Politics 2020 - the gift that keeps giving

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Anti trust laws do NOT apply to Social Media. Not even close. 

Why shouldn't or couldn't anti-monopoly laws apply to Social Media companies who are monopolies? I understand that maybe right now existing anti-trust laws might not fit, but laws can be updated or brand new laws introduced. 

I'm sorry but if a Christian baker can be legally forced to provide service to people he don't want to provide service and don't agree with then how can you logically explain inability to force SM to provide service to people they don't want to provide service and don't agree with?

[Guard Dog]

9 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Why shouldn't or couldn't anti-monopoly laws apply to Social Media companies who are monopolies? I understand that maybe right now existing anti-trust laws might not fit, but laws can be updated or brand new laws introduced. 

I'm sorry but if a Christian baker can be legally forced to provide service to people he don't want to provide service and don't agree with then how can you logically explain inability to force SM to provide service to people they don't want to provide service and don't agree with?

Suppose you live in this big neighborhood. And your house is the only one that has a pool. You built the pool. It’s your pool it’s in your yard. And because it’s the only one all the kids in the neighborhood come over to swim with your kids. And you let them. You give them permission to swim in the pool you built. Now suppose one of the kids just getting out of line. Suppose That kid is being mean to your kid. Or saying things you don’t like. So you tell the kid you have to go home. Do you really want the government coming to you and saying no you must let this child swim in your pool in your yard? It is your pool. Do you see where I’m going with this?

[ComradeYellow]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

In Act of Heresy, N.R.A.’s Former No. 2 Calls for Gun Control

What a hot mess the NRA is now. Oh well. Trust no one, believe in no one, expect nothing.

Awesome!  I love how the right is just shooting themselves (no pun intended!) in the foot with their own alleged principles.  Again there are so many opportunities here for the left to swoop in and claim to help build a better coalition.

Small government/decentralized, pro-gun, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist leftists?!  Well, politics is the art of the possible.

Edited September 3, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Hurlshort]

25 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Why shouldn't or couldn't anti-monopoly laws apply to Social Media companies who are monopolies? I understand that maybe right now existing anti-trust laws might not fit, but laws can be updated or brand new laws introduced. 

I'm sorry but if a Christian baker can be legally forced to provide service to people he don't want to provide service and don't agree with then how can you logically explain inability to force SM to provide service to people they don't want to provide service and don't agree with?

The baker sells cakes. He can't pick and choose who he sells cakes to because of race or religion. He can say "I don't bake chocolate cakes." If someone comes into his shop and starts screaming obscenities, he can refuse to do business with them.

If Facebook starts banning people based on race or religion, or even political party, then there is a lawsuit potential. But that isn't what is happening.  

[Hurlshort]

1 minute ago, Hurlshot said:

The baker sells cakes. He can't pick and choose who he sells cakes to because of race or religion. He can say "I don't bake chocolate cakes." If someone comes into his shop and starts screaming obscenities, he can refuse to do business with them.

If Facebook starts banning people based SOLELY on race or religion, or even political party, then there is a lawsuit potential. But that isn't what is happening.  

 

[Malcador]

SCOTUS sided with the baker, as well.    So the ideal end point is no rules on content in a social media platform ?

[Skarpen]

28 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Suppose you live in this big neighborhood. And your house is the only one that has a pool. You built the pool. It’s your pool it’s in your yard. And because it’s the only one all the kids in the neighborhood come over to swim with your kids. And you let them. You give them permission to swim in the pool you built. Now suppose one of the kids just getting out of line. Suppose That kid is being mean to your kid. Or saying things you don’t like. So you tell the kid you have to go home. Do you really want the government coming to you and saying no you must let this child swim in your pool in your yard? It is your pool. Do you see where I’m going with this?

I'm not a business private pool is not a good analogy. If however I would run a public pool and ban a kid because he is black or have a political t-shirt I don't like or his parents are democrats then yes I would have no problem by government saying I cannot do that. 

14 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

The baker sells cakes. He can't pick and choose who he sells cakes to because of race or religion. He can say "I don't bake chocolate cakes." If someone comes into his shop and starts screaming obscenities, he can refuse to do business with them.

If Facebook starts banning people based on race or religion, or even political party, then there is a lawsuit potential. But that isn't what is happening.  

Oh, it's exactly what's happening. SM are banning people for political, social etc. views and opinions.

  

5 minutes ago, Malcador said:

SCOTUS sided with the baker, as well.    So the ideal end point is no rules on content in a social media platform ?

I could draw a line on criminal activity. I'm not unreasonable.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Skarpen

[ComradeYellow]

38 minutes ago, Malcador said:

SCOTUS sided with the baker, as well.    So the ideal end point is no rules on content in a social media platform ?

Ideally yes but, reality turns much different than idealism when you factor in the power aspect.

Facebook has 2.5+ billion accounts on its website, extremely difficult for a boardroom to manage on its own, and a significant portion of these accounts are what you would call "enemies of the U.S. status quo", so if you you attract adversaries of the U.S. government, naturally you're gonna attract the U.S. government, and big tech CEO's being greasy cowards of course are gonna be fully cooperative in nanny-ing their websites so as not to upset Uncle Sam.

In reality, challenging the U.S. Government is about as Patriotic as you can get.

So much for massive corporations, even Wal-Mart has stopped selling various types of ammunition to be in compliance with the state. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Social media has terms of service that you agree to when signing up, something tells me they've got themselves covered from lawsuits based upon that alone. **** around and find out I guess.

Even if I agree that social media is effectively a monopoly, it's kind of weird to see people who would normally advocate the premise of businesses doing what they want with their property flipping their position whenever a business does something they don't like. Wouldn't the consistent response to be starting your own alternative or not using it?

[Guard Dog]

58 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I'm not a business private pool is not a good analogy. If however I would run a public pool and ban a kid because he is black or have a political t-shirt I don't like or his parents are democrats then yes I would have no problem by government saying I cannot do that. 

Actually it’s completely a good analogy because social media is also not a business. Not from the perspective of the end user anyway. You. How much do you pay to access Facebook? Twitter? The obsidian way off topic forum? These are services you can use for free with the permission of the owners of those services. We all get to post here because Obsidian will let us swim in their pool. Up to this point I have been arguing from a philosophical rather than a legal standpoint. But this is where the legal stuff starts to come in. I assume you were paying attention to what Gromnir said? If Fio or any other mod kicks me off this board for something I said, or just because they don’t like my avatar it doesn’t matter, they have not committed a crime when they did it. They have also not done injury to me by doing it. If they haven’t breached a contract with me, and they haven’t harmed me physically or financially there is no remedy the government can provide. Unless it suddenly gives itself new powers. You do NOT want that!

And it is not a monopoly. If I got kicked off Facebook and Twitter it doesn’t mean I’m kicked off LinkedIn or my space or any of the others out there.. if I got kicked off the obsidian form I can still post on bio wear or paradox. Or anywhere else for that matter. Do you see the point here? I’m afraid it cannot be broken down much more than this.

[Hurlshort]

You can also pretty much create a new account easy as pie.

[Guard Dog]

5 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

You can also pretty much create a new account easy as pie.

In fact I’m pretty sure it has been done! LOL!

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

I could draw a line on criminal activity. I'm not unreasonable.

So services would have to tolerate with a lot of antisocial types being on their service ? It's not illegal to be a prick, after all.

[Volourn]

"The baker sells cakes. He can't pick and choose who he sells cakes to because of race or religion"

he never did. Nor did he refuse to bake cakes for gays. In fact, he had made cakes for the people who sued him. they wanted him to make a specific type of cake which he said he didn't do. He never refused service due to race, religion, or sexual orientation.

 

"Social media has terms of service that you agree to when signing up, something tells me they've got themselves covered from lawsuits based upon that alone. "

Terms of service are not full proof. Contracts aren't fool proof. They have to follow the law.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Volourn

[Hurlshort]

22 minutes ago, Volourn said:

"The baker sells cakes. He can't pick and choose who he sells cakes to because of race or religion"

he never did. Nor did he refuse to bake cakes for gays. In fact, he had made cakes for the people who sued him. they wanted him to make a specific type of cake which he said he didn't do. He never refused service due to race, religion, or sexual orientation.

 

That's why he won. 

[Gromnir]

an observation which will no doubt muddy the waters: you got more Constitutionally protected speech rights on a public university campus than at a private institution precise 'cause the public uni is a government actor. "congress shall make no law..." however, such an observation is not the same as claiming you got more freedom o' speech at a public university campus than at any particular private institution.

when we says what is the law we ain't making claims as to what is right. there is often a significant difference 'tween what is legal and what is right. what government may do to limit your speech is not same as a claim 'bout what a government should or should not do. what the government does is often different than the should conclusion.

we can see there is much confusion 'bout what is the law and am sympathizing. to many, every Court ruling appears to be conflicting with some other Court ruling and when judges and Justices open disagree as to what is the clear meaning o' the law, it suggests law is more a matter o' perspective than the product o' impersonal and rational reflection. 

am also not claiming certainty that the europeans is doing wrong. is good arguments for increased regulation o any number o' activities even if we personal disagree with most o' those positions. don't need know law to make compelling arguments 'bout should.

'course once we get to folks suggesting what the US or the Courts or Congress need do to fix problems, then knowing what is law is kinda essential. act as if solutions is obvious when the Constitution forbids is counter-productive.

apologies. we would clarify, but am suspecting it would only have a chilling effect. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Skarpen]

2 hours ago, KaineParker said:

Even if I agree that social media is effectively a monopoly, it's kind of weird to see people who would normally advocate the premise of businesses doing what they want with their property flipping their position whenever a business does something they don't like. Wouldn't the consistent response to be starting your own alternative or not using it?

I never advocated that any business can do what they want. Do what you want is more of an anarchist statement and I'm rather far from anarchist worldview.

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Actually it’s completely a good analogy because social media is also not a business. Not from the perspective of the end user anyway. You. How much do you pay to access Facebook? Twitter? The obsidian way off topic forum? These are services you can use for free with the permission of the owners of those services. We all get to post here because Obsidian will let us swim in their pool. Up to this point I have been arguing from a philosophical rather than a legal standpoint. But this is where the legal stuff starts to come in. I assume you were paying attention to what Gromnir said? If Fio or any other mod kicks me off this board for something I said, or just because they don’t like my avatar it doesn’t matter, they have not committed a crime when they did it. They have also not done injury to me by doing it. If they haven’t breached a contract with me, and they haven’t harmed me physically or financially there is no remedy the government can provide. Unless it suddenly gives itself new powers. You do NOT want that!

And it is not a monopoly. If I got kicked off Facebook and Twitter it doesn’t mean I’m kicked off LinkedIn or my space or any of the others out there.. if I got kicked off the obsidian form I can still post on bio wear or paradox. Or anywhere else for that matter. Do you see the point here? I’m afraid it cannot be broken down much more than this.

I disagree about the analogy. 

Your definition of monopoly is either to simplistic or way outdated. Or both, actually.  One doesn't have to be the only provider of something to be considered monopoly. Microsoft is hardly the only provider of computer operating systems and other programs yet they have been the target of many EU anti-monopoly laws, because the sheer amount of market they cover makes them in essence a monopoly. And comparing Facebook to LinkedIn is ridiculous. Very different platforms with very different tools. Basically you claim that if one doesn't have access to AutoCAD you can use MathLab because it's also a computer program. Very ignorant comparison and I don't think you are ignorant person.

What you loose by not being able to use SM like Facebook was already covered nicely by Darkpriest a page or two ago. Look it up.

2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

You can also pretty much create a new account easy as pie.

Facebook and Twitter accounts are made in your name. Creating a false account is a violation of service and will get you banned. So back to square one. Not a solution. And in case of public figures it's counter intuitive to create account not under your name.

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

So services would have to tolerate with a lot of antisocial types being on their service ? It's not illegal to be a prick, after all.

Yes. I don't see why not. However the notion that antisocial people are in droves on Social Media is quite intriguing 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Skarpen

[Malcador]

8 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Yes. I don't see why not. However the notion that antisocial people are in droves on Social Media is quite intriguing 

Antisocial as in being against the norms, think the ASBOs in the UK.  Or just browse Facebook or Reddit to see the loons/racists/douchebags/Chelsea FC fans.

[ComradeYellow]

14 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Microsoft is hardly the only provider of computer operating systems yet they have been the target of many EU anti-monopoly laws, because the sheer amount of market they cover makes them in essence a monopoly.

Yes.  Which is why I'm not sure why a lot of people are still boycotting the Epic Games Store because Steam was the same way until they had a significant challenger.  Instead of legislating anti-monopoly laws why doesn't someone come in and challenge Apple and Microsoft? (Apple has literally blocked all EGS apps from their devices).  Life always finds a way to topple monolithic power structures, I'd say w/o state intervention.

Gosh I guess I am in fact turning more into an anarchist by the day!

All we gotta do is legislate better conditions/wages/living standards for workers and I think we're set.

[Zoraptor]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Suppose you live in this big neighborhood. And your house is the only one that has a pool. You built the pool. It’s your pool it’s in your yard. And because it’s the only one all the kids in the neighborhood come over to swim with your kids. And you let them. You give them permission to swim in the pool you built. Now suppose one of the kids just getting out of line. Suppose That kid is being mean to your kid. Or saying things you don’t like. So you tell the kid you have to go home. Do you really want the government coming to you and saying no you must let this child swim in your pool in your yard? It is your pool. Do you see where I’m going with this?

That's isn't really a good analogy though, because people don't go to Mark Zuckerberg and politely ask to use Facebook for half an hour in the afternoon in the summer; while Mr G. Dog esquire offers the use of his pool while paying for the maintenance, water, installation etc out of the goodness of his heart and general love for humanity. Nobody is going to have a problem limiting access there as much as you want.

Mark however plonks a big sign outside which says "All access free swimming pool, sign up now". And then sticks a load of mics and facial recognition cameras around the pool and sells access to the local ice cream man/ fast food man/ sunscreen salesman/ parasol rental agency/ deck chair renter/ local and federal law enforcement etc etc. At that point it's not just someone's private swimming pool for personal use in much the same way a restaurant focusing on grilled food- even if they don't charge for the food, but maybe charge for the drinks or a table or whatever- is a restaurant and cannot claim to be the same as a private barbeque instead.

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Your definition of monopoly is either to simplistic or way outdated.

Monopoly still has the same definition it always had. Regulators tend to go for companies for 'abusing market dominance' or similar though, or 'monopolistic practices'. For example, that's what they went after MS for when they bundled free Internet Exploiter, not being a monopoly per se. That's also what the Euros are going after Google for; using search dominance to embiggen their own services in other areas, at the cost of alternatives.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Skarpen]

11 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Monopoly still has the same definition it always had. Regulators tend to go for companies for 'abusing market dominance' or similar though, or 'monopolistic practices'. For example, that's what they went after MS for when they bundled free Internet Exploiter, not being a monopoly per se. That's also what the Euros are going after Google for; using search dominance to embiggen their own services in other areas, at the cost of alternatives.

That's just playing semantics imho.

[Malcador]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527

Well, guess it's good they didn't drone her.

[Orogun01]

As far as I understand it the deal with Social media being classified as public utility and censoring content has to do with the fact that they enjoy protections against libel while engaging in editorial practices. The phone analogy gets brought out because the phone company isn't held liable for the contents of a call, but a publisher would be.
 

[Gromnir]

Barr claims a man collected 1,700 ballots and filled them out as he pleased. Prosecutors say that’s not what happened.

Trump ‘Swears on Whatever’ He Never Called Slain Soldiers ‘Losers’

“Also, I never called John a loser and swear on whatever, or whoever, I was asked to swear on, that I never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES,”

wanted a pat on the back for approving the funeral o' mccain. 

 

Trump says ‘Portland has been burning for decades,’ excuses supporters who fired paintballs at counterprotesters

Trump told reporters Monday that Portland had “been under siege for years,” but said that he could “solve that problem in approximately one hour,” if Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler would let him.

In an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Trump expressed similar sentiments.

“Portland has been burning for many years, for decades it’s been burning,” he said.

Trump begins his hour-long interview Laura Ingraham by saying "Portland has been burning for many years, for decades it's been burning," which is a lie pic.twitter.com/wbzMqy6Uyj

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 1, 2020

He also, without evidence, pushed conspiracy theories about protesters in Portland being paid by outside agitators to protest.

...

we are so beyond spin with this administration. spin is what politicians do when they attempt to not get caught in an objective lie. trump doesn't care about getting caught 'cause the muslim ban brigade don't care if trump lies. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Skarpen]

39 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

trump doesn't care about getting caught 'cause the muslim ban brigade don't care if trump lies. 

Muslim Ban is the most shameful thing America has ever done.