it's going to be great when fb, twitter, and the like are nothing but dust in the wind. them and their pathetic ceo's!
Playing a bit of devil's advocate here, it's likely a breakup will open the door for companies like TikTok, which are Chinese and outside of the US's regulatory powers, to fill the power vacuum. Then what?
I still think anti-trust measures make sense, but you also have to be careful what you wish for, how it's done and the potential fallout. I believe Zuckerberger will actually make that point to Congress these days (don't like him or FB, and like I said, I think they should be broken up).
censor the internet
Probably the second biggest Grifter after Trump. I would put Tim Pool in 3rd place.
"classical liberal" has always just been a euphemism for libertarian. its why his whole "why i left the left" shtick was dishonest
why do you keep avoiding talking about strasserism? hiding your power level?
Last edited by spurraider21; 07-28-2020 at 10:14 PM.
NTIA asking the FCC to pass new law under the guise of 'clarification', since they can't get Congress to do it for them...
https://www.ntia.gov/files/ntia/publ...ng_7.27.20.pdf
Neat trick, if you can't get the law you want from the legislature, just take an existing law and twistify it.
Bezos prepared remarks
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...7-d7fbbfa80000
Monopoly power abuses businesses and users alike
Why does Facebook enable such scams? It’s simple. The law lets Facebook make a lot of money enabling counterfeiting. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Facebook from any consequences for the content of ads bought on their platform; they can’t be sued for facilitating fraud and counterfeiting, so they don’t have any incentive to do anything about it. With no one at Facebook actually paying attention to the scam artists who are buying these ads, scams proliferate.
This dynamic involved something an early 20th century economist named Thorstein Veblen called “Absentee Ownership,” which is when the locus of control and the locus of responsibility are different. Facebook isn’t legally responsible for the consequences of what goes up on its network, but it still has control over what goes up on its network. Meanwhile, Rothy’s has responsibility for its brand, but no control over how Facebook sells advertising by counterfeiters exploiting its brand.
The same incentives apply to Google, which has earned millions of dollars from companies selling fake health care plans, and has allowed advertisers to put up ads for fake customer service for Netflix as well as fake Microsoft Windows support. (Amazon has its own counterfeiting problem, which the Department of Homeland Security noted awhile back.)
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/a...mazon-facebookMonopolies are bad, but monopolies who don’t have to take responsibility for what they destroy are even worse.
This situation reflects the same absentee ownership dynamic on display in the counterfeiting ads enabled by Facebook and Google above. Amazon has control of the Marketplace structure, how consumers buy, and even the inventory of third parties, but it doesn’t have responsibility for any of it. Amazon gets paid whether it makes Zappos a dominant seller or whether it extracts fees from merchants for its warehousing and marketplace services, or whether its algorithm has glitches or not. It can’t be sued, because all merchants have to sign arbitration clauses in their contracts that prohibit lawsuits. Amazon is the government of online commerce, and who goes bankrupt based on Amazon’s arbitrary decisions is literally irrelevant to Bezos
We examined more than 15,000 recent popular queries and found that Google devoted 41 percent of the first page of search results on mobile devices to its own properties and what it calls “direct answers,” which are populated with information copied from other sources, sometimes without their knowledge or consent.The choice to highlight its own products has been deliberate: Internal emails unearthed by the European Commission in an an rust investigation show Google staffers discussing the need to place its comparison-shopping product at the top of the search results to garner traffic. An email the following year noted traffic to the retooled product had more than doubled from four million to 10 million visits, and “most of this growth is from improved google.com integration.”
https://themarkup.org/google-the-gia...er-compe orsGoogle makes five times as much revenue through advertising on its own properties as it does selling ad space on third-party websites.
Fifty U.S. attorneys general are currently investigating its ads and search business for potential an rust violations. The Federal Trade Commission is examining past acquisitions by tech companies, including Google, for harm to compe ion. Politico reported that the Department of Justice will file an an rust lawsuit against the company soon. The European Commission, which has already issued three multibillion-dollar fines against Alphabet for an rust violations since 2017, launched a preliminary investigation into Google for Jobs in 2019.
If section 230 is repealed or anything close to it, the internet as we know it would die. Almost no site would allow for user comments, uploads, etc if they can be found liable for allowing such content. Or if the alternative is that sites can only be liable if they editorialize/moderate content, then everything becomes 4chan
Even as it relates to ads, what if it’s not a clear scam but it’s a reputable company putting up a false or misleading ad?
I agree that Stoller's suggestion (and Sen Hawley's proposal) to do away with Section 230 is too destructive to take seriously, but his other suggestion -- to enforce an rust law -- seems right on the nose.
Agreed. But what administration is actually interested in that fight?
Good question.
Wow, another "enemy of the state" identified by the OP.
I'm guessing his next gambit will be to call for special camps where all these enemies of the state can be concentrated, so they stop posing a threat.
Funny how anyone who opposes certain worldviews is a "threat" or "enemy".
All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
Doubt it will be Biden's. Annoying that the corporate Democrats still have that much power.
TheGreatYacht
Dog n' pony show in progress...
Ripe for anti-trust.
3....2.....1..... ACTION
Zuckerberg stated he consulted conservative groups on moderation. Then when asked to name one he couldn't do it.
That won't be news. But in the future he'll know who his pretend conservative groups are. Some of this stuff is just rehearsal to work out the kinks.
I thought Zuck was smarter than to put criminal intent in an email
don't blame me, dm @ jack
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
