All activism to nationalize/regulate social media will do nothing to stop the censorship of free speech by these same companies. This is a leftist trap to grant these corporations insurance in the case of future free-market competition that could potentially wipe them out. With government backing and the barrel of its gun, these companies will expand their motive further beyond the profit motive (they already have expanded beyond that point, but that's another story we all know about) and dive deeper into the territory of being more so motivated by the desire to make their dangerous amount of control (which was obtained largely with the help of tax-payer funded subsidies and collusion with the government) permanent. Regulations imposed by the government will weaken the strength of competition and will allow these leftist corporations to establish permanent/long-term control of the market so easily, essentially rendering these companies as de facto government agencies.
Don't believe me? Just look at the suppression of Alex Jones. On the surface, it may seem like Silicon Valley is simply just trying to suppress and censor him (which is true), but looking beyond that would reveal that there's a deeper agenda and goal at play here. Take a look at how terribly they themselves are handling the controversy surrounding their censorship of him. These companies are pretty much just letting most people become angry and fed up to the point where they feel the need to march down to their representatives and demand that they pass legislation to invoke involvement of the Federal Government in the maintenance of social media companies. I can guarantee you that these people are not even suppressed 99% of the time, even though these companies have demonstrated the capability to suppress and censor the most obscure political opponents out there. (1/2)
They're natural monopolies, people use them because it's where their friends are, people post to them because it's where the viewers are, their value is based entirely on first-mover advantage and network effects. Why should the proceeds flow into Mark Zuckerberg or Tim Cook's bank account instead of being subject to democratic protections and control?
Luis Robinson
I made a video to the people of Gab.ai to build their own datacenter because of what Facebook, apple, Google, Spotify and other lefty communist are doing an planning. total control.
I'm against his cloud technology. It's all about controling how you think and getting ride of the people they don't like. This is clearly obvious to the pople of Jow Forums.
We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I can't tell if the slide into totalitarianism is just the natural progression of things before the collapse, or if it was all planned, or if it is a mix of both.
On the one hand, yes I know how (((Disney)) and Standard Oil have had a hand in using the long arm of the government to stop opposition, to say nothing of the (((Federal Reserve))). On the other hand, that doesn't imply that all legislation is going to be like that. Anti-trust legislation is a good thing because it hurts kikeshit, and an extension of the right of Free assembly to the internet would also be a blow to the kikes that try to disperse as many collections of the wrong opinions as they can.
My advice? Wait and see if the proposed legislation is open for discussion and does what it proposes, open for discussion and full of commie shit, or behind closed doors (and thus automatically full of commie shit).
Ayden Thompson
I use my iPhone to Google hookers and listen to Spotify too. When and where was I censored?
Tyler Stewart
(2/2) Of course, these companies have also censored more figures and political activists left and right, but these moves were usually devised with public outrage in mind. These moves are only made with the intention of sparking outrage that would fuel the nationalization agenda these companies secretly carry.
Now tell me, why would these companies pour gasoline into this disastrous dumpster fire if their agenda was only short-term censorship through private means? Because, that's not their agenda- their agenda is to gain the power of censorship through government means.
Looking at the government's track record within the past couple of decades, it's quite obvious that the government does not really act altruistically for the people when it comes to fostering free speech, but it is true that it always tends to create situations that work in its self-interest, no matter what inherent rights need to be revoked in order to achieve those interests. Why should we expect anything different here? Is the same government that is literally colluding with Google and other big tech companies to undermine our fundamental rights now somehow benevolent enough to attack its own gang members? I honestly don't see how someone can say "yes" without either being a shill or dangerously ignorant.
Yeah, government will ensure neutrality. They are doing great job with radio and television, how much of Jow Forums content do you see there?
Kevin Watson
Radio and television? Those are owned by conglomerates that are run by kikes don't feign ignorance faggot.
Gabriel Scott
is there a streaming service that doesnt censor
Kevin Phillips
This. True free-market solutions are our only real way out of totalitarianism at this point. Unfortunately, people are becoming more and more dependent on the government for solutions to problems that could be much more legitimately fixed by actual participation in the free-market. No one seems to want to bother with even being consumers on a free-market, they just want to be babies who receive the bottle of state-enforced monopolies.
While I do not think anti-trust legislation would be the best solution, breaking up the companies in some way or form would definitely be a far better proposal than nationalizing these companies.
The amount of people who now want to nationalize social media companies (and in some instances, nationalize the entire Internet) at this point is becoming more and more worrying though, and something must be done to stop the growth of this trend before it's too late.
Benjamin Jones
They are regulated by federal law. If you're talking about seizing these companies and going full communism, I guess that hasn't yet been tried in US but you can look at other commie places to see how great it was.
Logan Adams
You think that politics will bring you sex and money? Maybe like a century ago. Matter of fact they won't ever in the current society. Most of the time your public image is like a golden handcuff you wear while you are swimming in a sea of literal shit. The world has changed. The more public you are the less things you can do irl. Never seen anyone who was in politics to change the world, it's always people who suck in business and can't even get a hooker or some trashy girl to hook up with. Politics is like yelling in the street that you want to lose weight in front of McDonald's while never setting a foot in the gym. Honestly it's all a facade for the underclass hence it got the flavour of soap opera these days.
Look it's over. Their own irresponsible actions and intentionally evil behavior sealed their fate.
Joshua Richardson
Sadly she bloated up and is balding too.
Justin Thomas
I wonder if the sort of cartel behavior from tech companies is something that could be prosecuted even under current law?
John Thompson
Jow Forums's unpalatable since there are 3 types of American posters here. 1. Underage retarded. 2. Hispanics larping as trad wh*te. 3. Mentally ill adult virgins on neetbux. You can't sell that.
Jace Cooper
Really? I was just about to upload my anti-semitic string quartet
Dominic Cooper
They also removed the main christian playlist Now we have this
Most TV stations don't serve you porn either. It's not cartel behaviour but using common sense to cater to general public.
Alexander Collins
I was in the comment section of a video where Sargon of Akkad was somewhat shilling on this issue, and I did see some suggestions that utilized current law. I can't remember the specifics at the moment though.
Evan Lopez
They shouldn't be regulated.
The entire economy needs to be deregulated and the tax codes simplified to the point where these giants are subject to real competitive forces.
Yes but they didn't serve porn and then somehow all realize at exactly the same moment that general public doesn't want it. It's pretty clear that there is coordination in the decisions the tech companies are making. I'm not even sure they would deny it unless they can be prosecuted under current law
Adam Bailey
Australia had nationalised internet. Ended up shittier after it was privatised. That said, telecoms codes consider your connection to be your property and government cutting you off is considered trespass, which they can't do without at least pretending to trial you.
Daniel Morgan
But that's AU law, where we don't have 1A and we sure as tits don't have 2A.
I am to understand you intend to harvest electrical power by building what appears to be a magnetosphere siphon. That gives two orders of magnitude less power than what we have currently, and order less than just dropping your rod through enough hematite. If you were intending to use the thing as a lightningrod, then while that is a proposed energy solution, humanity does not yet know how to get even 1% of the power out of a lightning strike with capacitors, and furthermore the optimal lightningrod is a bunch of little radio masts, not one giant rod.
Please look into a tidal harness instead. THAT will actually give you decent power.
Julian Harris
faggot, say libtard government takes power. They'll have total control over every popular social media and will regulate them to their will.
And when their userbase will drop enough will pass laws to regulate everyother forums, imageboards, social thingies, you dumb fuck.
In the end the only reasonable way to escape this bleak future is for government to relinquish any and all control of the internet and make sure, by law, it won't ever get it back. Even ISPs need to be deregularized and operate with more freedom.
