Facebook is in BIG TROUBLE | It has just been discovered that the Facebook Covid vaccine Fat-Checkers are funded by vaccine companies. (45 second video clip)

Well we start with the fact that they aren’t monopolies.

The monopolies which existed over 100 years ago were broken by Teddy Roosevelt and the Sherman anti-trust act.

There are indeed monopolies today, whether you wish to acknowledge this or not. I'm beginning to get the idea that you are in over your head in this discussion.

And then we remember why we think the whole “hate speech” regulation thing is a bad idea.

The only thing that "hate speech" has to do with mass communications companies censoring American speech is that they want to censor hate speech too.

You are siding with their "right" to censor "hate speech" when you say they have a "right" to censor public communications.

And there you have it.

I have a response that does not address any part of what I asked about. I have a response that does not even make sense to me.

I’m not saying there are no monopolies today. But social media companies are very much NOT monopolies. Look here:
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-social-media-sites/#close

Now that’s an article about where companies should be spending their advertising time and money on social media. But right off the bat you can see they aren’t monopolies just because the article exists. If there was a social media monopoly that answer would be easy: the monopoly.

Now when you go deeper into it you see a lot of interesting stuff. There’s an estimated 4.6 billion social media users on the planet. The biggest platform, Facebook, self reports (and remember, these companies always over estimate their user base) 2.9 billion monthly average users. A lot, but far below the 80% market share line usually used to declare a company a monopoly. The top 4 combine for 9.1 billion MAU or nearly twice the total market. The whole top 10 combine for about 12 billion, or about 2.6 times the total market share. So we see from that that most users are on more than 1 platform. So clearly the anti-competitive moves that would make a company an illegal monopoly (remember, being a monopoly is NOT illegal but certain market moves do become illegal for monopolies) just aren’t happening.

So any time somebody talks about nailing any of these companies for being monopolies they are quite simply WRONG.

Putting the government in charge of speech is putting the government in charge of speech. Whether the bad excuse used is “hate speech” or “they’re monopolies” it’s still a bad idea. Explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. “Congress shall make no laws”. That’s the rule you want to cast aside.

Actually my response addresses EVERYTHING you asked. You just don’t like it. Which is on you. You are, as always, 100% wrong on everything.

But social media companies are very much NOT monopolies. Look here: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-social-media-sites/#close

I looked. What I see is a list of companies that are all monopolies in their niche markets.

Does youtube have a competitor? Not even close. Yes, Standard oil didn't own *ALL* the gas stations, it just had so many of them that it could control the market.

The biggest platform, Facebook, self reports (and remember, these companies always over estimate their user base) 2.9 billion monthly average users. A lot, but far below the 80% market share line usually used to declare a company a monopoly.

You may be surprised to learn that I am more concerned about the effects a monopoly has on American society than about what it does in foreign countries. I don't actually give a d@mn about the other 2.6 billion people who aren't Americans.

In the USA, Facebook has no competitor.

So any time somebody talks about nailing any of these companies for being monopolies they are quite simply WRONG.

I don't care if facebook is *NOT* a monopoly in the rest of the world. It *IS* a monopoly here.

Putting the government in charge of speech is putting the government in charge of speech.

We are not discussing putting the government in charge of speech. We are discussing using the power of government to make sure nobody is in charge of American speech. We are discussing the idea of using government to defend our rights, which is one of the actual legitimate tasks government is supposed to do.

BWAHAHAHAHA. “Monopolies of a niche” that’s hilarious. If that’s your standard then ALL companies are monopolies, because they’re the only company doing their products.

Youtube has MANY competitors. Here’s some: https://nordvpn.com/blog/youtube-alternatives/

As for your “concern” it’s horse crap. I already gave you a list of FB competitors. They ALL compete with FB. They’re all in America. And all have large user bases in America.

No. You’re talking about putting the government in charge of speech. As soon as you say you want the government to oversee something that’s putting it in charge. Sure you HOPE the government will limit their censoring. But we know how government works. They’ll stop the sentence at “limit” and do just that. Government is force, not reason. Don’t give it more power. EVER.

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.