Author Topic: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus  (Read 82169 times)



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile
Anti-Trust developments
« Reply #752 on: June 18, 2021, 06:02:07 AM »
Biden’s Big Tech Hawks
Elsewhere in the policy world, the Biden administration has finalized it staffing of the Federal Trade Commission with the appointment of 32-year-old law professor Lina Khan as FTC chair. The Financial Times observes:

Biden’s decision to appoint Khan to chair the FTC — making her one of the youngest-ever heads of a federal agency — sends a signal of his administration’s intent to take a more aggressive stance towards Big Tech.

“This is the equivalent of an activist outsider suddenly becoming chairman of the board. And none of them saw it coming. None of them,” Kovacic added. “Their life just got much more difficult, and much more precarious.”

Khan rose to prominence after authoring a 2017 note in the Yale Law Journal titled “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” In the essay, then–law-student Khan argues against an antitrust jurisprudence that pegs “competition to ‘consumer welfare,’ defined as short-term price effects” (emphasis mine). The premise of the paper is that while Amazon’s low prices may benefit consumers in the short run, in the long run, they give the company problematic power.

Rather than focus on consumer welfare, Khan argues that antitrust regulators should look to “market structure,” by which she seems to mean market concentration. Despite demonstrably improving consumer welfare, Amazon’s dominance of e-commerce poses a threat, argues Khan, because “monopolistic and oligopolistic firms have greater bargaining power against consumers, suppliers, and workers, which enables them to hike prices and degrade service and quality while maintaining profits.”

The essay merits a more-thorough evaluation than I can fit in this newsletter, but I will note that nearly 30 years after its founding, Amazon’s “bargaining power” against consumers has yet to lead to price increases, nor does its firmwide minimum wage of $15 an hour suggest monopoly abuse of workers. Indeed, Amazon ranks among the most voracious hirers in the country, adding 500,000 workers in 2020 alone.

Anti-Amazon
Meanwhile, a cottage industry of Amazon competitors has cropped up in the past few years. A story in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal highlights the growing number of businesses “positioning themselves as anti-Amazons”:

ShopIN.nyc pools inventories from local businesses to create a local version of the “everything store” that Amazon is known for, thanks to the vast selection and lightning-speed delivery that founder Jeff Bezos made central pillars of the Seattle company’s strategy. ShopIN.nyc’s marketing is unsubtle: social-media campaigns carry slogans such as “Shop Boroughs, Not Bezo$” and “An ‘everything store’ that delivers faster than Amazon.”

Shopify, which helps smaller brands and retailers — including ShopIN.nyc — set up online, is something of a standard-bearer for the retail uprising. Chief Executive Tobias Lütke once quipped that “Amazon is trying to build an empire, and Shopify is trying to arm the rebels.” Its revenue doubled in the year through March, to $3.4 billion.

Elsewhere, start-up Instacart has stalled Amazon’s push into grocery deliveries, and legacy retailers are catching up to Amazon in the lucrative advertising business. A May report from the Boston Consulting Group highlighted the growing field of Retail Media, in which vendors such as Kroger and Target sell ad space on their websites. This shift in the ad industry is driven in part by companies’ explicitly attempting to reduce Amazon’s growing market share:

If the prospect of a new high-margin revenue stream (as much as 80%, compared with the typical in-store margin of 10% to 20%) is not a sufficient incentive, some retailers will also want to think about the need to protect existing trade and co-op dollars. In recent years, as brands have benefited from the relative transparency of digital marketing, the trade and co-op category has been facing pushback. Retail media is a way for retailers to hold on to this spending and tighten relationships with the companies whose brands they sell.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Re: Big Tech only has itself to blame for Rep shift to pro antitrust
« Reply #754 on: June 18, 2021, 08:02:38 AM »
second

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/17/big-tech-only-has-itself-to-blame-for-republican-rethinking-of-antitrust/

I was just reading Stephen Moore oppose anti Trust breakups of Big Tech.  https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/
https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CTUP_TheNewTrustBusters.pdf

Keeping the playing field level is the cornerstone of what a government role in a free market economy should be. Anti-trust actions should be taken against anti-competitive behavior, not based on size or market share alone.  Facebook buying Instagram was anti-competitive, even if a corrupt Obama Biden administration approved it.

If Biden "regulates" social media etc. or takes government ownership of them, it is not for the purpose or outcome of addressing what we think is wrong.  It will be to make what is wrong with them permanent.  Be careful what we wish for.

Public utility regulation is driving up electric costs for the consumer, way up.  Wouldn't you think it would be the opposite?

https://www.americanexperiment.org/center-of-the-american-experiment-testifies-on-the-minnesota-senates-clean-energy-first-bill-in-rochester/

With today's big tech, instead of direct consumer cost, we have exploitation.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2021, 08:13:22 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile
The Phone Company does not get to control what I say on my phone call.

The Goolag controls the public square AND controls what I say and what I see on it.

Sometimes this is done at the behest of the government (e.g. as we saw in Fauci's emails).

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
The Phone Company does not get to control what I say on my phone call.

The Goolag controls the public square AND controls what I say and what I see on it.

Sometimes this is done at the behest of the government (e.g. as we saw in Fauci's emails).


Right!  It is not anti-conservative to break up that control and to break up any cronyism between government and so-called industry.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Microsoft in bed with regime of China
« Reply #758 on: June 19, 2021, 05:10:54 AM »
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-18/microsoft-plans-massive-china-expansion-in-asia-wide-cloud-push?srnd=technology-vp&sref=nXmOg68r
-------
If it is "internet services" they are providing, someone see if our US China thread comes up there.  If it is regime control services they are providing, time to cancel them here.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2021, 05:14:10 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12767
    • View Profile
Maybe Msft providing information to US intelligence ?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile
"If it is "internet services" they are providing, someone see if our US China thread comes up there.  If it is regime control services they are providing, time to cancel them here."

Flesh this out please.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Re: The Goolag, Microsoft in bed with Regime of China
« Reply #761 on: June 19, 2021, 08:51:58 AM »
"If it is "internet services" they are providing, someone see if our US China thread comes up there.  If it is regime control services they are providing, time to cancel them here."

Flesh this out please.


a. China allows only censored internet, no exceptions.
b. Microsoft provides internet services in China with 10 major sites, including four new ones, in full compliance with the regime.

From Wikipedia with sources, Internet Censorship in China:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China

Foreign content providers must abide by Chinese government wishes, including having internal content monitors, to be able to operate within mainland China. Also, per mainland Chinese laws, Microsoft began to censor the content of its blog service Windows Live Spaces, arguing that continuing to provide Internet services is more beneficial to the Chinese.[162] Chinese journalist Michael Anti's blog on Windows Live Spaces was censored by Microsoft. In an April 2006 e-mail panel discussion Rebecca MacKinnon, who reported from China for nine years as a Beijing bureau chief for CNN, said: "... many bloggers said he [Anti] was a necessary sacrifice so that the majority of Chinese can continue to have an online space to express themselves as they choose. So the point is, compromises are being made at every level of society because nobody expects political freedom anyway."[163]

[162] "Congressional Testimony: "The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or Suppression?"". Microsoft.com. Archived from the original on 28 November 2006. Retrieved 30 August 2006.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061128145545/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/krumholtz/02-15WrittenTestimony.mspx

[163] "Roundtable: The Struggle to Control Information". Frontline (PBS.org). 11 April 2005. Archived from the original on 3 June 2011. Retrieved 1 September 2017.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/internet/
-----------------------------------------------
[I didn't know Microsoft owns LinkedIn. Add them to the list of social media giants collecting all our information.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/technology/china-linkedin-censorship.html
Mar 18, 2021LinkedIn has been the lone major American social network allowed to operate in China. To do so, the Microsoft-owned service for professionals censors the posts made by its millions of Chinese..
[I can't bring up the rest of the article, but 3 months later Microsoft is announcing MAJOR expansion in China meaning they operate in full compliance with the regime.]

----
Microsoft’s Bing search engine is back online in China  [2019]
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/23/18195200/microsoft-bing-search-engine-blocked-in-china-internet-censorship
Microsoft still won’t disclose the cause of the outage, but says the search engine is back up and running. “We can confirm that Bing was inaccessible in China, but service is now restored,” a Microsoft spokesperson told The Verge.

It’s wouldn’t have been particularly unusual to see a Western website blocked from China’s increasingly restrictive internet... Microsoft’s Bing is one of the few services developed by a US company to remain available in the country, despite competing with local government-connected services. Of course, Bing’s survival is largely due to Microsoft’s willingness to comply with the Chinese government’s censorship policies, but now even that has proved not enough for China. Under President Xi Jinping, who has solidified his power by abolishing term limits last year, China has grown more stringent with its control over the internet.

[Microsoft resolved its differences with the totalitarian censorship regime.  More stringent means Xi Jinping did not back down or compromise over censorship.]
-------------------------------------------

Recall from these pages the Google executive who resigned when Google policy switched from 'do no evil' to do evil for money (in China and elsewhere) if the market is big enough.
https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=2685.msg122110#msg122110
https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-international-relations-here-s-why-i-left-49313d23065
------------------------------------------

You don't negotiate what is right with the regime of China.  You comply, leave the market, or disappear. 

Voluntarily complicit in evil is evil.

The universally accepted exception to free trade, at least when I was in the export business, is that you don't get to empower America's enemies and adversaries, no matter the profit.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2021, 10:32:42 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile
Very good post, thank  you.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: June 22, 2021, 02:32:38 AM by Crafty_Dog »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: June 29, 2021, 05:03:12 AM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile
Court dismisses FTC antitrust complaint against FB, more
« Reply #768 on: June 30, 2021, 06:23:12 AM »


NR PLUS MEMBER FULL VIEW
Facebook Lands a Major Court Victory

Welcome to the Capital Note, a newsletter about business, finance, and economics. On the menu today: Facebook beats regulators in court, House Republicans release a tech-regulation framework, commodities traders cash out, and Ben Thompson explains the difficult of defining markets. To sign up for the Capital Note, follow this link.

Facebook’s Antitrust Victory

Facebook landed a major victory in federal court yesterday when a judge dismissed antitrust suits filed by the Federal Trade Commission along with 46 state attorneys general. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the FTC had not provided enough evidence of monopoly power on the part of the social-media giant:

The FTC has failed to plead enough facts to plausibly establish a necessary element of all of its Section 2 claims — namely, that Facebook has monopoly power in the market for Personal Social Networking (PSN) Services. The Complaint contains nothing on that score save the naked allegation that the company has had and still has a “dominant share of th[at] market (in excess of 60%).”

In other words, a large market share is not evidence of monopoly power. Boasberg also noted that the FTC failed to provide a methodology for its 60 percent figure:

In this unusual context, the FTC’s inability to offer any indication of the metric(s) or method(s) it used to calculate Facebook’s market share renders its vague “60%-plus” assertion too speculative and conclusory to go forward. Because this defect could conceivably be overcome by re-pleading, however, the Court will dismiss only the Complaint, not the case, and will do so without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to file an amended Complaint.

In the next month, the FTC will get a second chance to provide evidence for its market-share assertion. However, even if it convinces the court, “its challenge to Facebook’s policy of refusing interoperability permissions with competing apps fails to state a claim for injunctive relief,” because “there is nothing unlawful about having such a policy in general.”

A House GOP Antitrust Framework

The day before the Facebook ruling, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy sent a letter to House Republicans outlining a framework for tech regulation. It focuses on three pillars:

Accountability: Our framework would rein in Big Tech and end their abusive practices, including by changing the law so that Americans can challenge Big Tech directly for their infringement of public speech rights. This effort starts by taking away the liability shield Big Tech has hidden behind for far too long. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would be changed to limit liability protections for moderation of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and would preclude Big Tech from discriminating against Americans based on their political affiliation. We would also require regular reauthorization of Section 230 so Congress may update regulations of the constantly-evolving internet landscape.

Transparency: Our framework would empower Americans by ending Big Tech’s ability to hide behind vague terms of service that have not constrained their conduct in any meaningful way. We will do so by mandating that any Big Tech content moderation decisions or censorship must be listed, with specificity, on a publicly available website. In addition, by requiring Big Tech to implement and maintain a reasonable user-friendly appeals process, our plan will empower conservatives and others whose speech rights have been infringed to challenge Big Tech’s attacks.

Strengthening Anti-Trust Review: Our framework also recognizes that the status quo and bureaucratic delays are not acceptable when it comes to bringing long-overdue antitrust scrutiny to Big Tech. We will provide an expedited court process with direct appeal to the Supreme Court and empower state attorneys general to help lead the charge against the tech giants to break them up. We will also reform the administrative state and remove impediments that delay taking action on Big Tech power.

McCarthy’s letter indicates that the House GOP will focus more on content-moderation issues than on market competition, likely cutting into Republican support for the ambitious antitrust measures introduced by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month.

But the framework also makes it all but inevitable that some form antitrust legislation will come out of the House before the midterm elections.

========================================

Random Walk

Late last year, tech blogger Ben Thompson explained the challenge the FTC faced in the Facebook case. His points proved prescient:

The complaint goes to great pains to narrowly define the relevant market as “Personal Social Networking in the United States”; personal social networking is further defined as:

Being “built on a social graph that maps the connections between users and their friends, family, and other personal connections”.
Including “features that many users regularly employ to interact with personal connections and share their personal experiences in a shared social space, including in a one-to-many “broadcast” format”.
Including “features that allow users to find and connect with other users.”
The complaint further clarifies that this definition does not include “specialized social networking services” like LinkedIn or Strava, online video or audio services like YouTube or Spotify, or mobile messaging services. This last one is particularly strange because it seems to exonerate the WhatsApp acquisition: it seems like a stretch to complain that Facebook acted anticompetitively to acquire a service that was explicitly not in the market they monopolized because it might one day enter that market.

The reality, of course, is that this definition is ridiculously narrow; I can imagine an argument that says that Facebook competes in a different market than, say, Google search, even though both offer digital advertising. I have a much more difficult time buying the argument that Facebook is in a different market than LinkedIn, much less YouTube or Snapchat or TikTok, all of whom monetize via targeted display advertising.

Thompson argues that the FTC’s definition of Facebook’s market is arbitrarily narrow:

The FTC, in my estimation, is making the same mistake of so narrowly defining Facebook’s market that they are ignoring what is arguably Facebook’s most dangerous long-term competitor; TikTok wasn’t even mentioned once in the entire complaint.

In short, the FTC has to successfully argue that Facebook competes in a market that is limited to products that look and work like Facebook, unless a company outside of that definition (WhatsApp) was acquired by Facebook, in which case it can be assumed that that company would have become like Facebook absent acquisition, while no other company would have. It’s not going to be easy, no matter how many anti-competitive emails are unearthed.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2021, 06:26:07 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Re: Court dismisses FTC antitrust complaint against FB, more
« Reply #769 on: June 30, 2021, 07:36:41 AM »
Yes, there are defects in the way the complaint is written.  But to question their monopoly power?  Maybe the case needs to be made against all big tech simultaneously. 

If you want to connect with friends on social media, you go to Facebook. 
If you want an alternative way, go to Instagram, owned by Facebook.
Or use WhatsApp, owned by Facebook.
For professional connections, go to LinkedIn, owned by Microsoft.
Connect directly over the internet, use Skype, owned by Microsoft.
Share videos or search for videos, go to Youtube, owned by Google, the giant of search.
Want to not connect, just track your own health, use Fitbit, owned by Google.
Don't want food shipped, want to buy locally. go to Whole Foods, owned by Amazon.
Want to read an independent report, go to Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos.

None of these mentioned were developed by the genius of the giant involved.  They own them because they bought them for more than others would pay, and they paid more because their market clout brings them more value.  Anti-competitive, prima facia.

I prefer to right-size these giants by way of consumers making different choices rather than by government action.  But those choices disappear as soon as they emerge by way of acquisition or other anti-competitive practice.

The case should focus on anti-competitive behavior, not mere size.  Buying up your competitors is anti-competitive behavior by all definitions. Yet the Obama administration approved the Facebook purchase of Instagram and others.  In that case, buying up the Obama and Biden administrations is anti-competitive behavior as well.

Likewise for Amazon and the Washington Post.  What could go wrong with the world's richest man buying up one of the most influential editorial and opinion centers of the nation while continuing to control Amazon?  The independent free press has special liberties carved out in our constitution, yet there is no firewall between that and a huge company that may from time to time need journalistic scrutiny.  That connection was not lost on Jeff Bezos; he didn't buy the WashPost for control of the crossword puzzles.  Seems to me that a company of monopoly size and power should be allowed to invest in their business, their workers, or pay the income earned back to their shareholders - where it can be taxed and spent or re-invested.  The primary owner of Amazon should be required to divest of conflicting interests if he wants control of constitutionally protected newspaper content.  Doing both creates unavoidable conflict of the anti-trust variety, IMHO.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2021, 07:39:33 AM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/06/25/ruling-against-facebook-in-sex-trafficking-case-threatens-key-legal-shield-for-social-media-platforms/?fbclid=IwAR1-IxL21o04iYBoCtRc-YJmsp0RAxeo1T2y--jKgzXJYyC8ewtkf7SEOuc&sh=bba3b213accd

Interesting.  It's a Texas court ruling but there are so many unanswered legal questions relating to social media providers.  If they are choosing to actively censor and limit free speech based on a set of rules and making money hand over fist while doing so, shouldn't there be substantial monetary damages awarded when they screw up?  When they take down free speech that has nothing wrong with it, when they mark things false that in fact are true, shouldn't there be a consequence for them?  They are the ones who define it as the public square.  Do people have rights there?  If they are responsible for taking down illegal content, are they responsible when they negligently fail to do so?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12767
    • View Profile
".Do people have rights there?  If they are responsible for taking down illegal content, are they responsible when they negligently fail to do so? "

sure they can opt not to use FB

but the questions then begs

is FB a monopoly?

or do they function as a monopoly  by buying out all the competition etc?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
".Do people have rights there?  If they are responsible for taking down illegal content, are they responsible when they negligently fail to do so? "

sure they can opt not to use FB

but the questions then begs

is FB a monopoly?

or do they function as a monopoly  by buying out all the competition etc?

Great unanswered questions.  I opt out of FB, but the product they sell includes a monopoly of my friends and family.  I miss out on a big waste of time and the mind manipulation they add to the feed, but I also miss out on using the internet of our time to connect with the people of my life.

I opted in for Google at the beginning of gmail.  Sold my soul on false pretenses.  I plan to end that, but what they 'give me' for 'free stuff' is pretty tempting to a cheapskate.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: July 04, 2021, 07:48:31 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Alternatives to the Goolag, Facebook, Youtube
« Reply #775 on: July 05, 2021, 10:42:40 AM »
Most of this already covered here on the forum:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/how_to_starve_big_tech.html

We need to stop supporting their business. 

Asking government to fix it will make everything worse.  Right?

Linux, Brave, Duckduckgo, Protonmail, MeWe and Sling are mentioned as Big Tech alternatives.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20354
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Re: Goolag's KGB
« Reply #777 on: July 11, 2021, 05:55:33 AM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/meet-jigsaw-googles-intelligence-agency

Links within this post lead to full information on how to de-Google my phone. This will take guts to let go but someday soon I hope to do that and never look back.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Was this already covered?  They are doing it again / still. 

Google's method of shadow banning is to answer a search they don't like with only links to articles critical of what is searched. 
---------------------------------------
Emails Surface Revealing Biden Campaign Pressured Facebook To Censor Trump Before 2020 Election
https://en-volve.com/2021/06/27/breaking-emails-surface-revealing-biden-campaign-pressured-facebook-to-censor-trump-before-2020-election/
---------------------------------------
Obviously Big Tech is not separate from government monitoring and censoring our communications.  They are hugely influential in choosing our government and then deeply in bed with them when they get there.

Does this break no law?

https://www.theconstitutionalconservatives.com/editorials/defund-the-thought-police-psaki-admits-facebook-twitter-are-state?xg_source=twitter
« Last Edit: July 19, 2021, 10:24:12 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile
Right or left you should be worried about Big Tech censorhip
« Reply #781 on: July 19, 2021, 07:12:24 PM »
Sent to me by a left of center friend.

What do we think of the Section 230 argument?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/right-or-left-you-should-be-worried-about-big-tech-censorship


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
From pandemic topic:
G M: Get the experimental gene therapy or else!

At the end, this is pasted on:

"This tweet is misleading.  Learn more about how vaccines work."


People should post pre-warnings about Big Tech warnings:

"Twitter is part of a Big Tech propaganda mission to quash opinions not in line with their own.  See twitter warning that follows.
Click here to see our content expressed freely without bullsh*t warnings from Orwellian censors like Twitter."

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Sent to me by a left of center friend.

What do we think of the Section 230 argument?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/right-or-left-you-should-be-worried-about-big-tech-censorship

Quote G M:
https://news.gab.com/2020/10/16/an-open-letter-to-president-trump-on-section-230/#more-2029

Which I think is a view supporting 230 from an alternative provider to 'Big Tech'.

I was fully in support of repeal when it was on the table:
https://conservativechange.com/petition/repeal-section-230/
https://www.msn.com/en-us?refurl=%2fen-us%2fnews%2fpolitics%2fmcconnell-ties-full-repeal-of-section-230-to-push-for-2000-stimulus-checks%2far-BB1ckfim

I'm happy to review that position in light of other information and perspectives:
https://nypost.com/2020/12/27/beware-section-230-repeal-and-other-commentary/

I don't think Big Tech can sit out there with all this power over who gets to say what and not face a potential consequence for their decisions and actions.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile
Taking a stab at reasoning out the 230 issue:

230 is necessary for a PLATFORM

230 protection should not extend to a PUBLISHER.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter Orwellian Tech Octopus, Section 230?
« Reply #786 on: July 30, 2021, 07:45:42 AM »
Taking a stab at reasoning out the 230 issue:

230 is necessary for a PLATFORM

230 protection should not extend to a PUBLISHER.


[I wonder what Rick N thinks about the section 230 question.]

What would a jury do with a lawsuit against a town square trying to hold them accountable for what someone said there, without section 230 protection?

These platforms, Facebook, Twitter, et al, CHOOSE to take responsibility for what is said there, e.g. removing conservative thought, anyone who questions election integrity, vaccine hazards, etc.  In that case and in my opinion, then good, they can take responsibility for their role in the consequences of all the decisions they make.

Of course Crafty is in the precarious situation of hosting a moderated platform of controversial content.

One key distinction is that Google, facebook, twitter derive massive economic benefit from what is posted and read, unlike a town square or this forum.  Economic damages should have some tie to economic benefit?

Maybe what we need is litigation reform for all instead of letting the big and powerful off the hook in a screwed up system. 
« Last Edit: July 30, 2021, 07:47:57 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile
Not following your point about the Town Square in the context of my effort at analysis.

My understanding is that the Town Square is an argument to apply First Amendment rules to purported private sector control of the town square.

Whereas the Section 230 argument extends platform protections to publishers.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12767
    • View Profile
apple to establish a back door
« Reply #791 on: August 07, 2021, 07:35:44 AM »
if they have not already done so

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life

there is always some excuse that is used to encroach on the rights of everyone

else

now we must protect "the children"

no one is against that are they?  sarcasm !  :wink:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12767
    • View Profile
Buffett's favorite credit card (american express) pushes CRT
« Reply #793 on: August 13, 2021, 07:29:18 AM »

probably business decision to get Blacks to
use their card:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/08/12/capitalist-giant-american-express-capitalism-is-racist-n1469050

still totally weird and insulting to all
what the heck does CRT have to do with a god darn credit card?

I have never seen any Blacks on Warren's team
  though I don't follow him or his team much so maybe there are.........




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
Re: Buffett's favorite credit card (american express) pushes CRT
« Reply #794 on: August 13, 2021, 10:24:17 AM »
I'm happy to cancel my account whenever the timing is right to make the most impact.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12767
    • View Profile
"I'm happy to cancel my account whenever the timing is right to make the most impact."

FWIW
I really like Discover
virtually all merchants accepts it
the service is great - I can always get someone on the phone !

and I get 2% cash back
and no annual fee which i believe AMEX has
for what I am not sure.........

plus I have an extra lawyer of security though I think (I forgot honestly ) they do charge a nominal fee.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 01:37:50 PM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14703
    • View Profile
History predicts the Tech Giants will fall this decade
« Reply #797 on: August 17, 2021, 10:30:42 AM »
https://www.ft.com/content/40ca92da-d3ef-47bb-b421-7d446d67bc52

On average, top 10 companies slip over the next decade by around 60 places in the rankings.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55644
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20354
    • View Profile
Re: MY: Get ready for Goolag to cut comms on behalf of China
« Reply #799 on: August 18, 2021, 04:37:09 AM »
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/965523/keeping-comms-up

We know that the PRC will hit our grid when things get spicy in the S. China Sea.

Plan accordingly.