Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The kind of cooperate worship I see from you and the other guy is quite interesting. Shouldn't the left fight for the common worker and the consumer, not for some soulless cooperation who overcharge the consumer, use dirty tactics to prevent competition and use near slave labour in foreign countries to assemble their products? In 2000, Microsoft had a 95% of the market, a net profit margin of 40% and got charged by antitrust from the government? If that is not a monopoly, then what companies are monopolies? Do you even believe monopolies exist?
Also, Joseph Stiglitz disagrees with you. You think you know more about economics than an economist who won the nobel price?
LOL...i'm one of the most anti-corporation anti-rich people here. I fully support America becoming more socialist. Its people like you that support the rich and corporations when they crap all over the poor, you're only anti-corporation for social media because of recent events. You're anti-corp now because those rich people you worship turn their ire to people you support.
Microsoft is a huge company but not a monopoly.
Standard Oil Company (Rockafeller) is an example of a monopoly because they maintain sole control over their supply of that resource at the time. Microsoft is not the only operating system. Facebook is not the only social media. What don't you understand?
LOL...i'm one of the most anti-corporation anti-rich people here. I fully support America becoming more socialist. Its people like you that support the rich and corporations when they crap all over the poor, you're only anti-corporation for social media because of recent events. You're anti-corp now because those rich people you worship turn their ire to people you support.
Microsoft is a huge company but not a monopoly.
Standard Oil Company (Rockafeller) is an example of a monopoly because they maintain sole control over their supply of that resource at the time. Microsoft is not the only operating system. Facebook is not the only social media. What don't you understand?
move on.
ok, if M$ is not a monopoly. Why we have windows (IE) vs Nav?? Mind you Red Hat has Nav as well. As I mentioned before, just you don't like Trump and think it is fine that Twitter bans Trump even it against your own principles. It is not a path that American wants to go down.
ok, if M$ is not a monopoly. Why we have windows (IE) vs Nav?? Mind you Red Hat has Nav as well. As I mentioned before, just you don't like Trump and think it is fine that Twitter bans Trump even it against your own principles. It is not a path that American wants to go down.
"Nav" Netscape Navigator? That hasn't been around since 93 and Internet Explorer was replaced with Edge. You can use any web browser you want on Windows, I use Chrome and your post is very confusing. Twitter can ban who they want, they are a private company, you can go to another social media site or make your own, heck since you seem to be focused on the 90's maybe you could revive AOL chat rooms
Last edited by 2sleepy; 01-18-2021 at 03:21 PM..
Reason: spelling
"Nav" Netscape Navigator? That hasn't been around since 93 and Internet Explorer was replaced with Edge. You can use any web browser you want on Windows, I use Chrome and your post is very confusing. Twitter can ban who they want, they are a private company, you can go to another social media cite or make your own, heck since you seem to be focused on the 90's maybe you could revive AOL chat rooms
Good for you, may be should learn the history first
There was a time in this country when the democrats protected the people from big companies, granted it was a long time ago, now neither party has much interest in breaking up the big tech monoplies. The spineless republicans give it lip service but don't do anything. The republicans are wimps and the dims are in cahoots with big tech.
Both parties have sold the American people down the river.
You can take that one to the bank.
I wonder which would be easier (1) get the Republicans to grow a spine and go after big tech or (2) break up the love affair between the Democrats and big tech?
LOL...i'm one of the most anti-corporation anti-rich people here.I fully support America becoming more socialist. Its people like you that support the rich and corporations when they crap all over the poor, you're only anti-corporation for social media because of recent events. You're anti-corp now because those rich people you worship turn their ire to people you support.
I am not anti-corporation, I am anti-monopoly. I don't like medical monopolies driving drug prices up, I don't like farming monopolies screwing over farmers and I don't like tech monopolies and cartels like you do. The reason I don't like them is because too powerful corporations will control the government and crush small and medium size business.
Of course I know you are a socialist. You are the kind of socialists who want to turn companies like Microsoft into huge companies that you can tax. Those corporations will collude with the government to crush small and medium size business and you won't even care, because it is more important for you to use large corporations to control Americans. You like to think about yourself as anti-corporation, but in reality you only want to control corperations to push your agenda.
This is clearly shown by the fact that you have nothing critical to say against Microsoft or any other tech companies, loves Microsoft so much that you can't even admit it was a monopoly in in the year 2000 and does not even listen when the left-wing economist Joseph Stiglitz says that Microsoft was a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8won6
Standard Oil Company (Rockafeller) is an example of a monopoly because they maintain sole control over their supply of that resource at the time. Microsoft is not the only operating system. Facebook is not the only social media. What don't you understand?.
Standard did not control 100% of the refining, and it was possible to buy somewhere else. So based on your definition, Standard Oil was not a monopoly.
Of course I disagree with you that 100% of the market share need to be controlled to be a monopoly.
Quote:
What started as a pure-play refinery in 1870, Standard Oil (“SO”) became a fully integrated, industrial behemoth with a 90% market share in kerosene refining, and perhaps one of the most effective corporations ever created.
Why should I listen to you and not for economists like Joseph Stiglitz who believes Microsoft was a monopoly in the year 2000?
Quote:
In a unanimous decision, the full Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the District Court finding that Microsoft was guilty of violating § 2 of the Sherman Act through its illegal maintenance of a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer (PC) operating systems.(1) The Court of Appeals also affirmed numerous findings of fact concerning the consequences of this illegal monopolization for misdirecting innovation, raising rivals' costs, and limiting consumer choice.
I wonder which would be easier (1) get the Republicans to grow a spine and go after big tech or (2) break up the love affair between the Democrats and big tech?
Both are harder than finding Jesus' siblings
(1) go after big tech is against Gops' own principles.
(2) Big Tech finds that Dems is able to crack them but they can be bribed, and Dems find that Big Tech can channel dolts' minds and information. They are a match made in heaven.
Both are harder than finding Jesus' siblings
(1) go after big tech is against Gops' own principles.
(2) Big Tech finds that Dems is able to crack them but they can be bribed, and Dems find that Big Tech can channel dolts' minds and information. They are a match made in heaven.
While big techs ability to influence politics is a big reason Democrats support them, I will argue that many Democrats prefer big corporations over small and medium size companies.
If the market is very competitive, then the labour unions power is diminished. The employer will be very reluctant to accept demands for large wage increases, if it means that they will go out business. However, if there is a monopoly or a cartel, then the consumers have no choice and they can easily pass the cost to the consumer. Many Democrats do not believe in competitive markets, but instead believe regulations is the answer. Regulating a few big corporations is much easier than regulating lots of small companies.
Also, many of Democrats actions has reduced competition in other sectors than tech. For instance ACA reduced the number of insurance options significantly and Democrats has often fought hard to protect the taxi cartel. The problem is that for a long time, Republicans has also been a party for big business and Democrats and Republicans have worked together to let corporations crush small and medium size business.
I think Republicans are just starting to realize the mistake they have done, but needs some time to believe it is an urgent issue. Then they can join the minority of Democrats who also want to rein in big tech, and try to fix the issue.
They were already banning conservative users who break their hate speech policy, so expect more banning of users who do not promote hate speech such as Ron Paul. Facebook suspended Ron Paul last week. However, they will do nothing to stop the radical left wing actors like Antifa who radicalize the left.
As we could see with the banning of Trump and many other users, they often work together. Hence, this won't just be Twitter, but all mainstream social media. Conservatives are likely to leave for other platforms such as Gab, Bitchute and Minds and the country will get even more divided than ever.
Part of the Transcript
- We do intend to do the full retro as I said in my note, it is going to take some time
- And then the other thing just to close out a little bit
- We know we are focused on one account (@realDonaldTrump) right now
- But this is going to be much bigger than just one account
- And it's going to go on for much longer than just this day this week. And the next few weeks and go beyond the inaguration.
How is Dorsey going to bring in censorship outside the US where regulators have responsibility for such issues and Twitter is merely a platform.
Is there going to be one Twitter for the US and one for the rest of the world.
Twitter was already being scrutinised by Governments across the world however the UK Government has already stated that this raises very important questions, and means that the social media platforms are taking editorial decisions. Furthermore according to the UK Government minister it raises questions about their editorial judgments and the way that they’re regulated.
If Twitter are going to take editorial judgments then they will have to be subject to far harsher regulations and oversight.
The UK was already looking at more stringent regulations however these may have to be reviewed further, whilst other countries will be taking note o the measures the UK is introducing.
It's not in Jack Dorsey or Jeff Bezos remit to take such editorial decisions as they are a platform and not an editorial publisher, and that is the Office for Communications role, an independent regulatory and competition authority.
However if they want to be treated as publisher with editorial rights then they will have massive new responsibilities including impartiality, as the only duty they have to take down posts is in relation to those that are illegal as prescribed by the law, and not those based on opinion.
The High Court in London further clarified the situation in relation to the recent case of Scottow -v- CPS (Dec 2020), which involved insults on twitter, with the Court ruling that freedom of speech includes the ‘right to offend’.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reuters (Dec 2020)
(Reuters) - The British government will announce plans for a new law next week under which social media companies will have a duty to be impartial and be barred from “arbitrarily” removing comments because they are controversial, The Times newspaper reported.
UK ministers will announce plans on Tuesday for a statutory duty of care, which will be enforced by Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, the newspaper reported, without citing a source.
Firms that fail to meet the obligations may face multimillion-pound fines or be blocked from operating in Britain, according to the report.
The newspaper cited a source as saying that the British government was concerned that social media companies were removing legitimate content on grounds that it was controversial rather than because it was harmful or inaccurate.
Good for you, may be should learn the history first
That makes no sense at all
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
