- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 11/5/18 at 8:32 pm to Diamondawg
quote:Dude, I don't know what you're trying to say but you need to stop. You don't know what you're talking about. Publicly traded companies are still in the 'private sector'. Take a business class.
What's the last privately held company that was broken up by Sherman's antitrust because they held a monopoly? The OP called Google, Amazon, Facebook private companies is laughable.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 8:32 pm to antibarner
quote:Actually it was AT&T and they made them divest themselves of the "baby Bells".
They broke up Bell Telephone years ago..time to break up Google they are a monopoly.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 8:32 pm to I B Freeman
Antitrust Myths: Speak Truth to Myths
Antitrust: The Case for Repeal
Here is some reading for you folks. I doubt any of you will read it and I suspect some of you can't.
Antitrust: The Case for Repeal
Here is some reading for you folks. I doubt any of you will read it and I suspect some of you can't.
This post was edited on 11/5/18 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:04 pm to I B Freeman
In Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, the Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that the First Amendment "does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas." The Internet has increased the number of media voices, but the concentration of the search and social-network markets means that a few companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) have most of the control over what information reaches voters. In April, Zuckerberg testified before Congress that Facebook political ads are held to an "even higher standard than what you would have on TV."
So, it stands to reason that if a pattern of rejection of political ads -- or omission of indexed content via Google -- or "shadow-banning" of trending information Twitter -- or banning of individuals of a particular political viewpoint were to be proven then there might be an argument for the government getting involved.
I'm okay with Zuckerberg saying, "You know what -- we're absolutely not the public square and we are going to censor and support ads that are of a liberal slant. That's who we are and that's what we do. Please choose to use our service or not." But that's not how he's representing his company. The same thing goes for Google, Twitter, etc. Again, they haven't said that -- and that's their decision to pretend that they are not biased.
Even though that shite-head Rob Reiner directed The American President, there is a scene there that I absolutely love. It's where President Andrew Shepherd says: "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.'"
What we don't need is "Tech Titans" deciding what political ads get to be seen or not seen. At best the rules are unpredictable and enforced unevenly. At worst they can use their rules as a pretext for political discrimination.
Anyone seen any evidence of Google, Twitter, Facebook censoring any ads or banning anyone lately?
So, it stands to reason that if a pattern of rejection of political ads -- or omission of indexed content via Google -- or "shadow-banning" of trending information Twitter -- or banning of individuals of a particular political viewpoint were to be proven then there might be an argument for the government getting involved.
I'm okay with Zuckerberg saying, "You know what -- we're absolutely not the public square and we are going to censor and support ads that are of a liberal slant. That's who we are and that's what we do. Please choose to use our service or not." But that's not how he's representing his company. The same thing goes for Google, Twitter, etc. Again, they haven't said that -- and that's their decision to pretend that they are not biased.
Even though that shite-head Rob Reiner directed The American President, there is a scene there that I absolutely love. It's where President Andrew Shepherd says: "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.'"
What we don't need is "Tech Titans" deciding what political ads get to be seen or not seen. At best the rules are unpredictable and enforced unevenly. At worst they can use their rules as a pretext for political discrimination.
Anyone seen any evidence of Google, Twitter, Facebook censoring any ads or banning anyone lately?
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:34 pm to I B Freeman
Sucking the cocks of Silicon Valley overlords is for the GOPe
This post was edited on 11/5/18 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:39 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Trump threatening to use anti trust laws against companies he doesn’t like is wrong
Trump is the swamp.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:41 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Trump threatening to use anti trust laws against companies he doesn’t like is wrong
I don't want government interfering with private corporations.
But, your title is amazingly dishonest.
You are a pathetic little man.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:54 pm to moneyg
quote:
But, your title is amazingly dishonest.
You want to explain that?
Should I have said, "Trump doing what Elizabeth Warren wants threatens to use anti trust laws against great American success stories"?
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:58 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
You want to explain that?
It's self evident.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 10:01 pm to I B Freeman
The liar reverts to personal insults, liberal
Posted on 11/5/18 at 10:04 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
I B Freeman
You need a rabies shot and an enema. You’re foaming at the mouth and your brain is clogged.......again.
Popular
Back to top



0






