Groups representing Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon sue Florida

#27
#27
Orangeslice13 said:
Read the following post.
Lose the legal protection or stop silencing things you disagree with. Seems like the government is already overly involved here.
Click to expand...

I'm torn on this. If the .gov did away with the legal protection open forums receive, good ones like VN would be vulnerable. With that said I believe FB and Twitter stepped into the publisher category long ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and Orangeslice13
#28
#28
utvolpj said:
And it should be forced to show all views, opinions, language, pics, etc?
Click to expand...


If VN rises to the level of Twitter/Amazon/Facebook where they can crush opposition views with potentially unfair business practices then yes.

Either allow everyone to speak or lose the legal protection of not being a publisher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and NorthDallas40
#29
#29
Orangeslice13 said:
If VN rises to the level of Twitter/Amazon/Facebook where they can crush opposition views with potentially unfair business practices then yes.

Either allow everyone to speak or lose the legal protection of not being a publisher.
Click to expand...
That's the thing, it won't have to get to that level
 
#30
#30
Orangeslice13 said:
You good with Tennessee American water company cutting off water to the local Democrats? They can get water elsewhere. Right?
Click to expand...

Can you offer an example that isn't a strawman? Twitter isn't providing a basic utility to the public under monopolistic conditions.
 
#31
#31
n_huffhines said:
They'd say, "You mean to tell me the media someday will act with bias? They still deserve 1st amendment rights."
Click to expand...

I think they would have a few questions before asking that. They may inquire how the town square came to be controlled almost exclusively by tech giants and how multiple different companies are able to legally conspire to throw certain people off multiple platforms simultaneously and to simultaneously negate efforts of a similar corporation from taking root.

If you don't want to make a gay wedding cake, that's fine. But you can't form a coalition of bakers against gay wedding cakes and conspire to get rid of any bakers who would want to bake them, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#32
#32
Orangeslice13 said:
If VN rises to the level of Twitter/Amazon/Facebook where they can crush opposition views with potentially unfair business practices then yes.

Either allow everyone to speak or lose the legal protection of not being a publisher.
Click to expand...

Who get's to decide when a platform goes from a VN sized pip squeak to a Conservative voice crushing liberal bastion of lies and despair?
 
#33
#33
SamRebel35 said:
I think they would have a few questions before asking that. They may inquire how the town square came to be controlled almost exclusively by tech giants and how multiple different companies are able to legally conspire to throw certain people off multiple platforms simultaneously and to simultaneously negate efforts of a similar corporation from taking root.

If you don't want to make a gay wedding cake, that's fine. But you can't form a coalition of bakers against gay wedding cakes and conspire to get rid of any bakers who would want to bake them, right?
Click to expand...

I am not sure how the founding fathers felt about monopolies, cartels, and coalitions. All I know is they left us a republic libertarian enough to allow people to form monopolies, cartels, and even coalitions of bakers. We now have anti trust law, and I have no problem with the government going after big tech with anti trust, but this Florida law is complete BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#34
#34
Septic said:
Can you offer an example that isn't a strawman? Twitter isn't providing a basic utility to the public under monopolistic conditions.
Click to expand...
Twitter isn’t a monopoly?
Well **** fire.
Everyone should jump on the other platforms.
Wait, are there any......there was one......what happened to it?

The Democrats can buy bottled water. It’s no problem because private companies should be able to sell to whoever they want. Or not as the case may be
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Rickyvol77
#36
#36
SamRebel35 said:
I think they would have a few questions before asking that. They may inquire how the town square came to be controlled almost exclusively by tech giants and how multiple different companies are able to legally conspire to throw certain people off multiple platforms simultaneously and to simultaneously negate efforts of a similar corporation from taking root.

If you don't want to make a gay wedding cake, that's fine. But you can't form a coalition of bakers against gay wedding cakes and conspire to get rid of any bakers who would want to bake them, right?
Click to expand...

There's no coalition of back room conspirators. These platforms looked at what their users wanted and made a business choice, take a stand or be canceled. These companies aren't angels, they're following the money and the smart money told them to ditch the lying scumbag politicians.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
Septic said:
There's no coalition of back room conspirators. These platforms looked at what there users wanted and made a business choice, take a stand or be canceled. These companies aren't angels, they're following the money and the smart money told them to ditch the lying scumbag politicians.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, they only ditch lying scumbags they disagree with politically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, VolStrom and Orangeslice13
#39
#39
Orangeslice13 said:
Twitter isn’t a monopoly?
Well **** fire.
Everyone should jump on the other platforms.
Wait, are there any......there was one......what happened to it?

The Democrats can buy bottled water. It’s no problem because private companies should be able to sell to whoever they want. Or not as the case may be
Click to expand...
There are several others: Gab, Parler, Reddit, Facebook...

What did you think happened to them?
 
#41
#41
Tik Tok, Snapchat, MySpace, YouTube... that’s not even counting the half-dozen or so Chinese companies or, you know, the actual town square.
 
#43
#43
RockyTop85 said:
Tik Tok, Snapchat, MySpace, YouTube... that’s not even counting the half-dozen or so Chinese companies or, you know, the actual town square.
Click to expand...
And this law should be equally applied to all of them.
With the exception of that park owning BS
 
#44
#44
Orangeslice13 said:
Twitter isn’t a monopoly?
Well **** fire.
Everyone should jump on the other platforms.
Wait, are there any......there was one......what happened to it?

The Democrats can buy bottled water. It’s no problem because private companies should be able to sell to whoever they want. Or not as the case may be
Click to expand...

It's not a monopoly. There are several large social media platforms so it's not a monopoly by the Webster definition and it doesn't fit the economic criteria:
  • A monopoly market is characterized by the profit maximizer, price maker, high barriers to entry, single seller, and price discrimination.
  • Monopoly characteristics include profit maximizer, price maker, high barriers to entry, single seller, and price discrimination.
  • Sources of monopoly power include economies of scale, capital requirements, technological superiority, no substitute goods, control of natural resources, legal barriers, and deliberate actions.
Introduction to Monopoly | Boundless Economics
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#45
#45
Orangeslice13 said:
And this law should be equally applied to all of them.
With the exception of that park owning BS
Click to expand...
What’s the rationale for that, if it’s not a monopoly on a basic human need, like the water company?

You can even pretend the first amendment doesn’t apply.
 
#46
#46
n_huffhines said:
I am not sure how the founding fathers felt about monopolies, cartels, and coalitions. All I know is they left us a republic libertarian enough to allow people to form monopolies, cartels, and even coalitions of bakers. We now have anti trust law, and I have no problem with the government going after big tech with anti trust, but this Florida law is complete BS.
Click to expand...

I'm not really in favor of it myself (especially the very strange part about amusement parks?). But I also don't think that "Just build your own internet monopoly of like-minded political bretheren" is a great way to give everyone a voice in what has become the new town square.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#47
#47
SamRebel35 said:
I think they would have a few questions before asking that. They may inquire how the town square came to be controlled almost exclusively by tech giants and how multiple different companies are able to legally conspire to throw certain people off multiple platforms simultaneously and to simultaneously negate efforts of a similar corporation from taking root.
Click to expand...
Except it's not the town square. It's Twitter.com, Facebook.com, square.
 
#49
#49
RockyTop85 said:
What’s the rationale for that, if it’s not a monopoly on a basic human need, like the water company?

You can even pretend the first amendment doesn’t apply.
Click to expand...
We currently will not allow TV to pick and choose which political candidate they run adds for. I don’t see that as a hardship for any SM platform. The basic human need of a water company isn’t required. People can get water elsewhere. It’s available in bottles in every store. Sure it’s inconvenient but that sucks for you if you have the wrong opinion. It’s not like water is free. If you don’t pay they shut it off.
They should be allowed to sell to whoever they want for whatever reason , right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top