Posted on 03/06/2018 5:57:17 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Facebook doesn’t bake cakes. :-)
I was just responding to your comment that facebook is a “common carrier site”. Facebook is not a carrier. It’s an OTT web site as is Free Republic.
FreeRepublic doesn’t suppress page views and then offer to show them to the readers who’ve already opted into the content (in their feed) if you are willing to pay $5 per post (payment made separately for each posting).
It is only doing that to people of a certain demographic.
Free Republic, FB and many web sites have their own rules on who is allowed to use their web site. If someone doesn’t like it they can leave.
There is already a site called http://gab.ai that is the alternative to Facebook.
My main point is that he and or a few college students built facebook with very little manpower and or resources.
I mean 1 single coder can do this now. It could mean money too because there is a market for it especially for conservatives.
Yes and it was in 2003 so with 15 year old tech zuker thief stole it did . There is a lot of more powerful tech now . so
someone should do it. boycott facebook
I hate this liberal zuckerberg.
Facebook for example buys any web site or app that starts to get popular . facebook bought instagram, whatsapp, TBH, and many others. Zuckerberg is a censoring the internet. and conservatives don't even realize he's doing it because they shadow censor, shadow ban etc. very subtle , just conservative sites just become less and less visible and popular.
In a practical sense you may be right. In a legal sense I don’t think it is a monopoly like in the old days when they broke up AT&T. FB is the big gorilla because it is so popular.
FR is also a large conservative site and maybe the largest of its kind. It is almost a conservative monopoly web site. I think these OTT web sites like FR and FB — in a legal sense — can enact whatever rules they want.
I am not saying all this is fair and nice. I just don’t see the Supreme Court making a legal ruling that FB can’t do what they want.
I think the best way to deal with them is to exposes their practices and humiliate them in public. But I doubt they have any shame. :-)
This is just one monopolist practice it has done. That certainly violates the anti-trust laws.
Zuckerberg is a pure evil marxist liberal democrat . He's totally without morals. He stole the facebook idea from 2 guys.
Now he's doing evil things to monopolize and destroy other websites and conservative websites and kill free speech on the Internet. And he along with twitter and Google are killing conservative web sites and opinions on the Internet. This will destroy America and freedom if we don't fight back now.
Nah. Lots of companies buy other companies. I don't see a legal case.
Show me these rules on Fakebook and show me how the users are violating those rules and show me how the rules are being equally applied.
Dennis Prager and others have a lawsuit going on and in discovery they’ve shown how Youtube and others are using a human workforce (not simply using algorithms) to ban conservative talk (non-explicit, non-visual) on topics like abortion.
We used to Prosecute Companies and Executives went to Prison for Anti-Competitive, monopolistic policies in dire3ct violation of Long Standing Anti Trust Laws.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws
The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are “per se” violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.
The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.
Social media has been very effective for many artists in cutting ties with galleries which charge up to 50% of the sale price.
Thanks for posting.
This is another front in the culture war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.