Now you've added parameters. *sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
Now you've added parameters. *sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I did? Where? "There are many others? Name one that currently is even 1/10th the size of FB or Twitter." You didn't even met that criteria.
Yup, I put on my librarian hat and carefully researched it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I would suggest you get rid of that hat. It worked poorly.
this is becoming a new twitter site
https://revive.digital/wp-content/up...0-1024x576.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
/mike drop
You still haven't done your homework. None of those compete with Facebook. Youtube is strictly video sharing. Facebook owns WhatsApp. Messenger is a text messaging app. WeChat is very large but is predominately used in China and not here. LinkedIn is primarily a professional, job-related app. Pinterest is primarily image sharing. The list goes on.
The fact remains. Facebook owns its market niche and has no real competition. The same is true of Twitter. Nice try, but no prize for you.
Firstly, stop with the overly obnoxious homework retort, it's getting tiresome. I'm not a wayward child and will not be addressed in that manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Secondly, how you define social media and how the rest of the internet does clearly is out of step. In this case you clearly need to look more closely into how social media is defined.
Finally, I have answered your question clearly, yet you choose to continue to argue.
Interesting to note the reach of FB compared to Twitter.
Social media is many things and you are mixing your platforms. The comparisons you are drawing is like saying Boeing is competing with Ford in the transportation business. Facebook is the dominant player in its market niche by far. It owns Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp. So I would suggest you look more closely into how one social medial platform differs from others. There are significant differences. Airplanes are not cars.
You have attempted an answer so good for you, but you are mixing apples and oranges. No one is seriously competing with Facebook. Twitter does have some competition, but is still the dominant player in its area of emphasis. That's the primary difference, in my view, you are not seeing.
The primary point remains that FB and Twitter are engaging in censoring political speech. That should concern everyone. Censoring nudity, profane language, and calls for insurrection are fine, but the selective banning of conservative political speech is alarming. Banning Diamond and Silk? Really?
You are moving the goal posts with your responses making it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Social Media
Over the years, the Big tech firms have been left to their own devices with very little over sight.
Yet, now we have arrived at this juncture and the US government have finally realised what they have had a hand in developing.
All well and good crying monopolistic behaviour, however the firms have their hands in so many different areas it is very difficult to sucessfully litigate them.
Also, with the amounts of money involved, the Tech firms can afford any fines that are levied against. The recent $2B fine on Google was a mere drop in the ocean.
These firms really are too big to fail or even legislate against effectively...
The US Gov has been complicit in the creation of these monopolies and, as they are effectively no longer under their direct control, they are running scared.
No such thing. Legislation against monopolistic practices started with the oil industry owned by Rockefeller. He was extraordinarily wealthy at the time and controlled something like 90% of the petroleum business in the U.S. His Standard Oil company was divided into 30 or so smaller companies, several of which survive to this day.Quote:
These firms really are too big to fail or even legislate against effectively...
Not sure how you're seeing that. The liberal dems love Facebook and Twitter. They are best of friends in their irrational hatred of Trump. But I am thrilled to see that you are agreeing they are monopolies. That's progress.Quote:
The US Gov has been complicit in the creation of these monopolies and, as they are effectively no longer under their direct control, they are running scared.
I'm not moving goal posts. I'm trying to get you to see that there are a number of different "sports" going on. You cannot just lump them all together. Facebook and LinkedIn are both social media but do not do the same thing. Youtube does not compete with Facebook anymore than Boeing competes with Ford.Quote:
You are moving the goal posts with your responses making it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
Jlisenbe, whatever I'm done with this discussion.
You really should get a job in politics, but avoid pedestrian crossing, once you have proven black is white.
This isn't an either/or choice you can use both, hence classic monopoly definitions fall over.
I would comment on that, but since the discussion is over, it's all good.Quote:
but avoid pedestrian crossing, once you have proven black is white.
This isn't an either/or choice you can use both, hence classic monopoly definitions fall over.
Welcome to the club, Ben. We have been dealing with our in-house troll since forever, it seems. Quite often are the goal posts moved in the middle of a discussion, and words added or deleted to change the meaning to suit the troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
rarely does he do more than confuse the issue and divert the discussion
We now know that Quid's regime is monitoring and directing big tech to censor . Jen Psaki said “we’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”
That means that it is the government that is doing the censorship ;and it bolsters Trump's case tremendously .If Facebook and the other tech monopolies are colluding with the government to suppress speech, it becomes much harder to hide behind the “we’re a private company” defense. In no way is it acceptable for the government to be providing a list of "problematic "content for Facebook to remove .
Yeah. That is really incredible. Now here is a genuine "collusion" case for Pelosi and the liberal dems to hold hearings on. I won't hold my breath waiting.
If it is just disinformation we can do with less of it, if it is political opinion then you do have a problem. Social media is responsible for a lot of disinformation and ill informed opinion which led to the capital riots so you can see how they might want to supress itQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We know nothing of the sort! Do you understand the difference between "flagging" and "censoring"? The WH has a perfect right to watch (flag) Facebook for posts that spread disinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No, it does NOT mean that. Read the First Amendment.Quote:
That means that it is the government that is doing the censorship
Trump HAS no "case"! Haven't you learned yet that Trump is clinically insane? Are you watching his behavior the last few months? See what he wrote about today's hearing in Arizona.Quote:
and it bolsters Trump's case tremendously
Insanity doesn't mean he's a raving maniac. It simply means he lacks the mental capacity to understand what's going on re the election and his "re-instatement" as president.
The government has a perfect right to expose disinformation. In fact, it is a legitimate role of government. Facebook has a perfect right to do nothing about any information provided by the government.Quote:
In no way is it acceptable for the government to be providing a list of "problematic "content for Facebook to remove .
If you're suggesting the government is somehow forcing Facebook to act, you're confusing the Trump administration with the Biden administration. Trump was notorious for abusing government powers.
and Mr nowhere to be seen is not? all governments try to bend the narrative to their own advantage
The merging of corporate and state power . Fascism 101 ;something the left accused Trump of . But in fact fascism is a lefty ideology that Quid apparently is very comfortable with as he applies the use of state power to influence and coerce the big tech monopolies to change which content they do and do not allow to be published. .
If you don't find it disturbing that the WH is flagging content for their hi tech allies to remove then you support authoritarian censorship . There is no scenario in a free society where this is acceptable . And yes ;if the government pressures or coerces private actors to censor for them it is a flagrant 1st amendment violation . Going through a back door still makes it government censorship .Quote:
We know nothing of the sort! Do you understand the difference between "flagging" and "censoring"? The WH has a perfect right to watch (flag) Facebook for posts that spread disinformation.
See 'Norwood v. Harrison' “For more than half a century courts have held that governmental threats can turn private conduct into state action.”
See 'NRA v Cuomo 'and the ACLU's amicus that defended the NRA because Cuomo was using coercion against companies that did business with the NRA .
“Although public officials are free to express their opinions and may condemn viewpoints or groups they view as inimical to public welfare,” they cannot abuse their regulatory authority to retaliate against disfavored advocacy organizations and to impose burdens on those organizations’ ability to conduct lawful business.”
See 'Bantam Books v Sullivan' when the State of Rhode Island tried to use coercive power to prevent book stores from selling books the state deemed to be obscene and offensive . Rhode Island instituted a commission to notify bookstores when they determined a book or magazine to be “objectionable,” and requested their “cooperation” by removing it and refusing to sell it any longer. Four book publishers sued, seeking a declaration that this practice was a violation of the First Amendment even though they were never technically forced to censor. They "voluntarily " removed the books due to the implicit threat . "The Commission's notices, phrased virtually as orders, reasonably understood to be such by the distributor, invariably followed up by police visitations, in fact stopped the circulation of the listed publications ex proprio vigore [by its own force]. It would be naive to credit the State's assertion that these blacklists are in the nature of mere legal advice when they plainly serve as instruments of regulation."
What will happen when the WH finds books sold on Amazon as "problematic " full of "disinformation " ?
These hi tech companies have made a Faustian deal with the government so they can maintain their monopolies .
The government is often the conveyor of misinformation .Perfect example is their suppression of information regarding the Wuhan lab as source of covid 19. With the help of their big tech monopoly allies and the compliant press and their so called fact checkers; they covered that up for months .Quote:
The government has a perfect right to expose disinformation.
Now that Trump is gone , suddenly the theory is in vogue and Facebook now permits such postings . Even Herr doctor Anthony Fauci concedes the possibility when he was the prime so called expert who called out the theory as misinformation .
It's all completely predictable. For liberal dems, if a liberal dem like Robinette Biden is doing it, then it must be OK. If Trump had been doing it, their hair would be on fire right now. Situational ethics in the extreme.Quote:
If you don't find it disturbing that the WH is flagging content for their hi tech allies to remove then you support authoritarian censorship . There is no scenario in a free society where this is acceptable .
In fact, Trump DID try to create a fascist state with him as Der Fuehrer, but he failed. Fascism is the far right wing of the political spectrum- not the left wing. You have it backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
None of these apply to the present situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Are you serious?Quote:
What will happen when the WH finds books sold on Amazon as "problematic " full of "disinformation " ?
Dream on.Quote:
These hi tech companies have made a Faustian deal with the government so they can maintain their monopolies .
Calling him Herr Doctor tells us all we need to know about your theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I guess it is how you construct the spectrum . The spectrum I go by has liberty on one side and enslavement /tyranny on the polar opposite . Left /Right are meaningless in that spectrum . One is to aspire to ;one to oppose .Quote:
Fascism is the far right wing of the political spectrum
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin
define essential
That's a great question. I'd say those freedoms contained in our Bill of Rights.
I agree with that. The great example is the Russo-German war of 1941-1945. Communism was the extreme left and Fascism/Nazism the extreme right. Both, however, were tyrannies opposed to any kind of liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
both claimed to be socialist regimes and yet the democracies were glad to get into bed with the Russians which they considered the lesser of two evils. So the only spectrum there was survival. We know pure communism doesn't work, socialism has worked in various implementations and capitalism works for some, but every system leaves a large number of poor struggling for existence
What would be a good system for a country? Is there one system that will help the poor and middle class, and still make the wealthy happy?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Well I think ours works pretty well, it is a federal parliamentary democracy where the central government overseas the economy and the states look after service delivery. There are aspects of socialism and of capitalism in play, Universal health care, some state run enterprises like utilities and a strong regulatory regime.
It used to be much more socialist but it has evolved
What are the names of the offices in charge? For central government? For the states? Who oversees universal health care? (I should google this!)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
yeah Stalin only murdered 20 million people .Quote:
the democracies were glad to get into bed with the Russians which they considered the lesser of two evils.
Clete likes the behemoth ,benevolent ,bureaucratic nanny state model .with a proliferation of regulations designed to protected the Aussie citizens from themselves . Some examples are the oft spoken of gun laws . They go from there to taxing alcohol and tobacco to impose behavior penalties ...restrictive speed limits,mandatory lock out laws (close the pub by 10) ,diluted beer at sporting events ,mandatory bicycle helmet laws and mandatory voting laws .
When some Aussies revolt ;like in the case involving covid ;the nanny state gets even more restrictive .Vacuum bans after 10 pm . Who ever heard of such nonsense ?
The Aussies had a reputation of being laid back and a bit defiant of authority . That may have been when Clete was a young man . But now they bleat to the same tune .
Actually what you have just described also includes the rest of the developed world, Europe, UK and the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Much of what you describe codifies, so called, common sense behaviours for civilised living.
Freedom comes at a cost.
Quote:
common sense to some is nonsense to others . Using the phrase to attack opposing ideas is weak . What the buzz words mean is a justification for policies that aren't automatically popular .It assumes that it is a safe no brainer when in fact the issues are much more complicated and controversial . It is a trap that libs use frequently .
In America it has been used frequently since Thomas Paine made a compelling argument for dissolution with the crown .Most usages since are vague ,nonspecific and a ruse to paint issues of great complexity and nuance into simplified arguments designed to pretend to align with the average person.
Let the children get back to normal lives . - Page 2 (askmehelpdesk.com)
No the defense of Freedom comes at a cost . Freedom is an inalienable right .Quote:
Freedom comes at a cost.
The cost is the voluntary exercising of moral behavior by the citizens. In the words of John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."Quote:
Freedom comes at a cost.
There are ministers of state who oversee government departments who implement the decisions of the parliaments. these ministers of state are first and foremost elected representatives who sit in the parliament and answer directly to their peers. the department of health overseas the universal health care system and the state governments oversee the hospitals and clinics. there is a parallel private health care system. The federal government overseas aged care which is delivered by private institutions. At a local level medicine is delivered by private clinics and paid for by the government with some co contribution maybe 30% of clinics charge a feeQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 AM. |