Posted on 02/14/2021 12:30:53 PM PST by SmokingJoe
I’m on Gab, not Twitter. Twitter is losing $1 billion a year, and it’s going to get worse.
Of course they do. Regulation is making the pharmaceutical industry billions. Ditto the hospital industry.
Interesting - I’ll have to think about that.
I am still thinking about it.
Not quite sure what to make of it yet.
We’ve crossed the Orwellian Rubicon.
It’s past time to employ Nullification in a serial fashion.
Since big tech can remove and add my comments however they want, how could any of these comments have valid standing to characterize ANYONE?
You cannot have it both ways but big tech is seeking to have it both ways, to obtain immunity in being characterized in favor of characterizing others with a patch of pretend promotion of genuine content in order for it to pass court muster to persecute posters.
Well, after thinking for a while I am leaning heavily toward agreeing.
After all, this won’t be the first time big corporations favored increased regulation.
It seems ironic at first, but regulations actually favor the huge corporations because they can easily afford to compliance, and compliance avoidance - they have huge compliance departments and teams of lawyers who represent a tiny fraction of their budget.
The cost of compliance itself doesn’t even necessarily manifest - because the compliance departments don’t really exist to facilitate compliance - they exist to facilitate avoiding compliance.
Meanwhile, the smaller competition can’t afford a dedicated compliance (avoidance) department - and must therefore actually comply - adding to costs and often limiting their ability to compete in markets.
As someone already mentioned, it is well known that Big Pharma and Big Energy thrive on and lobby for increased regulatory “hurdles”, because they are really only hurdles for their would-be competitors.
So, after thinking about it, I don’t see why it would be any different for Big Tech Media - I think the Gab CEO is right on the money.
They are probably doing a “Please Br’er Fox, whatever you do, don’t throw me in that there briar patch!” - the briar patch is exactly where they want to be.
“Gab started mailing us physical checks to keep the site online.”
Never mailed a check with my name on it for political purposes. I just go to MOney Mart and get a money order. It’s mostly “Trump PAC c/o N. Pelosi (address of the old hag)” and I’m good..
I’d say he understands the situation pretty clearly.
The repeal of 230 section would be great if done properly. By Donald Trump e.g.
Nowadays, we can expect only the Democratic version of this. And it looks like that would be worse than nothing.
I am with the Gab.
Source?
It’s known as regulatory capture. The incumbents plead with the government to regulate their industry to stifle the entry of competitors, although the regulation is ostensibly to “protect the public.” Regulation raises the cost of entry. You need a legal staff that you cannot amortize over a small customer base.
Yes. Me too. Well put.
Roger that. The big insurance companies and Establish medicine wrote Obozo Care. Nothing like having Big Government put a gun to the heads of all citizens and forcing them to buy your product or service. No having to compete in that messy and uncertain marketplace.
Twitter Announces It Lost $1.14 B In 2020
https://thepalmierireport.com/twitter-announces-it-lost-1-14-b-in-2020/
And Trump was one of their big draws.
Gab only exists because Twitter and Facebook have driven people away, using Section 230 as a pretext. Fix Twitter and Facebook, and Gab has no reason to exist. So it’s within Gab’s own selfish motives to see that Facebook and Twitter aren’t fixed. Describing ridding the world of Section 230 as “regulation” is shallow, twisted sophistry.
Section 230 isn’t a controversy because Twitter and Facebook have been hiding behind it to allow all manner of hate-speech and propagation of violence to prosper, but because they have been acting as unofficial (and therefore unaccountable) agents of a corrupt government in its destruction of political discourse.
Network Effect means Gab is forever banished to a niche corner of the market, but a safe one that is plenty large enough for Gan to expand into. It also means that the forces which explain why Twitter and Facebook are so hate-filled against conservative will remain in place so long as they are simultaneously free to censor conservatives, but also free to promote every form of anti-conservative hate that could possibly exist.
I don’t understand, however, why no-one has attempted to strip Facebook and Twitter of Section 230 by arguing that their selective censorships amounts to them having their own voice. Perhaps the best solution is to reassert that Section 230 protections are offered only when the refusal to censor results in an open political discourse.
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.