Is capitalism the problem, or is govt. protection of big tech the problem?Quote:
capitalism at its worst.
|
Is capitalism the problem, or is govt. protection of big tech the problem?Quote:
capitalism at its worst.
Both.
American capitalism is based on the pursuit of wealth, the government failed to limit how these companies could go about this pursuit and now we have few large firms controlling many aspects of our existence.
This isn't aimed at one Government in particular, but the whole system.
Can't cry foul when those companies are doing exactly what they have been directed to do over the years.
The fringers cry foul against big tech because they dumped the dufus.
rent seeking .... engaging in or involving the manipulation of public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits.Quote:
the government failed to limit how these companies could go about this pursuit and now we have few large firms controlling many aspects of our existence.
That is not free market capitalism .I would argue the economic system that has evolved is more like mercantilism where large businesses buy monopoly privileges from the leviathan government .
An easy example on the local level is taxi driving . In a free market anyone could be able to put a taxi sign on their car and start driving for a business. But government makes arrangements where someone has to buy in for the "privilege" to have a taxi license or "medallion". So now instead of owning my own taxi business and achieving the American dream f having my own growing business ..(maybe in a couple years I buy another car and hire my brother to drive it etc ) ;instead I.end up being the employee of someone who may never have driven a car in their lives That system prevents competition. The essence of capitalism is competition . So how could that system be capitalist
Take it to the level I am talking about where hi tech companies can create a cartel and decide which of their competitors can play in the sandbox . This is called horizontal monopoly ;and the anti-trust laws were create to prevent that .
Not just limited to tech firms, but all over American and international business and banking.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Face it the system is broken, but what can really be done to fix it ?
This happened before and I believe a populist nationalist waded into the swamp and created the Sherman Anti-Trust act making such monopolistic practices illegal. Parler has filed an anti-trust complaint against Amazon. Depending on the outcome we will see how broken the system is . Also Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be repealed or amended . It makes exception for providers who block so called offensive material .The reason it needs amending is because it give broad discretion to the providers to decide what is offensive .
You do realise that removing section 230 will lead to vastly increased censorship on the social streams....
Here included.
I'm always amazed when I read this statement. Who on this board does not want to make a good living and accumulate wealth? Any economic system not based on the pursuit of profit is doomed. You can't survive without profit.Quote:
American capitalism is based on the pursuit of wealth
spoken like a true capitalist, there are other systems
Tell us about the one where people don't care about profits. You guys are dreaming.Quote:
spoken like a true capitalist, there are other systems
You don't think promoting violence and inciting a riot is an impeachable......I mean....a good reason to be banned?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tal I have read the transcript of Trump's speech there is nothing that would incite a riot but I have no doubt that the rioters acted out of boredom they unleashed their fury that they had listened so long to Trump as he bored them into tears and fury
Reading what Trump said is not nearly descriptive of the actual event. He has to be seen to understand how he incited the mob.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
There is not a doubt in the world that he did so. Over here, it's on TV 24/7, with every day more video becoming available to solidify that Trump sent the mob to the Capitol to intimidate - or far worse - the Congress to object to the count.
Otherwise, there's be no reason to impeach him. The text alone is nowhere near the video.
In this case, the pictures are worth 10,000 words!
Only if you think Athos is the only person "in the world". Otherwise, there is a lot of doubt about that.Quote:
There is not a doubt in the world that he did so.
Well, true - the doubters wear swastika jackets, tee shirts with "Auschwitz", scream "hang Mike Pence", beat a policeman to death at the Capitol entrance, swear to kill Nancy Pelosi, and so forth and so forth. Then there are the doubting white evangelists who display a flag with Jesus' name on it. If Jesus came again, they'd be the first to crucify him.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"In the world" means rational people with IQs over that of a plant. I didn't think I needed to mention that - I guess I did.
Oh good grief. In your narrow little world, all the rational people agree with you since, after all, your opinion reigns supreme. In the real world, that is hardly true.Quote:
Well, true - the doubters wear swastika jackets, tee shirts with "Auschwitz", scream "hang Mike Pence", beat a policeman to death at the Capitol entrance, swear to kill Nancy Pelosi, and so forth and so forth.
Where is that real world JL, surely you don't think it is in DC? I don't think it was the speech that inflamed the mob they were already primed by weeks of Trump speeches. The fact that they were there was enough for violence to igniteQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I was speaking of the real world outside the little world Athos lives in, and I don't mean that in any insulting fashion. We all live in little worlds to one degree or another. I don't think it was Trump's speeches so much as the realization that the election had problems and the perception, true or otherwise, that those problems contributed to the result. And there is still seething anger about that. There will be but little unity until that issue is settled.
fair enough . I worded it incorrectly . Sec 230 needs reform. the words "or otherwise objectionable " is too broad given the intent of the section .It gives sites protection for removing anything they want .Being able to remove anti-terrorism ,child sex abuse and cyber stalking is not the same as suppression of political speech. The goal should be that the net remain free and fair; especially in our current environment when a group of companies can collude to control political thought content .Quote:
You do realise that removing section 230 will lead to vastly increased censorship on the social streams....
Here included.
The intent of 230 was to “to encourage telecommunications and information service providers to deploy new technologies and policies” for filtering or blocking offensive materials online ....not to filter out political thought the site owners do not agree with.
S. Rept. 104-23 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT OF 1995 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
The importance of the net has grown since the section was adopted . It has evolved into the main public square . 1996 few people spent much time on the net . Today net surfing occupies hours of people's time .It has replaced the news paper as the primary source of information, If you look at it in that content then what the big tech companies did was controlling content by making sure their smaller competition could not get paper and printing ink to publish .
And it has gone even further than that. Political campaigns are conducted on the net. What big tech did this cycle was to be the defacto arbiters of the political debate on the net . Political ideas were filtered through self appointed "fact checkers " ,and at a minimum were labelled as missing content ;at worse they were removed from the sites . The sites became much more than conduits of content .They became the editors of content .
I would not even have much objection to that . As some here have argued ,they are private companies . What they did however by blocking a competitors site from the public forum was to become the FINAL editors of political debate on the net ....and that is wholly unacceptable. If sec 230 protects this type of activity then it must be reformed .
Jl, you have the funniest way of expressing things that always shoots you in the foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:25 AM. |