atekipp

I created a marked up excerpt of the Twitter TOS. The yellow and red highlighted parts are the relevant ones, with special emphasis on the sections highlighted in red. This is a pure contract law issue. Twitter has legal exposure if it does not enforce the provisions of its Terms of Service consistently across its user base.

Twitter TOS

This video should provide some insight into the practical measures that cities in China have taken to stop the spread of the virus: LINK

quote:

---

Forgive me, bu isn't San Diego a city that is in California and has great weather? It is not a problem because of the weather.

---

LINK

LINK

quote:

---

The government is the customer in this case. That's how the free market works. If UT doesn't want to be influenced by their customer, they don't have to take their money. It says nothing of socialism. If UT's biggest customer was Alphabet and Alphabet told them if they outsouce jobs they are taking their account elsewhere, you wouldn't call that socialism. It is the free market at work.

---

To be more specific, the Department of Defense is the "customer" here. And UT is the "supplier", which also begs the question of why UT's government contracts should be held hostage over operational decisions a wholly owned subsidiary who isnt a government contractor and merely provides air conditioning units to the public for profit.

I guess this also brings up the question of whether we can really reference "free markets" in the context of a president-elect threatening to withhold service contracts directed at a private corporation from a state created entity (more central planning).

While we are on a tangent, this whole discussion ignores the fact that President-elect Trump isnt President yet and also the fact that the President only has "commander in chief" powers granted under Art II, and thus there is a constitutional question on whether the president even has a say in how the DOD subcontracts for its services under the President's Art II powers. A strict orignalist like Scalia would probably say no or maybe he would have said yes, if it was a Republican President, who knows???

So, maybe you are right, the president-elect threatening government contracts even though he may or may not even be authorized to do so, could be free-market economics at work. But it sure doesn't smell like it.

Also, since when does the DoD frown upon outsourcing? The DoD's largest contractor is Lockheed Martin, who outsources extensively throughout its supply chain. Of course Lockheed still has to go through hoops to comply with Export Control Laws and ITAR, but if the culprit here is outsourcing, why isnt everyone up in arms about Lockheed or Halliburton?

quote:

---

So, you must really hate Obama?

---

I have nothing personal against the guy.

so you fight socialism with more socialism, in order to fix.... capitalism?

not an alter, just never posted.

i say "bully" b/c government contracts were threatened, media pressure was exerted, and potential tariffs were on the table. To be fair, I guess it wasn't 100% bullying since they did offer tax cuts if Carrier stayed (more central planning).

I do not see the government interfering in the operational decisions of specific US corporations as a good thing. Even if it has a net benefit to the US people.