The issue I have with that thought is if you do remove such protections and it doesn't stop their behavior, then what?
That's why I agree with Judge Clarence's interpretation of these social media companies as common carriers. It's a last resort but a lot of companies including Google, et al. have become too big to fail. I can't think of an easy way to do this because we are treading a dangerous tight rope.
I don't like giving government the club, but none of us have the power as individuals to stop something like Twitter, Facebook, Google. They're an embedded part of our cultural lexicon we can't remove.
The issue I have with that thought is if you do remove such protections and it doesn't stop their behavior, then what?
Their behavior is fundamentally not profitable. The only reason they can continue to do what they are doing is because they are being supported outside of being unprofitable.
Think about YouTube for a second. Susan lost Alphabet something like $80 Billion in valuation because of her policies on YouTube. In a profit driven business, that kind of loss would be so utterly devastating that she would have been thrown out onto her fucking neck. The reason it doesn't matter is to Alphabet is because they are able to be supported by vast swaths of money being pulled not only from other sources, but from the government as well. Those protections, and that funding, means that no matter what the market says, no matter how much the program looses, they are going to keep pushing.
There is already a market demand for them to stop what they are doing, the state is protecting them. Stop protecting them and their behavior will change or they will die, as all unprofitable businesses must... unless they are protected by the state which never makes money.
Libertarians like you have no answer to what to do about monopolies or cartels. (Which are not free markets.) Just outcompete guys. The invisible hand will guide you.
More government is good when it balances extreme corporate power.
I think it's Francis Fukuyama who in his book on Political Order states that in the places where the monarchy was weak and the aristocracy was strong, you had local tyranny and national weakness (e.g. Poland). In places where monarchy was strong and aristocracy was weak, you get tyranny (e.g. Russia). In places where they are both strong, they balance each other out, and you get liberty (e.g. England).
Right now, we have the first case. We have corporate tyranny. And you can say that people get what they 'deserve'. Fine. But I don't want things to go to hell because of people's ideological commitments to 'free markets'. I want things to get better.
And it's very simplistic to state that people are voting with their wallets, when these megacorps are monopolies. Their monopolistic power must first be broken, and then maybe the free market will function properly.
More government is good when it balances extreme corporate power.
Extreme corporate power is literally the cause of the government's actions. Socialism does not save us from Keynsianism. Keynsianism is Socialism.
These companies are a) not actually private, and b) extensions of government power. The only way you can cause these companies to actually take a loss, *is to keep them from leeching off of the government's vast stolen wealth.
lawl at England being an example of a liberty focused country. The country where people get arrested for hate speech and rapists go free because they're a "protcted class".
More government is never good, and is literally how we got into this mess. Remove 230 protections and watch these social media sites crumble. Dismantle the Federal Reserve and all central banking, and watch actual competitive sites flourish. Until those things happen, "more government" isnt going to do jack shit but make the problem worse.
The issue I have with that thought is if you do remove such protections and it doesn't stop their behavior, then what?
That's why I agree with Judge Clarence's interpretation of these social media companies as common carriers. It's a last resort but a lot of companies including Google, et al. have become too big to fail. I can't think of an easy way to do this because we are treading a dangerous tight rope.
I don't like giving government the club, but none of us have the power as individuals to stop something like Twitter, Facebook, Google. They're an embedded part of our cultural lexicon we can't remove.
Their behavior is fundamentally not profitable. The only reason they can continue to do what they are doing is because they are being supported outside of being unprofitable.
Think about YouTube for a second. Susan lost Alphabet something like $80 Billion in valuation because of her policies on YouTube. In a profit driven business, that kind of loss would be so utterly devastating that she would have been thrown out onto her fucking neck. The reason it doesn't matter is to Alphabet is because they are able to be supported by vast swaths of money being pulled not only from other sources, but from the government as well. Those protections, and that funding, means that no matter what the market says, no matter how much the program looses, they are going to keep pushing.
There is already a market demand for them to stop what they are doing, the state is protecting them. Stop protecting them and their behavior will change or they will die, as all unprofitable businesses must... unless they are protected by the state which never makes money.
Congress steals from Us and gives it to pharmaceutical corporations.
Lockdowns destroy the competition.
Regulations destroy the competition.
Our federal government is totally corrupt
Correct.
Libertarians like you have no answer to what to do about monopolies or cartels. (Which are not free markets.) Just outcompete guys. The invisible hand will guide you.
I think you're a good guy, but very misguided.
More government is good when it balances extreme corporate power.
I think it's Francis Fukuyama who in his book on Political Order states that in the places where the monarchy was weak and the aristocracy was strong, you had local tyranny and national weakness (e.g. Poland). In places where monarchy was strong and aristocracy was weak, you get tyranny (e.g. Russia). In places where they are both strong, they balance each other out, and you get liberty (e.g. England).
Right now, we have the first case. We have corporate tyranny. And you can say that people get what they 'deserve'. Fine. But I don't want things to go to hell because of people's ideological commitments to 'free markets'. I want things to get better.
And it's very simplistic to state that people are voting with their wallets, when these megacorps are monopolies. Their monopolistic power must first be broken, and then maybe the free market will function properly.
Extreme corporate power is literally the cause of the government's actions. Socialism does not save us from Keynsianism. Keynsianism is Socialism.
These companies are a) not actually private, and b) extensions of government power. The only way you can cause these companies to actually take a loss, *is to keep them from leeching off of the government's vast stolen wealth.
lawl at England being an example of a liberty focused country. The country where people get arrested for hate speech and rapists go free because they're a "protcted class".
More government is never good, and is literally how we got into this mess. Remove 230 protections and watch these social media sites crumble. Dismantle the Federal Reserve and all central banking, and watch actual competitive sites flourish. Until those things happen, "more government" isnt going to do jack shit but make the problem worse.
Comment Reported for: Rule 15: Slurs
Please do not direct slurs at the user.