 was that Facebook would platform empty space for people to throw the party they desired, within that space.

And Facebook wouldn’t be liable if the party was later found to break the law in some way that aggrieved the neighborhood

Facebook throwing a party would make it a publisher, since it chose the theme, determined the invite list, and prevented a subset of legal partying it didn’t want popularized
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: CRKrueger on January 15, 2021, 06:21:17 PM
That’s the problem with 230 protections.  Social media companies are exercising all the editorial power of publishers while having all the legal protections of platforms.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 15, 2021, 06:23:07 PM
SHARK - after being so ardently vocal about how horrible Marxists are, now you're crying that private resources have to be given away for free, and taken over by the government if they aren't given away free.

What you're talking about here is exactly Marxism -- nationalizing private resources in the name of the people.

The Internet is *not* free. The Internet costs *money*. Facebook and Twitter pay tons of money to buy Internet servers and develop the technology for their service. In a capitalist system, this means that they control what they paid for. They don't have to let you use their servers.

Jhkim, perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by *FREE*--or maybe I was not specific enough. I'm not talking about people or corporations capacity to sell, make lawful profits, and such. I'm talking about ideology, behavior, speech. People should be free to write and speak and not be censored, supervised, fucking "fact checked" by nanny-state, Marxist jackasses like all of the blue check-marked employees and "monitors" at Twitter, Facebook, and so on.

But Internet servers are private property, not public. If I try to put something onto *my* server, I can say whatever I like - just like how I can put a sign on my own lawn. However, if I put something onto a *Facebook* server, though, then they don't have to obey me. They can decide they don't want to host my signs.

What you're claiming is that Facebook's servers should be *FREE* -- a public service rather than a private one. You're arguing that Facebook shouldn't be allowed to control what gets put on their own servers.

It's like going to a house party, and the host kicks you out because he doesn't like you. The host owns the property - they aren't required to let you into their party.
Exactly. Even if they have the best parties and all the cool folks show, it's still the hosts decision. However, it gets complicated if the use of those parties is primarily for business connections.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 15, 2021, 06:26:36 PM
IMHO the problem isn't the Amazon TOS. They can kick anybody off at any time they please for no reason at all. TOS is just a very thin smokescreen of legitimacy for their partisan politics.
My issue is the lack of competition. Talking about Free Markets is all well and fine, until SuperMonopolyCorp owns every single major media outlet and woe to anyone who dares disagree. A monopoly can be just as powerful as a tyrannical government. In some ways, moreso.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 15, 2021, 06:33:52 PM
Admittedly, it always surprises me how many people post voluminously about what they admit later they never really cared about.  A hallmark of our culture

Lol, thats true except for the surprise part.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 15, 2021, 06:35:20 PM
LOL @ the Veritas(tm) video!  They even added the ominous heartbeat. I wonder how it'd sound with a canned laughter track...ROFL!

One of the only legitimate press left and the Beaner comment is that they added a sound track.

Bean on, good Beaner.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: moonsweeper on January 15, 2021, 06:38:15 PM
SHARK - after being so ardently vocal about how horrible Marxists are, now you're crying that private resources have to be given away for free, and taken over by the government if they aren't given away free.

What you're talking about here is exactly Marxism -- nationalizing private resources in the name of the people.

The Internet is *not* free. The Internet costs *money*. Facebook and Twitter pay tons of money to buy Internet servers and develop the technology for their service. In a capitalist system, this means that they control what they paid for. They don't have to let you use their servers.

Jhkim, perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by *FREE*--or maybe I was not specific enough. I'm not talking about people or corporations capacity to sell, make lawful profits, and such. I'm talking about ideology, behavior, speech. People should be free to write and speak and not be censored, supervised, fucking "fact checked" by nanny-state, Marxist jackasses like all of the blue check-marked employees and "monitors" at Twitter, Facebook, and so on.

But Internet servers are private property, not public. If I try to put something onto *my* server, I can say whatever I like - just like how I can put a sign on my own lawn. However, if I put something onto a *Facebook* server, though, then they don't have to obey me. They can decide they don't want to host my signs.

What you're claiming is that Facebook's servers should be *FREE* -- a public service rather than a private one. You're arguing that Facebook shouldn't be allowed to control what gets put on their own servers.

It's like going to a house party, and the host kicks you out because he doesn't like you. The host owns the property - they aren't required to let you into their party.

Just like a wedding cake shop, right...
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 15, 2021, 06:45:37 PM
LOL @ the Veritas(tm) video!  They even added the ominous heartbeat. I wonder how it'd sound with a canned laughter track...ROFL!

One of the only legitimate press left and the Beaner comment is that they added a sound track.

Nothing to see folks. It's just a dead brain. Move on.

Bean on, good Beaner.

For anyone without a dictionary, that's Asshat speak for Latino. 
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 15, 2021, 06:49:45 PM
You can sum up people wanting to force private companies to accept their membership like this: "Free market for me, not for thee"
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 15, 2021, 06:52:22 PM
You can sum up people wanting to force private companies to accept their membership like this: "Free market for me, not for thee"

Can't speak for others, but I am not a free market absolutist. I think some regulation is necessary. And I also recognize that putting the government in charge of that regulation often just adds another layer of monopoly.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 15, 2021, 06:54:11 PM
I have no issues with publishers exercising editorial power.

In other news, Google is now going after minds.com

https://twitter.com/crabcrawler1/status/1350221982156136455?s=21
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 15, 2021, 07:47:37 PM

For anyone without a dictionary, that's Asshat speak for Latino.

OK, Beaner.

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2384/2133/products/lg_60225.jpg?v=1516328737)

What is the TV telling you to do today?
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 15, 2021, 07:51:31 PM
You can sum up people wanting to force private companies to accept their membership like this: "Free market for me, not for thee"

Trump was forced by the Supreme Court to allow everyone to see his Tweets.

But Jack Beaner can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trumps tweets.

Thats real Beaner logic there.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 15, 2021, 08:03:37 PM
What is the TV telling you to do today?

I don't watch TV. What's QAnon telling you to believe today?

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2384/2133/products/lg_60225.jpg?v=1516328737)

Ah, hello there, asshat. It's nice to finally see your stupid face.

Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 15, 2021, 08:18:24 PM
You can sum up people wanting to force private companies to accept their membership like this: "Free market for me, not for thee"

Trump was forced by the Supreme Court to allow everyone to see his Tweets.

But Jack Beaner can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trumps tweets.

Thats real Beaner logic there.

Too bad you don't understand the concept of a private company. Your spinner cap is interferring with your two neurons. 
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 09:27:53 PM
That’s the problem with 230 protections.  Social media companies are exercising all the editorial power of publishers while having all the legal protections of platforms.

I agree - that's what I said on the other thread on social media. However, if we simply repeal Section 230, then Facebook and Twitter will get *more* heavy with bans and blocking, because they can be sued for what is said on them.


But Internet servers are private property, not public. If I try to put something onto *my* server, I can say whatever I like - just like how I can put a sign on my own lawn. However, if I put something onto a *Facebook* server, though, then they don't have to obey me. They can decide they don't want to host my signs.

Just like a wedding cake shop, right...

Anti-discrimination laws are pitched as special-case exceptions to the general rules of capitalism. The problem is that there are two extremes:

(1) "Whites-only" movie theaters, "no Jews" signs, and other real cases from the first half of the 20th century

(2) "Modeling agencies discriminate against ugly people"; "fancy restaurants discriminate against rude people"; and so forth

Most people are fine with outlawing #1, but think that #2 is going too far. So there has to be some limited middle ground. The U.S. anti-discrimination laws are justified in the same way as other specific business regulations - like how gas stations have to conform to certain standards, and food has to pass FDA inspection, etc. They apply only to certain classes of businesses, and to certain categories of people.

I could imagine having "political party" be added as a protected category - especially if the ultra-partisanship of the country gets even worse. But if that were true, I expect I'd still be hated here for saying that it means that conservatives couldn't discriminate against liberals as well as vice-versa.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 15, 2021, 09:56:31 PM
Nobody cares if progressive small businesses tell red voters their money isn’t welcome.  The feeling is probably mutual.  This isn’t John and Debbie RedVoter going down to the Antifa foodcart and demanding they cater the summer graduation party of their homeschooling pod.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: moonsweeper on January 15, 2021, 10:32:42 PM
You can sum up people wanting to force private companies to accept their membership like this: "Free market for me, not for thee"

Trump was forced by the Supreme Court to allow everyone to see his Tweets.

But Jack Beaner can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trumps tweets.

Thats real Beaner logic there.

Too bad you don't understand the concept of a private company. Your spinner cap is interferring with your two neurons.

Actually, there is a reasonable legal argument that based on the court ruling, Twitter is a public forum.

There is also the current rumblings by the Dems that internet access is a human right and that would be an issue with what Amazon did.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 10:50:02 PM
Actually, there is a reasonable legal argument that based on the court ruling, Twitter is a public forum.

There is also the current rumblings by the Dems that internet access is a human right and that would be an issue with what Amazon did.

My understanding of the Trump ban ruling was that it was based on him using his Twitter channel to issue important information as the President of the United States.

It doesn't affect how Twitter is used in general by private citizens. At most, it could affect how other public officials use other private businesses for official communications.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: moonsweeper on January 15, 2021, 10:59:56 PM
Actually, there is a reasonable legal argument that based on the court ruling, Twitter is a public forum.

There is also the current rumblings by the Dems that internet access is a human right and that would be an issue with what Amazon did.

My understanding of the Trump ban ruling was that it was based on him using his Twitter channel to issue important information as the President of the United States.

It doesn't affect how Twitter is used in general by private citizens. At most, it could affect how other public officials use other private businesses for official communications.

...and if I'm being denied access means that you are preventing me from receiving information from a public official.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 15, 2021, 11:21:45 PM
Ah, hello there, asshat. It's nice to finally see your stupid face.

Yep, Google images always has my face every time.

What a Beaner.

Actually, there is a reasonable legal argument that based on the court ruling, Twitter is a public forum.

There is also the current rumblings by the Dems that internet access is a human right and that would be an issue with what Amazon did.

My understanding of the Trump ban ruling was that it was based on him using his Twitter channel to issue important information as the President of the United States.

It doesn't affect how Twitter is used in general by private citizens. At most, it could affect how other public officials use other private businesses for official communications.

So then stopping the President of the United States from issuing important information like, for example, going home from the Capitol peacefully seems to be illegal.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 11:30:23 PM
My understanding of the Trump ban ruling was that it was based on him using his Twitter channel to issue important information as the President of the United States.

It doesn't affect how Twitter is used in general by private citizens. At most, it could affect how other public officials use other private businesses for official communications.

So then stopping the President of the United States from issuing important information like, for example, going home from the Capitol peacefully seems to be illegal.

The ruling was against the President, over how he should behave when acting as a public official - not about how Twitter or anyone else should behave as a private company.

For example, when Biden becomes President - then he could choose to appear on Fox News if Fox News agrees. They would agree to terms of his address. But he can't just demand that Fox News play his address and it would be illegal for them to refuse. That would be a huge authoritarian overreach, in my opinion.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: oggsmash on January 15, 2021, 11:32:45 PM
     Private company.  With more money and power than most nations and beholden only to themselves, and will gleefully operate in any interest or other nation's interest that makes them a dime.  They avoid taxes like the plague, do all they can to capitulate to china and its outright tyrant government, and use their product to engage in social engineering endlessly.  They also seem to act as a unified front on many issues and with several actions.  Given they have top end executives openly  weeping en masse on camera and swear to sway the next election, I think something else may be afoot. I am sure it will all turn out alright.

   
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 15, 2021, 11:50:20 PM
     Private company.  With more money and power than most nations and beholden only to themselves, and will gleefully operate in any interest or other nation's interest that makes them a dime.  They avoid taxes like the plague, do all they can to capitulate to china and its outright tyrant government, and use their product to engage in social engineering endlessly.  They also seem to act as a unified front on many issues and with several actions.  Given they have top end executives openly  weeping en masse on camera and swear to sway the next election, I think something else may be afoot. I am sure it will all turn out alright.

I dislike the social media companies too -- but I think nationalizing them and making them public utilities wouldn't be any better - and I doubt most conservatives would approve of that anyway, particularly under a Biden administration.

I do support changing the regulations they work under, and possibly taxing them more (given how much they dodge taxes as you say).
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: oggsmash on January 16, 2021, 12:07:48 AM
     Private company.  With more money and power than most nations and beholden only to themselves, and will gleefully operate in any interest or other nation's interest that makes them a dime.  They avoid taxes like the plague, do all they can to capitulate to china and its outright tyrant government, and use their product to engage in social engineering endlessly.  They also seem to act as a unified front on many issues and with several actions.  Given they have top end executives openly  weeping en masse on camera and swear to sway the next election, I think something else may be afoot. I am sure it will all turn out alright.

I dislike the social media companies too -- but I think nationalizing them and making them public utilities wouldn't be any better - and I doubt most conservatives would approve of that anyway, particularly under a Biden administration.

I do support changing the regulations they work under, and possibly taxing them more (given how much they dodge taxes as you say).
  Giving the government the power that private industry abuses now seems like a very bad idea.   I think you are living in a fantasy if you think they will pay a cent more in taxes.  They write the tax policy.  Those mofos will tell Biden what to do, and he will do it.  Just as they will do the same to 90 percent plus of the rest of elected officials.  At this point the best bet would to be hoping the heir is not malevolent at heart.  I do not think they are, but they are extremely powerful, and in the end a whole lot of power and being human generally do not go well together.
  As I get older, I look back and I see some things that influenced me and others and ideas and so forth that had net positive or negative effects on people and their lives.  The only people social media has affected positively are the people who own it/work at the high end for it, or who have managed to find a niche selling things through it.   It is a cancer to society and one of the active ingredients in what will be a fall of the empire.   At this point though, it might as well be a comet we just spotted about to collide with the planet.  It will be what it will be.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: deathknight4044 on January 16, 2021, 12:31:07 AM
Monopolies good
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 16, 2021, 12:36:05 AM
we’re a ways past the threshold of the Standard Oil precedent with big tech.  It won’t be a betrayal of the principle of private property to enforce changes in structure, behavior, and ownership.

Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: moonsweeper on January 16, 2021, 01:10:37 AM
Monopolies good

Yeah.  I'm waiting for them to shut Tim down...
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 16, 2021, 01:23:20 AM
My understanding of the Trump ban ruling was that it was based on him using his Twitter channel to issue important information as the President of the United States.

It doesn't affect how Twitter is used in general by private citizens. At most, it could affect how other public officials use other private businesses for official communications.

So then stopping the President of the United States from issuing important information like, for example, going home from the Capitol peacefully seems to be illegal.

The ruling was against the President, over how he should behave when acting as a public official - not about how Twitter or anyone else should behave as a private company.

For example, when Biden becomes President - then he could choose to appear on Fox News if Fox News agrees. They would agree to terms of his address. But he can't just demand that Fox News play his address and it would be illegal for them to refuse. That would be a huge authoritarian overreach, in my opinion.

Correct me if I am wrong because I always thought that the Potus does have the power to appear on all Tv stations (and radio?) if he wants to make some kind of announcement irregardless of their opinion.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 16, 2021, 02:43:59 AM
Correct me if I am wrong because I always thought that the Potus does have the power to appear on all Tv stations (and radio?) if he wants to make some kind of announcement irregardless of their opinion.

As far as I know, it's only because the networks usually want to cooperate with the President, and they have a general duty to the FCC to do some public good - like children's educational programming. Here's what I found on howitworks:

Quote
Networks rarely refuse presidential requests, but it does happen and may even be increasingly common. In 2009 for example, Fox declined to show one of Barack Obama's news conference during primetime, citing that the network would lose too much money in lost advertising revenue. In 2001, the network made the same decision for one of George W. Bush's speeches, despite the White House's request. In 2014, ABC, NBC and CBS all declined to air Obama's November 2014 speech on immigration reform, though none would comment on why.
Source: https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/major-networks-carry-presidential-addresses.htm
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 16, 2021, 03:03:06 AM
But a president can order them under the emergency broadcast system and they must broadcast if so ordered.  In the end, they don’t have a choice because the frequencies are granted to them; they are not private.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 16, 2021, 03:10:26 AM
As I get older, I look back and I see some things that influenced me and others and ideas and so forth that had net positive or negative effects on people and their lives.  The only people social media has affected positively are the people who own it/work at the high end for it, or who have managed to find a niche selling things through it.   It is a cancer to society and one of the active ingredients in what will be a fall of the empire.   At this point though, it might as well be a comet we just spotted about to collide with the planet.  It will be what it will be.

I don't know about the fall of an empire -- but I agree that social media is destructive. It's making everyone into media junkies, constantly hyped up on outrage at the latest terrible thing, especially that the other side has done. Everyone is now convinced that the world is always getting worse, usually in contradictory ways ("Marxism will destroy the world!" "No, global warming will destroy the world!"). While many things have gotten better - like crime and homelessness -- depression, overdoses, and suicide have gone up.

Television turned people into pacified zombies and couch potatoes, but social media turns them into active participants in their own destruction.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 16, 2021, 09:11:15 AM
we’re a ways past the threshold of the Standard Oil precedent with big tech.  It won’t be a betrayal of the principle of private property to enforce changes in structure, behavior, and ownership.
The Standard Oil precedent, and thus the entire edifice of US anti-trust policy, is based on a lie which was exposed more than 60 years ago. Recommended reading for anyone interested in anti-trust or monopolies:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil-ns/articles/research-oil/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf

Monopolies don't really exist in the wilds of a true free market. Undercutting the prices of your competitors means you lose money, and even if you drive them out of business, that just means their assets are available at fire sale prices for the next competitor, making it even cheaper for them. The only reason monopolies exist is because a compliant government puts up barriers to hinder new competitors. (The only exception might be DeBeers.)

A classic example is Amazon and sales tax. For years, Amazon resisted paying sales tax, because it gave them an advantage against brick and mortar retailers. But as they became huge, the number of online competitors with similar advantages increased, that flipped. Since they had a physical presence and thus had to pay taxes already in more states, forcing all their online competitors to also pay taxes in those states gave them a relative advantage. And since they were big, the overhead of working out how to pay tax in each of the 10,000 or so local tax codes in the US was relatively cheap for them, and expensive for their smaller competitors. So they dropped their resistance and supported online tax laws, which were quickly passed due to compliant legislatures. This happens in big and small ways all over, with regulations and laws nearly always favoring large and established companies over their new and smaller competitors. That is how real monopolies are created and sustained. Unlike Standard Oil, Big Tech is a real, or state-supported, monopoly.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Arkansan on January 16, 2021, 11:30:17 AM
we’re a ways past the threshold of the Standard Oil precedent with big tech.  It won’t be a betrayal of the principle of private property to enforce changes in structure, behavior, and ownership.
The Standard Oil precedent, and thus the entire edifice of US anti-trust policy, is based on a lie which was exposed more than 60 years ago. Recommended reading for anyone interested in anti-trust or monopolies:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil-ns/articles/research-oil/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf

Monopolies don't really exist in the wilds of a true free market. Undercutting the prices of your competitors means you lose money, and even if you drive them out of business, that just means their assets are available at fire sale prices for the next competitor, making it even cheaper for them. The only reason monopolies exist is because a compliant government puts up barriers to hinder new competitors. (The only exception might be DeBeers.)

A classic example is Amazon and sales tax. For years, Amazon resisted paying sales tax, because it gave them an advantage against brick and mortar retailers. But as they became huge, the number of online competitors with similar advantages increased, that flipped. Since they had a physical presence and thus had to pay taxes already in more states, forcing all their online competitors to also pay taxes in those states gave them a relative advantage. And since they were big, the overhead of working out how to pay tax in each of the 10,000 or so local tax codes in the US was relatively cheap for them, and expensive for their smaller competitors. So they dropped their resistance and supported online tax laws, which were quickly passed due to compliant legislatures. This happens in big and small ways all over, with regulations and laws nearly always favoring large and established companies over their new and smaller competitors. That is how real monopolies are created and sustained. Unlike Standard Oil, Big Tech is a real, or state-supported, monopoly.

Just a cursory read of the paper you linked shows it doesn't support your position that monopolies can't exist in the "wilds of a free market", hell a handful of paragraphs in and the author explains a process by which just such a thing can happen without undercutting taking place at all.

The author of this paper then makes a few related critical errors in my opinion. He assumes that "Anything above the competitive value of their firms should be enough to buy them" when asserting a hypothetical in which a potential monopoly or pre-existing monopoly is looking to eliminate localized competition. This is a specious assumption that requires a sort of mechanistic rote logic decision making by the holders of a firm being targeted by a larger one, it ignores the fact that people are rarely if ever perfectly rational and many do in fact form emotional attachments to their holdings that are above the simple market value.

The author again goes on to make the assumption that a monopolistic firm simply wouldn't be willing to eat the costs associated with under cutting when the option of a flat buyout is hypothetically on the table. Again this requires some sort of perfect logic machine to be making decisions. Worse still it ignores the possibility of a long term stratagem in which the potential monopoly is willing to eat the steep short term losses which while possibly steeper than the cost of a buyout could reap long term benefits in the form of a multitude of elements including direct revenue, influence on secondary and tertiary industries, etc that would make the cost benefit analysis make sense.

That paper is shit. He makes an number of "just so" "logical" assumptions to set and justify his premises that are not at all apparent. All manner of scenarios could be conceived that would dismiss each of his necessary clauses, and most of them requiring far fewer assumptions.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 16, 2021, 01:15:00 PM
we’re a ways past the threshold of the Standard Oil precedent with big tech.  It won’t be a betrayal of the principle of private property to enforce changes in structure, behavior, and ownership.
The Standard Oil precedent, and thus the entire edifice of US anti-trust policy, is based on a lie which was exposed more than 60 years ago. Recommended reading for anyone interested in anti-trust or monopolies:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil-ns/articles/research-oil/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf

Monopolies don't really exist in the wilds of a true free market. Undercutting the prices of your competitors means you lose money, and even if you drive them out of business, that just means their assets are available at fire sale prices for the next competitor, making it even cheaper for them. The only reason monopolies exist is because a compliant government puts up barriers to hinder new competitors. (The only exception might be DeBeers.)

A classic example is Amazon and sales tax. For years, Amazon resisted paying sales tax, because it gave them an advantage against brick and mortar retailers. But as they became huge, the number of online competitors with similar advantages increased, that flipped. Since they had a physical presence and thus had to pay taxes already in more states, forcing all their online competitors to also pay taxes in those states gave them a relative advantage. And since they were big, the overhead of working out how to pay tax in each of the 10,000 or so local tax codes in the US was relatively cheap for them, and expensive for their smaller competitors. So they dropped their resistance and supported online tax laws, which were quickly passed due to compliant legislatures. This happens in big and small ways all over, with regulations and laws nearly always favoring large and established companies over their new and smaller competitors. That is how real monopolies are created and sustained. Unlike Standard Oil, Big Tech is a real, or state-supported, monopoly.

Just a cursory read of the paper you linked shows it doesn't support your position that monopolies can't exist in the "wilds of a free market", hell a handful of paragraphs in and the author explains a process by which just such a thing can happen without undercutting taking place at all.

The author of this paper then makes a few related critical errors in my opinion. He assumes that "Anything above the competitive value of their firms should be enough to buy them" when asserting a hypothetical in which a potential monopoly or pre-existing monopoly is looking to eliminate localized competition. This is a specious assumption that requires a sort of mechanistic rote logic decision making by the holders of a firm being targeted by a larger one, it ignores the fact that people are rarely if ever perfectly rational and many do in fact form emotional attachments to their holdings that are above the simple market value.

The author again goes on to make the assumption that a monopolistic firm simply wouldn't be willing to eat the costs associated with under cutting when the option of a flat buyout is hypothetically on the table. Again this requires some sort of perfect logic machine to be making decisions. Worse still it ignores the possibility of a long term stratagem in which the potential monopoly is willing to eat the steep short term losses which while possibly steeper than the cost of a buyout could reap long term benefits in the form of a multitude of elements including direct revenue, influence on secondary and tertiary industries, etc that would make the cost benefit analysis make sense.

That paper is shit. He makes an number of "just so" "logical" assumptions to set and justify his premises that are not at all apparent. All manner of scenarios could be conceived that would dismiss each of his necessary clauses, and most of them requiring far fewer assumptions.
The citation was to back up my claim about Standard Oil. That's why it's specifically under that paragraph, and not at the end. The paper illustrates that the basis for the Standard Oil decision, and the ensuing legacy of anti-trust actions, is based on a lie. Standard Oil was not a monopoly, it had many competitors, and those competitors were increasing not diminishing in power. It also debunks predatory pricing. Most of the rationale behind anti-trust regulation was based on a single author, who had no direct expertise on the subject, but who had an axe to grind because her immediate relatives failed to compete successfully with SO.

The paper I cited is highly regarded among economists, and none of your criticisms touch on the heart of the matter. Economic theory requires simplifying complex behavior. This can sometimes be an oversimplification, or miss essential elements, but if you want to point out the flaws in a theory, you need to demonstrate that those simplifications make the conclusions incorrect, you can't simply point out that it doesn't account for every possible variable. That would invalidate every theory in economics, and in most other fields as well.

For instance, it's true that some people will hold to their businesses, even when they're given an offer well above market value. But most will sell. Both because it provides a greater financial reward, and because people who make poor economic decisions will tend to fail out the marketplace, and thus are less likely to own businesses. This is why it's a useful assumption. There are certainly some valid criticisms based on "Homo economicus", but most are based on the same fallacious logic you're making: Economists don't assume that all people are always rational. But people are frequently rational, and rationality is predictable. Conversely, people who behave for reasons beyond purely rational economic trade offs tend to do so for multifarious reasons. So if 90%, or 60%, or even 30% of people behave in an economically rational way, then we can draw conclusions based on that because it creates a clear trend among the otherwise more random data. The same problem applies to your argument about eating costs. Since you appear to like citations for everything, the first chapter of David Friedman's Hidden Order covers this fundamental basis of economics in a very readable form.

Your long term stratagem argument doesn't undercut anything, either. The problem with eating steep losses is it only makes sense if you can increases your revenue in other areas. For instance, by ending up in a theoretical monopoly position where you can dictate prices. If that can't work, it's just a loss. To prove your point, you'd need to show how a company can use alternatives to a buy out to gain an advantage that outweighs the losses.

If you want a source for why monopolies can't survive in the wild, it's addressed in Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. I could also point you at Mises, but that's heavier reading.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 16, 2021, 01:18:48 PM
Whether the paper is correct or whether the claimed reasons for taking action against Standard Oil didn’t exist at the time are both irrelevant to whether a valid, actionable scenario exists now to be addressed

A big part of why the other side makes hard gains in the culture war is they take action, as opposed to using the present circumstances as an opportunity to debate the minutia of theory for theory acceptance.  They eat a meal when food is available, instead of debating the platonic meal, or the best restaurant to eat their next meal at.  Think tanks are where those who wish to debate what action should look like are willingly diverted from any possibility of acting.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 16, 2021, 01:32:09 PM
Whether the paper is correct or whether the claimed reasons for taking action against Standard Oil didn’t exist at the time are both irrelevant to whether a valid, actionable scenario exists now to be addressed

A big part of why the other side makes hard gains in the culture war is they take action, as opposed to using the present circumstances as an opportunity to debate the minutia of theory for theory acceptance.  They eat a meal when food is available, instead of debating the platonic meal, or the best restaurant to eat their next meal at.  Think tanks are where those who wish to debate what action should look like are willingly diverted from any possibility of acting.
Theories address what type of action should be taken, and should inform practical actions. Plus, this is a board for discussing pork-free games, not a form of action.

But while I don't agree that stopping all debate is useful, I do agree there is a passive and active side in the culture war. But a lot of the reason why one side is winning is because they've spend decades theorizing, and having their theories widely taught and disseminated. Successful action is a result of that, not the other way around.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 16, 2021, 02:06:26 PM
“What’s to be done about homelessness?”

“What do we do about social media?”

If you’re able to recognize that they theorized for decades in conjunction with creeping, iterative action, but without recognizing that among their actions is to alter the environment that allowed their theorizing, so that it isn’t replicated, then you will be allowed to debate whether the charges against standard oil were historically valid, while inefficiently mining coal by pickax until your body breaks down
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Kyle Aaron on January 16, 2021, 08:54:41 PM
Too bad you don't understand the concept of a private company. Your spinner cap is interferring with your two neurons.
There are across the Western world many restrictions (it varies hugely by jurisdiction, but most have some restrictions) on businesses and whether they can reject custom from particular individuals based on their characteristics, behaviour or beliefs. It's not completely arbitrary, still less total freedom for a business. I know because I run one.

Different rules typically apply to nonprofits. You cannot have an Albanian restaurant who refuses to serve non-Albanians, but you can have an Albanian Social Club which refuses membership to non-Albanians.

So much for the law. Considering only principles, in principle I am generally in favour of private businesses being able to reject whoever they want, and we can let the free market sort it out. In practice, this doesn't work well when there's a colluding oligopoly. It's one thing for me as a Jewish person to be rejected from Woop Woop West's local hotel/motel, it's another thing if there are only 5 chains of hotel/motels in the country making up 90% of all places and all 5 within 24 hours suddenly decide to reject Jews.

So this is the issue, really: a failure of the free market.
Twitter: "You're banned. Go elsewhere."
Facebook: "Go elsewhere."
Parler: "You can come to us!"
Google: "Not to Parler, you can't."

If just a few companies control most of the supply of the good or service, and those companies collude in discrimination, then it's a failure of the free market. So it's time for anti-trust action.

Uganda closed down Facebook for their current election, by the way, and the Solomon Islands almost did. Small countries seem to have more courage than medium or large-sized ones.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Melan on January 17, 2021, 04:52:15 AM
Uganda is a country of 40 million people, which is hardly small, but the point stands. Whatever the theoretical underpinnings, this is a burning practical issue that used to be negligible while tech firms were neutral, but now concerns national sovereignty and the fairness of elections because
This will make even US-friendly (and specifically DEM-friendly) governments nervous, because sovereignty, and how much a country is ceding of it to outside organisations like the EU, is no childrens' game. It is very carefully guarded, scrutinised and negotiated. A foreign company trying to bend, or even tip elections is a hostile tresspasser even in "friendly" territory, and not any better than US gunships appearing before your ports before Election Day. This will not be taken lightly, especially when these companies have just done so in a brutal and entirely unprecedented manner in their home country. Not even France and Germany are amused, and they are supposedly on the globalists' side.

Friendly governments will thus now seek alternatives to the tech giants, and try to regulate them, probably through their EU cronies. Less friendly ones (like ours, which has previously been the subject of what seemed to be an attempt at fomenting a "colour revolution" under the Obama State Department, and has therefore aligned firmy with a much friendlier Trump cabinet) will prepare scenarios where they might shut down social media on a national level if they try to pull something. Poland is preparing legistlation proposing draconian fines for social media companies which try to engage in political censorship - and Poland is the most US-friendly country in Europe!

But on this issue, Hungary, Poland, Germany and France are firm allies despite any lingering political differences. After all, previously neutral platforms have become absolutely political. It is no longer about cute pictures or photo ops (which politicians were happy to participate in for PR), but merciless globalist control, and a potential venue for what the scary people call "democratic regime change". This is not something "private companies" are allowed to do. And if someone's response is "they can't just ban Facebook" and "muh free markets", they will be very surprised to learn what jealous governments protecting their own power are willing to do.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 17, 2021, 04:48:07 PM
Great post, Melan

In other news, now the pressure campaign has moved to the telecommunications utilities (AT&T, Verizon, etc.), with journalists  astroturfing up a campaign to get Newsmax and OANN banned from their infrastructure.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 17, 2021, 05:24:15 PM
So this is the issue, really: a failure of the free market.
I agree with nearly everything you said, except for this. It's not a failure of the free market. The US is a heavily interventionist state with a bureaucracy with broad discretionary powers, and a legislature with even broader powers. Even without explicit collusion they collude, because the companies know they have to be on the good side of the bureaucrats, and they spend heavily on political campaigns to get the legislators to write laws that favor them. The most telling evidence is the money. 9 out of 10 of the most expensive Senate races of all time occurred in 2020 (the exception is from 2018). When the amount of money spent on politics goes up, it's not typically because companies suddenly developed a social a conscience. It's because they think the return on their investment has increased.

This invariably favors the large, established companies. Amazon and Google boom, while mom and pop stores wither under the weight of regulation, taxes, or other disadvantages. In particular, it makes it very unlikely that new competitors will arise and displace the existing giants. This is what creates monopolies, not the free market. The government, with an endless string or obscure maneuvers or vaguely justifiable laws or decisions, makes it easy for the established companies, and hard for anyone who wants to compete with them. Even the sheer volume of these regulations favors the big companies, because an army of accounts and lawyers to help with compliance is a smaller portion of their budget than it is for a 10 person startup. When you make the government not just a regulator, but a major client, and an enforced partner in various initiatives, like the massive spying on American citizens that was exposed by Snowdon and Wikileaks, this link is augmented.

The giants in turn gain inordinate sway, and remove options. If they collectively decide to discriminate against Jews, then there's no recourse. Anyone wanting to start a Jewish social media platform, for instance, will be locked out. It's the variety of the market and the ease of entry that provides alternatives when there's discrimination. Because if there are a 100 companies, then at least one of them is probably willing to work with you, even if only by the backdoor (the increasing lack of privacy in anything is another negative factor that hurts the little companies). This is true now for political suppression, and was true in the past for things like black entrepreneurs, even during the height of Jim Crow.

The fault isn't in the free market, it's in the statism and bureaucracy.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 17, 2021, 05:57:57 PM
But on this issue, Hungary, Poland, Germany and France are firm allies despite any lingering political differences. After all, previously neutral platforms have become absolutely political. It is no longer about cute pictures or photo ops (which politicians were happy to participate in for PR), but merciless globalist control, and a potential venue for what the scary people call "democratic regime change". This is not something "private companies" are allowed to do. And if someone's response is "they can't just ban Facebook" and "muh free markets", they will be very surprised to learn what jealous governments protecting their own power are willing to do.

I'm not surprised that jealous governments would block private companies like Facebook. China, Iran, and some other governments have been doing that for a while.

But it seems you're implying that private companies *shouldn't* be allowed to express political or ideological views. But that's never been how democracy works. Throughout American history, rich individuals and big companies like the Hearst Corporation, Carnegie-Mellon, Standard Oil, Dupont, and tons of others have always had a lot of influence on politics. If they *seemed* neutral, that was just a way to play both sides.


Because if there are a 100 companies, then at least one of them is probably willing to work with you, even if only by the backdoor (the increasing lack of privacy in anything is another negative factor that hurts the little companies). This is true now for political suppression, and was true in the past for things like black entrepreneurs, even during the height of Jim Crow.

The fault isn't in the free market, it's in the statism and bureaucracy.

Eh. I agree that some regulations favor larger corporations, there are also free market factors that favor large corporations - like various economies of scale. Just removing regulation can also favor large corporations - as we can see a number of large corporations fight against a number of regulations. In general, I'd prefer streamlined and clear regulation rather than complex regulation. But anti-trust law is also crucial.

Billionaires and giant corporations have an outsized voice because of their money, but money isn't everything. If people organize, then they can vote in representatives and laws that restrict the conditions that allowed these billionaires and giant corporations to come about. I would favor breaking up some of the larger tech companies like Facebook, and reforming Section 230.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 17, 2021, 06:33:11 PM
Eh. I agree that some regulations favor larger corporations, there are also free market factors that favor large corporations - like various economies of scale. Just removing regulation can also favor large corporations - as we can see a number of large corporations fight against a number of regulations. In general, I'd prefer streamlined and clear regulation rather than complex regulation. But anti-trust law is also crucial.

Billionaires and giant corporations have an outsized voice because of their money, but money isn't everything. If people organize, then they can vote in representatives and laws that restrict the conditions that allowed these billionaires and giant corporations to come about. I would favor breaking up some of the larger tech companies like Facebook, and reforming Section 230.
You're positing an equality that doesn't exist. Sure, there are a few regulations that favor small companies over large ones. But the bulk favor large companies. It's absurdly one-sided. The fights against regulations that get any attention at all are the tiniest tip of a grand iceberg of decisions and regulations and laws that have been passed that favor large companies and established players. That's how regulatory capture works -- companies in an industry have a strong, sustained interest in the regulation of their industry, meaning they work constantly over long time scales to swing things in their favor, and have great expertise. In contrast, public attention tends to be short lived and superficial, resulting in big sudden changes, but being overwhelmed by the innumerable small changes that favor the established corporations. Bureaucrats rarely check this, because they have no skin the game, and the industries fete them with aid vacations, plum jobs once they retire from public disservice, and all kinds of other benefits that, even barring an explicit tit-for-tat trade of favors, leads to a long term and subtle favoritism.

Economies of scale exist, but they're overrated. There are advantages to a certain size in certain industries, but typically at a finite size significantly smaller than the size of the industry, getting larger starts to provide relatively little advantage, while coming with serious disadvantages, like a lack of nimbleness.

Breaking up some of the big companies may be necessary, but that's because the government failed not the free market. A better, broader, and longer term solution is to restrict government discretionary power. This doesn't necessarily mean weakening regulations -- it's not strong regulations that create the problem, it's regulations that allow technocrats, judges, and other players a wide degree of discretion; and the continual fine-tuning by regulators and legislators who have incentives to favor the industry, like donations or private sector jobs.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: oggsmash on January 17, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
As I get older, I look back and I see some things that influenced me and others and ideas and so forth that had net positive or negative effects on people and their lives.  The only people social media has affected positively are the people who own it/work at the high end for it, or who have managed to find a niche selling things through it.   It is a cancer to society and one of the active ingredients in what will be a fall of the empire.   At this point though, it might as well be a comet we just spotted about to collide with the planet.  It will be what it will be.

I don't know about the fall of an empire -- but I agree that social media is destructive. It's making everyone into media junkies, constantly hyped up on outrage at the latest terrible thing, especially that the other side has done. Everyone is now convinced that the world is always getting worse, usually in contradictory ways ("Marxism will destroy the world!" "No, global warming will destroy the world!"). While many things have gotten better - like crime and homelessness -- depression, overdoses, and suicide have gone up.

Television turned people into pacified zombies and couch potatoes, but social media turns them into active participants in their own destruction.
Alone it wont be responsible, but it will be the catalyst.  Even a glance at history and empires (and the USA is an empire) and how they erode and fall, we are headed that route.  It usually takes a long while, but I think tech speeds everything along rather nicely.  20 years MAX.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: oggsmash on January 17, 2021, 06:47:37 PM
But on this issue, Hungary, Poland, Germany and France are firm allies despite any lingering political differences. After all, previously neutral platforms have become absolutely political. It is no longer about cute pictures or photo ops (which politicians were happy to participate in for PR), but merciless globalist control, and a potential venue for what the scary people call "democratic regime change". This is not something "private companies" are allowed to do. And if someone's response is "they can't just ban Facebook" and "muh free markets", they will be very surprised to learn what jealous governments protecting their own power are willing to do.

I'm not surprised that jealous governments would block private companies like Facebook. China, Iran, and some other governments have been doing that for a while.

But it seems you're implying that private companies *shouldn't* be allowed to express political or ideological views. But that's never been how democracy works. Throughout American history, rich individuals and big companies like the Hearst Corporation, Carnegie-Mellon, Standard Oil, Dupont, and tons of others have always had a lot of influence on politics. If they *seemed* neutral, that was just a way to play both sides.


Because if there are a 100 companies, then at least one of them is probably willing to work with you, even if only by the backdoor (the increasing lack of privacy in anything is another negative factor that hurts the little companies). This is true now for political suppression, and was true in the past for things like black entrepreneurs, even during the height of Jim Crow.

The fault isn't in the free market, it's in the statism and bureaucracy.

Eh. I agree that some regulations favor larger corporations, there are also free market factors that favor large corporations - like various economies of scale. Just removing regulation can also favor large corporations - as we can see a number of large corporations fight against a number of regulations. In general, I'd prefer streamlined and clear regulation rather than complex regulation. But anti-trust law is also crucial.

Billionaires and giant corporations have an outsized voice because of their money, but money isn't everything. If people organize, then they can vote in representatives and laws that restrict the conditions that allowed these billionaires and giant corporations to come about. I would favor breaking up some of the larger tech companies like Facebook, and reforming Section 230.
 

  ALL regulations favor large corporations.  They write the regs through lobbyists, and almost all of them are net competition crushers. 
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: DocJones on January 17, 2021, 07:42:40 PM
Epik.com is a domain registration service and provides SSL certs. 
They won't cancel you if you're not "woke".
Linode.com offers cheaper, better and more flexible hosting than Epik.
I haven't come across anyone who has been "canceled" that hosted on Linode.
They seem refreshingly apolitical.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: moonsweeper on January 17, 2021, 09:06:29 PM
Hell, we haven't seen anything yet...

Nobody has actually 'owned' a Windows OS since I can't even remember which version...

What happens when Microsoft decides your political viewpoint 'violates' their terms of service?

Some of us are old enough to remember Spyglass and Netscape Navigator...No matter how much PR he's done in the last 15-20 years, Gates is still one of the most garbage human beings on the planet.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 17, 2021, 09:29:37 PM
What happens when Microsoft decides your political viewpoint 'violates' their terms of service?
You thank Linus Torvalds, and move on.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: consolcwby on January 17, 2021, 10:07:09 PM
What happens when Microsoft decides your political viewpoint 'violates' their terms of service?
You thank Linus Torvalds, and move on.
Oh, so Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and Google Cloud services play no part in datacenters...
TRY AGAIN!
But thanks for your DESPAIR! It is making us laugh!!!

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/05/11x05180835nbadfcv.jpg)
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 17, 2021, 10:18:37 PM
What happens when Microsoft decides your political viewpoint 'violates' their terms of service?
You thank Linus Torvalds, and move on.
Oh, so Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and Google Cloud services play no part in datacenters...
Buy your own server. They're not that expensive, and they're an important part of a backup plan.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 17, 2021, 11:08:35 PM
True libertarianism is telling all of America they need to learn to code.

Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: consolcwby on January 19, 2021, 12:28:11 AM
What happens when Microsoft decides your political viewpoint 'violates' their terms of service?
You thank Linus Torvalds, and move on.
Oh, so Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and Google Cloud services play no part in datacenters...
Buy your own server. They're not that expensive, and they're an important part of a backup plan.
:D
You think of all this in the most simplistic terms! That's okay. You just don't know. But you WILL find out soon enough!
Take care of yourself Pat, and good luck in all you do!
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: GameDaddy on January 21, 2021, 01:20:41 AM
Trump was forced by the Supreme Court to allow everyone to see his Tweets.
But Jack Beaner can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trumps tweets.

Well, I never saw Trumps Tweets, because I didn't follow him on Twitter. So the Supreme Court was tremendously unsuccessful in allowing me to see his Tweets. as in epic fail level.

Jack can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trump tweets, but If I wasn't seeing the tweets in the first place, ...will I still hear the screams of outrage?...

Jack can do whatever he wants with Twitter. I'm still on it now because there are a few muggles I keep in touch with there. chances are, it won't last though, something better will come along, or someone will launch a Nuke into space and EMP fry all the lectronics in the western hemishere, and then Jack, along with everyone else, won't be able to  do anything with Twitter at all. My suggestion is to prepare for that day and figure out another way to stay in touch with your muggle friends. One that doesn't rely on Jack, or any of Jacks' services.

Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 21, 2021, 04:28:05 PM
Trump was forced by the Supreme Court to allow everyone to see his Tweets.
But Jack Beaner can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trumps tweets.

Well, I never saw Trumps Tweets, because I didn't follow him on Twitter. So the Supreme Court was tremendously unsuccessful in allowing me to see his Tweets. as in epic fail level.

Jack can decide to stop everyone from seeing Trump tweets, but If I wasn't seeing the tweets in the first place, ...will I still hear the screams of outrage?...

Jack can do whatever he wants with Twitter. I'm still on it now because there are a few muggles I keep in touch with there. chances are, it won't last though, something better will come along, or someone will launch a Nuke into space and EMP fry all the lectronics in the western hemishere, and then Jack, along with everyone else, won't be able to  do anything with Twitter at all. My suggestion is to prepare for that day and figure out another way to stay in touch with your muggle friends. One that doesn't rely on Jack, or any of Jacks' services.
Sigh. The problem isn't 'Jack can do what he wants with Twitter'. Because, yeah, he can, short of a First Amendment ruling (which would open up a can of worms I'm not comfortable with).

The problem is that Jack and his buddies will happily kneecap competitors. So the whole 'if you don't like it, start your own X' meme falls apart, because you are prevented from doing so.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 21, 2021, 05:16:19 PM
Sigh. The problem isn't 'Jack can do what he wants with Twitter'. Because, yeah, he can, short of a First Amendment ruling (which would open up a can of worms I'm not comfortable with).

The problem is that Jack and his buddies will happily kneecap competitors. So the whole 'if you don't like it, start your own X' meme falls apart, because you are prevented from doing so.

What do you mean by "kneecap" here?

All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 21, 2021, 05:23:29 PM
Sigh. The problem isn't 'Jack can do what he wants with Twitter'. Because, yeah, he can, short of a First Amendment ruling (which would open up a can of worms I'm not comfortable with).

The problem is that Jack and his buddies will happily kneecap competitors. So the whole 'if you don't like it, start your own X' meme falls apart, because you are prevented from doing so.

What do you mean by "kneecap" here?

All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

So let's say an authoritairan, tyrranical faction takes control of the public square, and uses purely legal and legitimate means to sieze control of the cultural levers of power, do we tolerate that? Where do we draw the line? When do we draw the line? Do we draw the line or just go along with things?

I'd like to point out that Jim Crow was legal, and slavery was legal at one time. And people resisted sometimes using illegal, non-violent resistance. And sometimes violent resistance.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 21, 2021, 05:25:51 PM
You’ve participated in this thread, not knowing the circumstances and situation people are discussing; requiring a bespoke summarization of the issue at hand

 
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 21, 2021, 06:06:37 PM
Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 21, 2021, 07:20:03 PM
All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

So let's say an authoritairan, tyrranical faction takes control of the public square, and uses purely legal and legitimate means to sieze control of the cultural levers of power, do we tolerate that? Where do we draw the line? When do we draw the line? Do we draw the line or just go along with things?

I'd like to point out that Jim Crow was legal, and slavery was legal at one time. And people resisted sometimes using illegal, non-violent resistance. And sometimes violent resistance.

Well, that was part of my question - what do you think should be made illegal? The solution to legal slavery was the 13th Amendment. The solution to Jim Crow was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How do you think the law should change to deal with Twitter and Facebook, then?

For myself, I think abolition, women's rights, and the Civil Rights movements are all good models about how to go about trying to shut down popular authoritarian ideas. They were all largely addressed within the legal system. As for specifically how to deal with Twitter and Facebook -- there can be some legal changes to make things harder for them. We should enact more serious online privacy protection laws, similar to what the EU has, to limit selling people's personal data. Also, the corporations could be broken up to a degree using antitrust laws. But I think the main pushback against them has to be cultural - talk up more about how they are a problem. We can't enact the laws until a majority of people favor such laws.


Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

Hate speech isn't illegal, at least within the United States. In the UK or Germany someone can be put in jail for doing a nazi salute or similar -- but I don't think that's a good thing.

Death threats are currently illegal, and should be prosecuted - but Section 230 limits Twitter's liability for someone's death threats. Doxxing often isn't even illegal - though it should be - and similarly Section 230 limits liability. I think that Section 230 should be reformed to be conditional. The only way that liability is limited is that the service has to conform to a choice of one of a few national content standards, and users can then have legal redress if they are banned for reasons outside those.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 21, 2021, 07:20:59 PM
Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

I just heard about Twitter being sued for refusing to remove child porn because it didn’t ‘violate policies’

https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/ (https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/)
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 21, 2021, 07:36:33 PM
Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

Hate speech isn't illegal, at least within the United States. In the UK or Germany someone can be put in jail for doing a nazi salute or similar -- but I don't think that's a good thing.

Death threats are currently illegal, and should be prosecuted - but Section 230 limits Twitter's liability for someone's death threats. Doxxing often isn't even illegal - though it should be - and similarly Section 230 limits liability. I think that Section 230 should be reformed to be conditional. The only way that liability is limited is that the service has to conform to a choice of one of a few national content standards, and users can then have legal redress if they are banned for reasons outside those.

What about child porn?  Is that illegal in the US or covered under the freedom of speech laws?
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 21, 2021, 10:42:14 PM
What about child porn?  Is that illegal in the US or covered under the freedom of speech laws?

That's illegal, as I think you know, and can and should be prosecuted.

Under Section 230, Twitter, Gmail, and other app providers have limited liability for users who send child porn, though. In the article you just linked, the issue is - was this a negligent employee who just sent a form letter rather than doing their job in taking down content? Or did Twitter as a company knowingly allow child porn as policy? On search on child porn and Twitter, I see recent cases where Twitter turned in information that lead to the arrest of those sharing child porn.

Quote
A local man was arrested and charged in December after Twitter reported he had been sharing child pornography on its website.
Source: https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/local-man-arrested-for-reportedly-sharing-child-porn-on-twitter/article_66e92831-5977-57e5-b443-528eefa63b83.html

Quote
Google, Twitter alert authorities to 76-year-old man sharing child porn images
Source: https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/13/marionville-man-admits-share-child-porn-lawrence-county-google-twitter/3359301001/


Still, maybe Twitter is promoting some child porn and prosecuting others. We can wait to see claims in the lawsuit.

As far as the law goes, if we remove Section 230, then services like Twitter will be much quicker to ban and block content -- which is the opposite of what many people want. And it will make life much more difficult for competitor services which don't have Twitters legal teams and expertise.

Again, I think amending Section 230 to make limited liability require more open speech conditions, and clearer policies with legal redress.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 21, 2021, 11:41:07 PM
All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

So let's say an authoritairan, tyrranical faction takes control of the public square, and uses purely legal and legitimate means to sieze control of the cultural levers of power, do we tolerate that? Where do we draw the line? When do we draw the line? Do we draw the line or just go along with things?

I'd like to point out that Jim Crow was legal, and slavery was legal at one time. And people resisted sometimes using illegal, non-violent resistance. And sometimes violent resistance.

Well, that was part of my question - what do you think should be made illegal? The solution to legal slavery was the 13th Amendment. The solution to Jim Crow was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How do you think the law should change to deal with Twitter and Facebook, then?

I don't have answers. I'm honestly asking if anyone has a solution. We're dealing with people who have straightforward said their goal is infringement on our civil liberites. I believe that free speech, even speech I abhor, is very important. But when the narrative is twisted and it becomes impossible to counter their bad speech because they control the public square, then there's no way to legally fight back.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: GameDaddy on January 22, 2021, 01:52:46 AM
The problem is that Jack and his buddies will happily kneecap competitors. So the whole 'if you don't like it, start your own X' meme falls apart, because you are prevented from doing so.

Well, if Parler had done it right from the get-go they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now. They hosted their entire site on Amazon Web Servers. Literally, doing it the old fashioned way means setting up your own data centers, and then having neutral international DNS providers like Switzerland, Samoa, Netherlands, Iceland, etc....

Robert Mercer funded Parler, and he has plenty of cash reserves, but Parler didn't spend the money on building their own infrastructure and truly serving as a neutral internet host. Instead they subcontracted, and not even to the lowest bidder.

Examples of other Companies that did setup their own hosting includes Wikileaks, Pirate Bay (But they had to learn the hard way not to trust Sweden and Norway), The Silk Road, and Mega, in New Zealand. None of these are shutdown, however according to kim.com Mega has been effectively seized by the NZ government, although there is no evidence they are interfering with its operation..
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: GameDaddy on January 22, 2021, 01:59:04 AM
Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

Twitter is, and always has been a train wreck of inconsistency. They let the President have an account for eight years, then abruptly and illegally cut him off, citing safety as the reason he was being censored. Free Speech has never needed to protect the "safe" speech, Free Speech was for the protection of "unsafe" speech so people could say unpopular, untrue, or offensive speech without any actual repercussions. This allows for open dialogue to occurr, and ideas are not dismissed without a clear and prescient examination, with the trust placed in the people to make the right choice whether an idea should be implemented or not. When that choice is taken away from people, then they are no longer free.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: GameDaddy on January 22, 2021, 02:00:33 AM

I don't have answers. I'm honestly asking if anyone has a solution. We're dealing with people who have straightforward said their goal is infringement on our civil liberites. I believe that free speech, even speech I abhor, is very important. But when the narrative is twisted and it becomes impossible to counter their bad speech because they control the public square, then there's no way to legally fight back.

Yes, the choice is to stop using their service, and find your own public square or milk crate to speak from.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 22, 2021, 06:35:59 AM
Free Speech was for the protection of "unsafe" speech so people could say unpopular, untrue, or offensive speech without any actual repercussions.
Free Speech was never meant to shield people from repercussions of knowingly making untrue statements.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 22, 2021, 06:39:21 AM
Free Speech was for the protection of "unsafe" speech so people could say unpopular, untrue, or offensive speech without any actual repercussions.
Free Speech was never meant to shield people from repercussions of knowingly making untrue statements.
Nonsense, free speech never required a pass through the fact checkers.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 22, 2021, 07:38:48 AM
Free Speech was for the protection of "unsafe" speech so people could say unpopular, untrue, or offensive speech without any actual repercussions.
Free Speech was never meant to shield people from repercussions of knowingly making untrue statements.
Nonsense, free speech never required a pass through the fact checkers.
Sure, you can say it, but you're not protected from repercussions for knowingly spreading lies.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 22, 2021, 08:20:31 AM

I don't have answers. I'm honestly asking if anyone has a solution. We're dealing with people who have straightforward said their goal is infringement on our civil liberites. I believe that free speech, even speech I abhor, is very important. But when the narrative is twisted and it becomes impossible to counter their bad speech because they control the public square, then there's no way to legally fight back.

Yes, the choice is to stop using their service, and find your own public square or milk crate to speak from.
Until your milk crate is taken away and you are escorted from the public square you rented.

I will note, though, that part of Parler's lawsuit is that AWS breached contract, giving them no time to rectify any situation. They're saying they should've had 30 days from notice of issue; Amazon is saying 'we can shut it down when we like'.

If Parler actually signed a contract giving AWS a blank check on shutting them down, then they're boned.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: GameDaddy on January 22, 2021, 08:41:03 AM
Sure, you can say it, but you're not protected from repercussions for knowingly spreading lies.

Yes, this is exactly what free speech is. It is not my responsibility to determine whether a statement is true or not. It is not my job to control you, or decide what is true for you. It is up to you, ...to use your mind, your mental faculties, to determine whether or not what I say is true or right. You must know the difference between right and wrong, and must act upon that knowledge without regard to whether what I say is true or not.

This is literally the first amendment to the Constitution, and what makes us different, and better from Europe, and every other country on the planet, to wit:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of.
Here in the United States, you are free to follow any religion you like, or not, as you wish. If you don't like any of the religions that are already around, you are free to start your own.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

This is pretty simple... If the government can't make any laws to inhibit free speech, what makes you think it is ok for you to do so privately?... This goes for the press too, by the way. They are not obligated, in any way, to speak the truth. It's up to you as an individual to determine whether they are full of bullshit or not, and act accordingly.

Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is very clear, The Drumpf can make speeches all day long to his retarded followers to fight the injustice that is government, and make no mistake, the American government is so incompetent that it should be viewed as an injustice and affront to the common people. Drumpfs people have every right to get their bullhorns out and march down Pennsylvania avenue and call upon the lawmakers to redress perceived wrongs in the government. If I'm not mistaken, they just wanted a transparent election process where there are safegaurds in place to ensure that voting is fair.

Now this is something that I have personally wanted since the year 2000, when the presidential election was compromised by the State of Florida. There the vote was so close, that a recount was ordered. The Republicans at that time, had the Courts intervene, and stopped the recount before it was completed, short-circuiting the election process and unfairly awarding the Republicans the presidency, as well as a majority in the Senate.

This elections, the Courts wisely chose to not interfere in the election process, throwing out every single case but one, from Drumfs challenge.  The courts returned the responsibility directly back to the American people, and to the individual states, to build a more transparent and fair system to conduct elections. The Drumf was not wrong, their are a lot of irregularities in the election process, as well as some clear cases of voter disenfranchisement while the voting was occurring.during this last election. Never mind that the Republican party has been practicing voter disenfranchisement before the elections, ...for at least, the last twenty years.  This last election, the Courts just gave them back, what they have been handing out to the American people for the last two decades.

Where Drumfs supporters crossed a clear line though, is when they no longer peaceably protested. That would be, when they forcibly broke into the Capitol, and disrupted the Congress that was in session, that they had already duly elected to conduct their business for them, and then forcibly interfered with the election as it was occurring. For the record, the changes to ensure a fair election process has to occur at the local and state level, becuase that is what the courts decided.

Also, it's not on Drumf if they actually throw themselves off a cliff, if he tells his followers to throw themselves off a cliff. If they are too stupid to know they would actually die, then they are actually doing us a favor by doing so, at least according to Darwin's Law. They are helping all of us, by naturally self-selecting and improving the gene pool.

Ditto that if he is telling them to break the law, and they actually listen. They should all be arrested and thrown in jail for disrupting the peace.

Also just so you know, peaceful protest, ...doesn't really work. It's a complete waste of time and resources. Here is an example of the peaceful protest march of Iranian Women, marching for their right to dress as they prefer, and demanding equal rights.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/iran-women-revolution-hijab-protests-ayatollah-khomeini-a8251686.html
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: GameDaddy on January 22, 2021, 08:44:07 AM
If Parler actually signed a contract giving AWS a blank check on shutting them down, then they're boned.

They are boned, because that is the only kind of contract that Amazon provides. In fact moved all of my web servers off of Amazon back in late 2019, early 2020 because of exactly this reason, and more. I didn't want any of my websites to be vulnerable to an arbitrary political decision.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 22, 2021, 09:39:59 AM
Now this is something that I have personally wanted since the year 2000, when the presidential election was compromised by the State of Florida. There the vote was so close, that a recount was ordered. The Republicans at that time, had the Courts intervene, and stopped the recount before it was completed, short-circuiting the election process and unfairly awarding the Republicans the presidency, as well as a majority in the Senate.
I kinda disagree on your analysis of this, as there were repeated recounts, and Florida's election laws specifically stated 'you must turn in your papers on X date'. The Democrats wanted to ignore that and keep recounting until Gore won Florida.

Quote
This elections, the Courts wisely chose to not interfere in the election process, throwing out every single case but one, from Drumfs challenge.  The courts returned the responsibility directly back to the American people, and to the individual states, to build a more transparent and fair system to conduct elections. The Drumf was not wrong, their are a lot of irregularities in the election process, as well as some clear cases of voter disenfranchisement while the voting was occurring.during this last election. Never mind that the Republican party has been practicing voter disenfranchisement before the elections, ...for at least, the last twenty years.  This last election, the Courts just gave them back, what they have been handing out to the American people for the last two decades.
Which is unintentionally hilarious, as it's the same 'punt' they used to avoid dealing with the ACA. 'It's not our job to determine when laws are completely fucking useless'. Ooooo-kay...

Quote
Where Drumfs supporters crossed a clear line though, is when they no longer peaceably protested. That would be, when they forcibly broke into the Capitol, and disrupted the Congress that was in session, that they had already duly elected to conduct their business for them, and then forcibly interfered with the election as it was occurring. For the record, the changes to ensure a fair election process has to occur at the local and state level, becuase that is what the courts decided.
Completely agree, although -- as has been stated before -- the pearl clutching and sniveling looks more than a little hypocritical considering what had transpired over the last year.

Let this be a lesson: legitimizing political violence is a bad idea, and sooner or later the other side starts using it.

Quote
Also just so you know, peaceful protest, ...doesn't really work. It's a complete waste of time and resources. Here is an example of the peaceful protest march of Iranian Women, marching for their right to dress as they prefer, and demanding equal rights.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/iran-women-revolution-hijab-protests-ayatollah-khomeini-a8251686.html
Mike Vanderboegh (an irascible, cranky pro-2A blogger and activist) once opined that if Mahatma Gandhi had tried his civil disobedience tactics on the Imperial Japanese (circa WW2), his bayoneted and beheaded corpse would've been found floating down the Ganges River along with his followers. The tactics work with a people and government who prefer peaceful resolution and are willing to listen, as well as having a moral center that abides by such. Iran does not have that. Britain did, hence why Gandhi got away with it.

Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: GameDaddy on January 22, 2021, 10:12:27 AM
I kinda disagree on your analysis of this, as there were repeated recounts, and Florida's election laws specifically stated 'you must turn in your papers on X date'. The Democrats wanted to ignore that and keep recounting until Gore won Florida.

Mike Vanderboegh (an irascible, cranky pro-2A blogger and activist) once opined that if Mahatma Gandhi had tried his civil disobedience tactics on the Imperial Japanese (circa WW2), his bayoneted and beheaded corpse would've been found floating down the Ganges River along with his followers. The tactics work with a people and government who prefer peaceful resolution and are willing to listen, as well as having a moral center that abides by such. Iran does not have that. Britain did, hence why Gandhi got away with it.

What the Florida law should have stated was "Once the vote recount is complete, you must turn in the results of your recount within 24 hours.". It doesn't do any good to have a vote recount, unless all the votes are duly counted, ...regardless of how long that takes. Anything less is just throwing the election in favor of the just the votes that were turned in and counted early. How is that, in any way, just or fair? Does that make the election complete?

That's an interesting point on what you make about peaceful protests. Peaceful protests worked with Martin Luther King back in 1963. When he marched on Washington, he brought about a million people with him (literally), and while not trespassing on Capitol property, a sea of people made it know to the Congress that they wished for civil rights to be implemented. This went directly against what the Goldwater Republicans were trying to accomplish, and they had to drive through the masses after they were finished with their business in Congress at the end of the day. I'm certain the impression was made, with implications for what would happen to Congress if they failed to execute the will of the people.

The Drumpf did it wrong, of course. He didn't need twenty-five thousand, along with a handful of ridiculous cosplayers to storm Capitol Hill. He needed about two and a half million Americans to stand up for what is right. They voted, but actually didn't show up when called out. And all they really needed to do was surround the Capitol, and let Congress know what the will of the people looks like. That would have made for a very interesting day. 

Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 22, 2021, 11:51:27 AM
Free Speech was for the protection of "unsafe" speech so people could say unpopular, untrue, or offensive speech without any actual repercussions.
Free Speech was never meant to shield people from repercussions of knowingly making untrue statements.
Nonsense, free speech never required a pass through the fact checkers.
Sure, you can say it, but you're not protected from repercussions for knowingly spreading lies.
Yes, you are. That's exactly how free speech works.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 22, 2021, 12:01:43 PM
I will note, though, that part of Parler's lawsuit is that AWS breached contract, giving them no time to rectify any situation. They're saying they should've had 30 days from notice of issue; Amazon is saying 'we can shut it down when we like'.

If Parler actually signed a contract giving AWS a blank check on shutting them down, then they're boned.
Contract law is fucked. Nobody "signs" anything with big companies anymore. You just click the box that you've read their terms of service. They can put anything they want in there, update it whenever, and clearly nobody really cares because TOS are never a factor in reviews. Almost nobody ever reads them, and even those who do generally don't know what it means anyway.

The only real exception is peer-to-peer business arrangements, where lawyers and execs hash out terms on roughly equal footing. But if you're a tiny company against a giant, or an end user against anyone, there's zero opportunity for negotiation.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 22, 2021, 12:03:37 PM
Also just so you know, peaceful protest, ...doesn't really work. It's a complete waste of time and resources. Here is an example of the peaceful protest march of Iranian Women, marching for their right to dress as they prefer, and demanding equal rights.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/iran-women-revolution-hijab-protests-ayatollah-khomeini-a8251686.html
Mike Vanderboegh (an irascible, cranky pro-2A blogger and activist) once opined that if Mahatma Gandhi had tried his civil disobedience tactics on the Imperial Japanese (circa WW2), his bayoneted and beheaded corpse would've been found floating down the Ganges River along with his followers. The tactics work with a people and government who prefer peaceful resolution and are willing to listen, as well as having a moral center that abides by such. Iran does not have that. Britain did, hence why Gandhi got away with it.

Yeah, and if Martin Luther King Jr had tried civil disobedience in a violent country, he would have ended up shot in the head. Except... that's how he did end up. But killing him didn't end the movement that he supported. His killing reinforced the idea that his opponents were wrong.

Earlier in history, Christianity has thousands of peaceful martyrs who were killed by violent rulers. But creating martyrs didn't end Christianity as a religion -- it made the rulers even less popular, and often Christianity flourished in the face of this opposition.

Peaceful protest isn't an automatic win - but neither is violent revolution. Both have had some successes and a lot of failures.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 22, 2021, 12:11:34 PM

Yeah, and if Martin Luther King Jr had tried civil disobedience in a violent country, he would have ended up shot in the head. Except... that's how he did end up. But killing him didn't end the movement that he supported. His killing reinforced the idea that his opponents were wrong.

Earlier in history, Christianity has thousands of peaceful martyrs who were killed by violent rulers. But creating martyrs didn't end Christianity as a religion -- it made the rulers even less popular, and often Christianity flourished in the face of this opposition.

Peaceful protest isn't an automatic win - but neither is violent revolution. Both have had some successes and a lot of failures.
Are you seriously equating one asshole bigot with a rifle to, oh, say, the repression seen at Tianamen Square? There's a bit of difference.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 22, 2021, 12:39:28 PM
Peaceful protest isn't an automatic win - but neither is violent revolution. Both have had some successes and a lot of failures.
On the other hand, mostly peaceful protests have a 100% success rate.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on January 22, 2021, 03:17:21 PM
If Parler actually signed a contract giving AWS a blank check on shutting them down, then they're boned.

They did not sign a blank check contract which is why Parler is suing Amazon for breach of contract.

Amazons defence?  Orange man bad.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 22, 2021, 03:58:48 PM
Yeah, and if Martin Luther King Jr had tried civil disobedience in a violent country, he would have ended up shot in the head. Except... that's how he did end up. But killing him didn't end the movement that he supported. His killing reinforced the idea that his opponents were wrong.

Earlier in history, Christianity has thousands of peaceful martyrs who were killed by violent rulers. But creating martyrs didn't end Christianity as a religion -- it made the rulers even less popular, and often Christianity flourished in the face of this opposition.

Peaceful protest isn't an automatic win - but neither is violent revolution. Both have had some successes and a lot of failures.

Are you seriously equating one asshole bigot with a rifle to, oh, say, the repression seen at Tianamen Square? There's a bit of difference.

I'm not saying they are the same. But the point is that the use of violence doesn't necessarily undo non-violent resistance. If Ghandi had been killed, that wouldn't have meant that his cause didn't work. He might well have had more effect as a martyr than as a living figure.

I cited Christian martyrs who were killed by the thousands at times. In modern times, the Soviet Union was extremely brutal - but they were toppled by non-violent means.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: HappyDaze on January 22, 2021, 05:51:47 PM
Free Speech was for the protection of "unsafe" speech so people could say unpopular, untrue, or offensive speech without any actual repercussions.
Free Speech was never meant to shield people from repercussions of knowingly making untrue statements.
Nonsense, free speech never required a pass through the fact checkers.
Sure, you can say it, but you're not protected from repercussions for knowingly spreading lies.
Yes, you are. That's exactly how free speech works.
You're a fucking idiot. Go lie about being a lawyer/doctor and then charge someone for legal/medical advice and try and claim it was "free speech" to do so. There's also slander and libel for a reason, and free speech again doesn't hold up when you're knowingly spreading false information. What a dumb motherfucker you are.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: EOTB on January 22, 2021, 06:18:11 PM
When others talk about free speech, my answer includes fraud as a counterpoint
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on January 22, 2021, 06:29:59 PM
Sure, you can say it, but you're not protected from repercussions for knowingly spreading lies.
Yes, you are. That's exactly how free speech works.
You're a fucking idiot. Go lie about being a lawyer/doctor and then charge someone for legal/medical advice and try and claim it was "free speech" to do so. There's also slander and libel for a reason, and free speech again doesn't hold up when you're knowingly spreading false information. What a dumb motherfucker you are.

This is talking past each other. There are specific forms of speech that are not covered under free speech - like libel, slander, false advertising, fraud, etc. However, these are all limited cases -- they are judged by specific criteria other than just lying or not.

There is no general exception to free speech for knowingly spreading lies.

That said, the issue of "repercussions" is also vague - and free speech allows some kinds of repercussions. Free speech might allow someone to tell lies - but it also allows another person to call them a liar and ruin their reputation.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: moonsweeper on January 22, 2021, 06:33:40 PM
Free Speech was for the protection of "unsafe" speech so people could say unpopular, untrue, or offensive speech without any actual repercussions.
Free Speech was never meant to shield people from repercussions of knowingly making untrue statements.
Nonsense, free speech never required a pass through the fact checkers.
Sure, you can say it, but you're not protected from repercussions for knowingly spreading lies.
Yes, you are. That's exactly how free speech works.
You're a fucking idiot. Go lie about being a lawyer/doctor and then charge someone for legal/medical advice and try and claim it was "free speech" to do so. There's also slander and libel for a reason, and free speech again doesn't hold up when you're knowingly spreading false information. What a dumb motherfucker you are.

That is why there is a legal standard for fraud, libel, and slander.
But just plain 'generic' lying that does not meet those terms is indeed 'free speech.'

edit : *ninja'd by jhkim*
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on January 22, 2021, 07:44:07 PM
Free Speech was for the protection of "unsafe" speech so people could say unpopular, untrue, or offensive speech without any actual repercussions.
Free Speech was never meant to shield people from repercussions of knowingly making untrue statements.
Nonsense, free speech never required a pass through the fact checkers.
Sure, you can say it, but you're not protected from repercussions for knowingly spreading lies.
Yes, you are. That's exactly how free speech works.
You're a fucking idiot. Go lie about being a lawyer/doctor and then charge someone for legal/medical advice and try and claim it was "free speech" to do so. There's also slander and libel for a reason, and free speech again doesn't hold up when you're knowingly spreading false information. What a dumb motherfucker you are.
You repeatedly made broad, absolute claims that free speech does not protect against lying. Those are false statements. Its whole point is to protect speech, including many lies. There are certainly exceptions, like slander and libel, crying fire in a movie theater, and so on[1]; but they're narrow, carefully circumscribed, and don't prove that lies are not protected. To support what you said, you need to prove that lying is never covered under free speech. Which you can't, because that's simply not true. For instance, look up the case of the guy who claimed he won the medal of honor, when he didn't. There was even an explicit law that made it illegal (the Stolen Valor Act), and they went after him in court. But he won, and that part of the law was overthrown, because the Supreme Court ruled that his right of freedom of speech, even when lying about something that huge majorities of people find incredibly distasteful, was protected.

tl;dr You're a fucking idiot.

[1] But not the part about being a doctor. If you want to go to a bar, and say you're a doctor to get someone to sleep with you? It's protected. The legal concept you're thinking of is practicing medicine without a license, which is prohibiting an act. It's not a form of speech. Or if it involves conning someone of their money, it's fraud. Which is another narrow exception.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Kyle Aaron on January 22, 2021, 09:49:56 PM
A friend tells me Antifa accounts have been suspended from Twitter, too. I did a websearch on this, and this NY Post article (https://nypost.com/2021/01/22/twitter-suspends-antifa-accounts-with-over-71k-followers/) came up. The article carries the implications of what the ctrl-left like to call Whataboutism (which is only a sin when the alt-right do it), but it appears to be true - some antifa bookshop/training centre's (https://t.co/PEqeOTa8WH?amp=1) account has been suspended (https://twitter.com/TheBaseBK) at time of this posting.

I do like that on the account of another anarchist group reporting this (https://twitter.com/AntifaSac_/status/1352433178879827968), only those the account follows can post. "Anarchy! No, not like that..."

The friend cheekily posted this news to an rpg.net thread discussing Drumpf's twitter ban, her post was removed and she was given a warning.

As well, the Jim Rutt Show (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw1Sl_jFYRl2gbkBLp7w4lg) podcast has had its page (https://www.facebook.com/jimruttshow) removed from Facebook at time of this writing. I find it hard to imagine what in his podcasts anyone could take offence to, presumably Rutt said something offensive at some point, as he notes on Twitter (https://twitter.com/jim_rutt/status/1352718406668185607) that it may be because his FB podcast page was connected to his personal account.

I think it's interesting news, though obviously the ctrl-left will go "la la la I can't hear you!" If the social media giants ban everyone "inciting violence" regardless of ideology, that's going to have implications for future civil resistance groups of all kinds. As wikipedia says, the role of social media in the Arab Spring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spring) is debated, but if nothing else it was a means of communication. How about future Colour Revolutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution)? Hong Kong? If the PRC invaded and occupied Taiwan, and the Taiwanese used social media to urge resistance against the invasion, would they be banned for "inciting violence"?

These are difficult issues even if you're genuinely trying to be fair and impartial.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Snowman0147 on January 22, 2021, 10:15:51 PM
First...  Fuck off to the hell of your own making you piece of shit.

Secondly of all the years the far left had been calling for censoring the right and canceling out of society you now want help.  Bitch the only hypocrite is you useful idiot.  Conservatives and free thinkers warned your sorry ass for years and you did nothing to change that.  You just laughed and cheered as you watch people you don't like get banned for having a opinion you disagreed with. 

You help create this shit so you end it yourself.  I stay comfortably in my alt tech sites and if you dare visit the people you helped ban will just gatekeep you out.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Mjollnir on March 02, 2021, 06:35:48 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/y8LUXQk.jpg)

Everything wrong with boomers in one image.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ghostmaker on March 03, 2021, 10:37:59 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/y8LUXQk.jpg)

Everything wrong with boomers in one image.
Before you get too far along on the high horse, keep in mind that the left has been demanding a chance to dip repeatedly into inherited wealth via taxation for a while.

In other words, you might have to spend it because your kids sure aren't going to get the chance.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on March 03, 2021, 01:33:38 PM
Before you get too far along on the high horse, keep in mind that the left has been demanding a chance to dip repeatedly into inherited wealth via taxation for a while.

In other words, you might have to spend it because your kids sure aren't going to get the chance.

Wealth Tax is fucking bullshit.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Ghostmaker on March 03, 2021, 01:56:46 PM
Before you get too far along on the high horse, keep in mind that the left has been demanding a chance to dip repeatedly into inherited wealth via taxation for a while.

In other words, you might have to spend it because your kids sure aren't going to get the chance.

Wealth Tax is fucking bullshit.
Yes, yes it is.

The U.S. federal government, and many states and localities, already dip into your pocket regularly in the form of taxation on various goods and services. Those are bad enough. A wealth tax, assessing what you have already purchased with money that's already been squeezed, is an abomination.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on March 03, 2021, 06:19:29 PM
Before you get too far along on the high horse, keep in mind that the left has been demanding a chance to dip repeatedly into inherited wealth via taxation for a while.

In other words, you might have to spend it because your kids sure aren't going to get the chance.

Wealth Tax is fucking bullshit.
We already have a wealth tax. In the US, it works out to about 2% of everyone's income AND their savings being taxed away, every year. They just try to hide it as "inflation".
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on March 03, 2021, 06:26:36 PM
Before you get too far along on the high horse, keep in mind that the left has been demanding a chance to dip repeatedly into inherited wealth via taxation for a while.

In other words, you might have to spend it because your kids sure aren't going to get the chance.

Wealth Tax is fucking bullshit.
We already have a wealth tax. In the US, it works out to about 2% of everyone's income AND their savings being taxed away, every year. They just try to hide it as "inflation".

Inflation is not a tax on wealth, it is a tax on cash.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on March 03, 2021, 06:29:02 PM
Before you get too far along on the high horse, keep in mind that the left has been demanding a chance to dip repeatedly into inherited wealth via taxation for a while.

In other words, you might have to spend it because your kids sure aren't going to get the chance.

Wealth Tax is fucking bullshit.
We already have a wealth tax. In the US, it works out to about 2% of everyone's income AND their savings being taxed away, every year. They just try to hide it as "inflation".

Inflation is not a tax on wealth, it is a tax on cash.
If you have $10,000 in the bank, and prices inflate by 2%, your $10,000 is worth 2% less, the same as if you were taxed 2%.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on March 03, 2021, 06:34:05 PM
Before you get too far along on the high horse, keep in mind that the left has been demanding a chance to dip repeatedly into inherited wealth via taxation for a while.

In other words, you might have to spend it because your kids sure aren't going to get the chance.

Wealth Tax is fucking bullshit.
We already have a wealth tax. In the US, it works out to about 2% of everyone's income AND their savings being taxed away, every year. They just try to hide it as "inflation".

Inflation is not a tax on wealth, it is a tax on cash.
If you have $10,000 in the bank, and prices inflate by 2%, your $10,000 is worth 2% less, the same as if you were taxed 2%.

You use your $10,000 in the bank to buy a $10,000 house.  Prices inflate by 2% so now your house is worth 2% more.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on March 03, 2021, 08:45:27 PM
Before you get too far along on the high horse, keep in mind that the left has been demanding a chance to dip repeatedly into inherited wealth via taxation for a while.

In other words, you might have to spend it because your kids sure aren't going to get the chance.

Wealth Tax is fucking bullshit.
We already have a wealth tax. In the US, it works out to about 2% of everyone's income AND their savings being taxed away, every year. They just try to hide it as "inflation".

Inflation is not a tax on wealth, it is a tax on cash.
If you have $10,000 in the bank, and prices inflate by 2%, your $10,000 is worth 2% less, the same as if you were taxed 2%.

You use your $10,000 in the bank to buy a $10,000 house.  Prices inflate by 2% so now your house is worth 2% more.
Not how it works. Inflation doesn't happen uniformly across the economy. Gold and real estate, for instance, are good hedges against inflation.

As long the government gets their 2%, they're happy. And they make sure their friends (the rich) are relatively protected, while everyone else (regular folks) take most of the hit.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on March 03, 2021, 08:47:09 PM
Before you get too far along on the high horse, keep in mind that the left has been demanding a chance to dip repeatedly into inherited wealth via taxation for a while.

In other words, you might have to spend it because your kids sure aren't going to get the chance.

Wealth Tax is fucking bullshit.
We already have a wealth tax. In the US, it works out to about 2% of everyone's income AND their savings being taxed away, every year. They just try to hide it as "inflation".

Inflation is not a tax on wealth, it is a tax on cash.
If you have $10,000 in the bank, and prices inflate by 2%, your $10,000 is worth 2% less, the same as if you were taxed 2%.

You use your $10,000 in the bank to buy a $10,000 house.  Prices inflate by 2% so now your house is worth 2% more.
Not how it works. Inflation doesn't happen uniformly across the economy. Gold and real estate, for instance, are good hedges against inflation.

As long the government gets their 2%, they're happy. And they make sure their friends (the rich) are relatively protected, while everyone else (regular folks) take most of the hit.

So then what is your inflation figure for real estate? I am happy to use what ever figure you prefer.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on March 03, 2021, 09:01:52 PM
So then what is your inflation figure for real estate? I am happy to use what ever figure you prefer.
What does that have to do with anything?
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Shasarak on March 03, 2021, 09:09:26 PM
So then what is your inflation figure for real estate? I am happy to use what ever figure you prefer.
What does that have to do with anything?

That really sums it all up nicely, thank you.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: jhkim on March 04, 2021, 01:42:03 PM
You use your $10,000 in the bank to buy a $10,000 house.  Prices inflate by 2% so now your house is worth 2% more.

Not how it works. Inflation doesn't happen uniformly across the economy. Gold and real estate, for instance, are good hedges against inflation.

As long the government gets their 2%, they're happy. And they make sure their friends (the rich) are relatively protected, while everyone else (regular folks) take most of the hit.

In general, I think that the government does indeed favor the rich.

However, inflation does not seem to be a good example of this. It mostly hurts those who keep their savings as cash, as Shasarak said. For those who invest their money reasonably, it doesn't hurt. For those with little savings, it also doesn't hurt much - and it can help those who are in debt.

That makes it an incentive for the rich to invest their cash, making the economy more mobile. My impression from most economists is that a moderate level of inflation (1-2%) is good for the economy for this reason.
Title: Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
Post by: Pat on March 04, 2021, 02:14:51 PM
You use your $10,000 in the bank to buy a $10,000 house.  Prices inflate by 2% so now your house is worth 2% more.

Not how it works. Inflation doesn't happen uniformly across the economy. Gold and real estate, for instance, are good hedges against inflation.

As long the government gets their 2%, they're happy. And they make sure their friends (the rich) are relatively protected, while everyone else (regular folks) take most of the hit.

In general, I think that the government does indeed favor the rich.

However, inflation does not seem to be a good example of this. It mostly hurts those who keep their savings as cash, as Shasarak said. For those who invest their money reasonably, it doesn't hurt. For those with little savings, it also doesn't hurt much - and it can help those who are in debt.

That makes it an incentive for the rich to invest their cash, making the economy more mobile. My impression from most economists is that a moderate level of inflation (1-2%) is good for the economy for this reason.
Inflation has two definitions. One, is an increase in the money supply. The Fed (electronically) printing more dollars, for instance. The other is a measure of the rise of prices. This is traditionally measured by the consumer price index, but that's a very bad measure because it's tied to basket of household goods, and thus doesn't account for price increases in other key areas, like housing, healthcare, education, or the entire capital goods sector. The two definitions are related, because inflating the money supply does lead to higher prices, though it's not a precise 1:1 ratio, there's a lag, and it's not evenly distributed throughout the economy. Specifically, the people who benefit most from monetary inflation are those who get the new money first, and are thus able to spend it (invest it) before the prices rise. The losers are the people who get the new money last, and thus have to buy things at the newly inflated prices.

When a central bank creates money, the people who get the new money first are the bankers, who then loan it to the capital sector. The people who get the new money last are consumers, because they have to wait for the money to wind its way through the capital sector before it increases wages. This is why the banking sector has grown vastly over the least 40 years, and the stock market has boomed, while wages have remained flat.