Posted on 09/02/2018 7:43:16 AM PDT by PapaBear3625
“There are none that have a meaningful market share”
When you have people actively sabotaging them by saying they wont use it because they dont have enough people to get a big enough dopomine high from likes and reblogs, then I guess they wont. The big conglamos thank you all the same. If you refuse to beat them, then why not protect them and hope to subsist on their scaps?
“Maybe you think confining conservative thought to a small digital ghetto is a viable alternative”
Maybe you think getting banned, and pushed aside on one of these big sites is a great plan so far with the belief that some one will make up law from the bench to force these places to behave differently?
They care more about us communicating with each other more than these meaningless screaming matches on Facebook that dont accomplishscalps. Stop feeding them, and promote the alternatives, or stop complaining about their dominance.
There is no shortcuts in this, so people on this side need to get used to working to marginalize these companies over the long haul.
How can an appeals court force a business to reenact their own policy to increase the minority representation of its workforce? How can an appeals court force a business to reenact their own policy to curb sexual harassment in the workplace?
“When you have people actively sabotaging them by saying they wont use it because they dont have enough people to get a big enough dopomine high from likes and reblogs, then I guess they wont. The big conglamos thank you all the same. If you refuse to beat them, then why not protect them and hope to subsist on their scaps?”
Its not “actively sabotaging”. Its recognizing reality. People go to these sites because that’s where the people and the content are. ie First Mover advantage. ie Network Effects. Its why the barrier to entry is effectively very high once one of these sites gets entrenched and dominates the market in their area.
“Maybe you think getting banned, and pushed aside on one of these big sites is a great plan so far with the belief that some one will make up law from the bench to force these places to behave differently?”
Since these are effectively media companies and are effectively monopolies, massively increased regulation to at least force a level playing field is called for. Either that or break several of them up.
“They care more about us communicating with each other more than these meaningless screaming matches on Facebook that dont accomplishscalps. Stop feeding them, and promote the alternatives, or stop complaining about their dominance.”
No. They are monopolies. They control a huge market share and the barriers to entry are quite high. Stop defending them and their authoritarian behavior.
“There is no shortcuts in this, so people on this side need to get used to working to marginalize these companies over the long haul.”
That’s not realistic for most of them.
Utterly absurd.
They are so big that they cannot fail, so we must work to make sure their dominance is enshrined, codified, and state-supported as long as we can finagle some sort of provision where they give up control of their operations....and the competitors are just going to have to languish, because who cares about them, amirite?
“Since these are effectively media companies and are effectively monopolies”
Effective monopolies over what? You dont want to use alternatives, and think it is a waste of time! I’ve yet to see an example where they are actively working to prevent competition, but more than enough of their users trying their best.
” Stop defending them and their authoritarian behavior.”
I’m the one saying WALK AWAY. Who is the one doing their ever-loving best to keep them where they are as long as you can get yours? You guys are the ones wanting to make them “public utilities” and make sure that they can never be supplanted!
The left loves socialism so much, how about have the Federal government set up the best search engine ever, have its search algorithms open source and the search api’s free for all us eager to consume developers. Have our military provide declassified sat photos near real time and great mapping.
Call it google.gov and search.gov.
Do the same for Facebook and Twitter.
Checkmate leftist dirtbag tech giants.
When that firearms company in Montana(?) was going to produce "for use in Montana only" then the feds claimed jurisdiction saying that the components had crossed state lines giving them jurisdiction via commerce. I doubt those servers were sourced and built entirely in California.
Also... A local girl (15?) took a picture of herself naked and sent it out to her boyfriend. They broke up shortly thereafter. He sent the picture to everyone in his contacts as fid his friends. A bunch of adults became recipients and someone reported it qs child porn. The FBI showed up claiming jurisdiction because "once its on the internet it has crossed state lines." These internet services are of course WW so they have certainly "crossed state lines" again making this, if we are to be consistent, a federal issue.
The USSC is almost going to have to reconsider "commerce" and other issues that make things federal or they are going to have to overrule California.
“Utterly absurd. They are so big that they cannot fail, so we must work to make sure their dominance is enshrined, codified, and state-supported as long as we can finagle some sort of provision where they give up control of their operations....and the competitors are just going to have to languish, because who cares about them, amirite?”
Utterly absurd is right. That’s not what I said at all. Either break them up or force them to stop censoring. One of the two.
“Effective monopolies over what? You dont want to use alternatives, and think it is a waste of time! I’ve yet to see an example where they are actively working to prevent competition, but more than enough of their users trying their best.”
A company does not have to work to prevent competition in order to be ruled a monopoly.
”I’m the one saying WALK AWAY. Who is the one doing their ever-loving best to keep them where they are as long as you can get yours? You guys are the ones wanting to make them “public utilities” and make sure that they can never be supplanted!”
No we’re not. We’re saying either break them up or at the very least force them to stop censoring.
very interesting take on the situation, and one that could be troublesome for the monopolies.
They have this exactly a@@ backward— net neutrality would cinch total censorship in the control of the big techs. Anti-trust needs to break these up.
The purpose of net neutrality was to empower further censorship. This article is flawed, and influenced by socialist mumbo jumbo.
I bring this up constantly with NN supporters who usually somehow support censorship by the social media giants at the same time that if ISPs need to be regulated to protect free speech, social media does too and they never have an answer except to ignore or deflect.
>> So now we are in favor of Net Neutrality?
I have no confidence in the feckless Right. It only wins by default.
This very week, conservatives could break the back of NBC, MSNBC by simply dumping Comcast. But that would be an inconvenience. Same goes for ATT now that it owns CNN. You will NEVER see another FReeper mention the vertical BS that sustains the vitriolic MSM.
Let’s take YouTube as an example. Their big weapon against conservative messages is their control over advertising, and their ability to “de-monitize” any videos that they don’t like.
Use anti-trust to break the connection between the video hosting side and the advertising side. Allow others to place ads on videos. If youtube’s in-house ad-placement group chooses to not want to place ads on certain videos, then allow others to do so.
YouTube isnt obligated to pay people to host videos. They never started as a place where that was done.
Before it was bought by Google, YouTube didnt pay anyone for anything. It was just a place to share videos, and they were going broke doing that. That is why they sold.
Google was, and still is, losing money on the site as well, and they use their advertising arm to subsidize the place. They started out paying people who had really popular channels (by invite only), then they did it for anyone (a huge mistake). That is where they started getting into trouble with advertisers. And this goes beyond “political” videos. People were getting ad money from some seriously sick stuff.
But take Google’s money out, and the site goes under in 365 days.
Outside advertising is not going to benefit YouTube, that’s just the person that uploaded a video for free getting paid while not paying a dime for the cost of hosting and streaming those videos. If these guys want this option, then they are going to have to start paying YouTube some sort of subscription for it.
I am not the only one working on trying to build effective alternatives.
Problem is implementation, acceptance and use.
There must be measures in place to stop, effectively, the people who wish to break state and federal laws, but otherwise, there should be little to no restrictions.
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.