Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
pepperonikkid

Should Anti-Trust Laws Be Used To Break Up The Social Media Giants?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

pepperonikkid

Should Anti-Trust Laws Be Used To Break Up The Social Media Giants?

 

 

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com

Robert Spencer

September 1, 2017

 

 

 

Article:

 

 

The secular Left and the proponents of Islamic blasphemy laws have a new issue on which they are making common cause: the quest to destroy the freedom of speech, the cornerstone of our democracy. After Charlottesville, the Left sees its chance to crush all dissent, and given its alliance with Islamic supremacists, this means the implementation in the West of prohibitions on criticism of Islam, including counterterror analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists. This anti-free speech initiative, if it succeeds, will destroy free society, which cannot exist if one is unable to speak out against the tyrant.

 

The Left is trying to use Charlottesville as its Reichstag Fire moment to try to crush all dissent. CNN gave the Southern Poverty Law Center’s spurious “hate group” list wide play, and an effort has begun to deny all platforms to those “hate groups,” without any regard for the fact that the SPLC includes legitimate organizations that dissent from the Leftist agenda (including the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Jihad Watch) on the list along with the KKK and neo-Nazis, in an attempt to defame and destroy the legitimate groups.

 

Spearheading anti-free speech efforts on the Islamic side is a little-known organization that comprises most of the Muslim governments around the world today: the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is made up of fifty-six member nations plus the Palestinian Authority and constitutes the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. The OIC has been working for years to try to compel the West to restrict the freedom of speech, and particularly the freedom to criticize Islam.

 

Essentially, they want to impose a key principle of Sharia — which forbids blasphemy against Allah, Muhammad, and Islam — on the entire non-Muslim world. They are advancing this initiative by trying to compel the West to criminalize “incitement to religious hatred,” which essentially means criticism of Islam; no international body has ever objected to criticism of Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion.

 

Aiding this OIC initiative has been the popularization of the term “Islamophobia.” Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former imam, writes that “this loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” Islamic groups tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, most notably the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have for years been wielding this term like a club to smear anyone who speaks honestly about the jihad threat; by doing so, they have intimidated many into silence.

 

The SPLC has eagerly taken up this term as a key element of its censorship strategy, publishing lists of key “Islamophobes” (including David Horowitz and me) that have grown so absurd that they even include a reformist Muslim, Maajid Nawaz. Nawaz and his associates are themselves not above using similar tactics, but his presence on the SPLC’s list does highlight its absurdity.

 

Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
intotheblackhole

Should Anti-Trust Laws Be Used To Break Up The Social Media Giants?

 

 

 

YES!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

:usa:

Edited by intotheblackhole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

NO !!!

 

Give "Government" the ability to shut down discussion based on [whatever] pretext, and...

 

 

Well, be careful what you wish for. REALIZE, especially, that any power given to a Republican administration for the best of reasons, is ALSO given to a Democrat administration for the worst of reasons as well. Which explains a LOT of why we are where we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LSJ

I agree....with both of you. Lol.

 

I despise facebook and their liberal bias but I don't want the government wielding more power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

Reichstag Fire... Charlottesville. The more things change...

 

I don't use social media. Mostly because I'm a misanthrope. Facebook and Google are not succumbing to pressure. They are at the forefront of censorship and crowd control.

 

While my capitalist inclination is these are private companies and can show or hide what they want, they have the familiar ring of Ma Bell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

Social media, airlines, environmental & engineering companies, food giants,... the list goes on. imho, Congress (both parties) have shirked their duties in this regard since the 1990s.

 

imho, the disappearance of the middle class and widening of the "income gap" can be traced in large part to Borg-like growth of a few giants in numerous industries and diminishment of competition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

I agree....with both of you. Lol.

 

I despise facebook and their liberal bias but I don't want the government wielding more power.

Would it be wielding more power, or would it simply be enforcing existing anti-trust laws that have been ignored for decades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

Reichstag Fire... Charlottesville. The more things change...

 

I don't use social media. Mostly because I'm a misanthrope. Facebook and Google are not succumbing to pressure. They are at the forefront of censorship and crowd control.

 

That's odd, I had you pegged for lycanthrope, except occasionally in a dress. :nanner:

 

While my capitalist inclination is these are private companies and can show or hide what they want, they have the familiar ring of Ma Bell.

 

My capitalist inclination is, let them alone, and let alone any 'conservative' competitor.

 

Closest is probably "LinkedIn". Not necessarily "conservative" per se, but DEFINITELY tilted towards "business".

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection

Anti-Trust laws are generally meant to protect consumers from prices dictated by monopolies. Social media is free to use so I can't imagine Anti-Trust laws applying.

 

With regards to the leftist bias found in social media, it should be pointed out that privately owned businesses are not required to extend freedom of speech rights to users of their platform. Even RightNation has a legal right to delete content they find objectionable on their website. A case could be made that major social media platforms are publicly owned because they are traded on the stock exchange, but I haven't seen any effort to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection

While my capitalist inclination is these are private companies and can show or hide what they want, they have the familiar ring of Ma Bell.

 

I see what you did there :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Anti-Trust laws are generally meant to protect consumers from prices dictated by monopolies. Social media is free to use so I can't imagine Anti-Trust laws applying.

 

With regards to the leftist bias found in social media, it should be pointed out that privately owned businesses are not required to extend freedom of speech rights to users of their platform. Even RightNation has a legal right to delete content they find objectionable on their website. A case could be made that major social media platforms are publicly owned because they are traded on the stock exchange, but I haven't seen any effort to do so.

What is stopping a conservative Zuckerberg from offering their own 'Friendly-facey-book'? If you don't like it, meet your friends at another spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

What is stopping a conservative Zuckerberg from offering their own 'Friendly-facey-book'? If you don't like it, meet your friends at another spot.

 

Yeah. Like, maybe, HERE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection

What is stopping a conservative Zuckerberg from offering their own 'Friendly-facey-book'? If you don't like it, meet your friends at another spot.

 

The sheer size of facebook's user base is difficult to compete with. It's basically the agreed upon meeting place for superficial small talk and stalking ex lovers.

 

facebook_spy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

What is stopping a conservative Zuckerberg from offering their own 'Friendly-facey-book'? If you don't like it, meet your friends at another spot.

Nothing. Thus, no facebook for me.

 

But, should a Winnerberg emerge, The Suckerbergs of the world can't use the govt or other such means to stop them (other than IP rights).

Edited by zurg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Absolutely not. Free enterprise includes the right of the enterprise's owners to hold political views others consider despicable. As long as they're not "price-fixing" or engaging in false advertising or other illegal activity, it isn't justifiable to sic the government on them.

 

(As for the "Ma Bell" comment, LOL, I'm old enough to remember how great telephone service was back in those days, and how crappy it has become since the breakup. That's one monopoly I wish they'd left alone.)

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hieronymous

What is stopping a conservative Zuckerberg from offering their own 'Friendly-facey-book'? If you don't like it, meet your friends at another spot.

Pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot

Should Anti-Trust Laws Be Used To Break Up The Social Media Giants?

 

 

 

YES!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

:usa:

 

YES!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

As bad as Facebook may be, Google is far, far worse. By manipulating search data they have the ability to rewrite or erase history. They can make your product fail or succeed on a whim. They can effectively eliminate all criticism of them and ensure you only hear about the politicians and policies that they approve of. They can pretty much steer public opinion however they want all by directing and limiting the results of internet searches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection

As bad as Facebook may be, Google is far, far worse. By manipulating search data they have the ability to rewrite or erase history. They can make your product fail or succeed on a whim. They can effectively eliminate all criticism of them and ensure you only hear about the politicians and policies that they approve of. They can pretty much steer public opinion however they want all by directing and limiting the results of internet searches.

 

 

E.U. fines Google a record $2.7 billion in antitrust case over search results

 

BRUSSELS — The European Union’s antitrust chief hit Google with a record $2.7 billion fine Tuesday, saying the powerful Web search leader illegally steered users toward its comparison shopping site and warning that other parts of Google’s business were in the crosshairs.

 

The fine is the largest the E.U. has levied against a company for abusing its dominant position, and it marked the latest confrontation over business practices between E.U. regulators and American tech giants. Google could face dizzying additional penalties if it fails to comply.

 

If the ruling stands, it could reshape the company’s behavior in one of its most lucrative markets. And the way Google presents its search results could shift worldwide.

 

“Google has abused its market dominance in its search engine by promoting its own shopping comparison service in its search results and demoting its competitors,” E.U. competition chief Margrethe Vestager told reporters in Brussels.

 

(source)

 

$2.7 billion sounds like a lot of money but both Google founders are worth over $40 billion each. Google easily has that much cash on hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

The problem is, of course, that in the modern world things have evolved in ways that the Founders and even ourselves (if we're older than Milennials) could never have anticipated. Even Orwell would be astounded that now, Big Brother is at least as likely to be Google or FB than the NSA and CIA. The Ministry Of Truth is not a government operation, but again, Google or FB or some other tech giant, manipulating search results and news feeds down the memory hole. Google's motto should be "Don't be evil, that's our job."

 

Some of the earlier Cyberpunk fiction authors predicted such things, but even people like William Gibson never quite managed to envision a completely civilian tech empire made up of hyper politicized monocultures that manage to worm their tentacles so far into the world and have such power to warp reality by controlling and biasing information flow. Say a tech giant wanted to shut up and injure a person with right of center libertarian views, why, they could buy up their company and shove them into the weeds, by making a business case and doing it (cough cough, Amazon/Whole Foods, cough cough).

 

Right now, anti-trust is about the only tool that can be used against these Orwellian corporations. Whether that's right or not, it is indeed a double edged sword, but something IMO needs done, if you don't want the Neo Marxists to do an end run around government and the Constitution with their propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crabby Appleton

The problem is, of course, that in the modern world things have evolved in ways that the Founders and even ourselves (if we're older than Milennials) could never have anticipated. Even Orwell would be astounded that now, Big Brother is at least as likely to be Google or FB than the NSA and CIA. The Ministry Of Truth is not a government operation, but again, Google or FB or some other tech giant, manipulating search results and news feeds down the memory hole. Google's motto should be "Don't be evil, that's our job."

 

Some of the earlier Cyberpunk fiction authors predicted such things, but even people like William Gibson never quite managed to envision a completely civilian tech empire made up of hyper politicized monocultures that manage to worm their tentacles so far into the world and have such power to warp reality by controlling and biasing information flow. Say a tech giant wanted to shut up and injure a person with right of center libertarian views, why, they could buy up their company and shove them into the weeds, by making a business case and doing it (cough cough, Amazon/Whole Foods, cough cough).

 

Right now, anti-trust is about the only tool that can be used against these Orwellian corporations. Whether that's right or not, it is indeed a double edged sword, but something IMO needs done, if you don't want the Neo Marxists to do an end run around government and the Constitution with their propaganda.

It may be that social media giants like FB, Google, Twitter, etc., could be brought under rules something like those that govern public utilities. Given their near monopoly on the dissemination of information, it may be possible to fashion laws that are consistent with private ownership and corporate agendas, that would still force them under to operate constitutionally, to guarantee free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones

As bad as Facebook may be, Google is far, far worse. By manipulating search data they have the ability to rewrite or erase history. They can make your product fail or succeed on a whim. They can effectively eliminate all criticism of them and ensure you only hear about the politicians and policies that they approve of. They can pretty much steer public opinion however they want all by directing and limiting the results of internet searches.

For example:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&source=hp&ei=oJGtWdiZCIGYjQPQ_7mwAQ&q=what+party+did+lincoln+belong+to&oq=what+party+did+lincoln+belong+to&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.12...1959.19753.0.20842.36.34.2.13.13.0.237.5942.0j25j8.33.0....0...1.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..1.26.3600.3..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i20k1j0i3k1j0i70i251k1j0i22i30k1.MZqe07qEBf8

 

Google "what party did lincoln belong to...."

Edited by Buckwheat Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

E.U. fines Google a record $2.7 billion in antitrust case over search results

 

BRUSSELS — The European Union’s antitrust chief hit Google with a record $2.7 billion fine Tuesday, saying the powerful Web search leader illegally steered users toward its comparison shopping site and warning that other parts of Google’s business were in the crosshairs.

 

The fine is the largest the E.U. has levied against a company for abusing its dominant position, and it marked the latest confrontation over business practices between E.U. regulators and American tech giants. Google could face dizzying additional penalties if it fails to comply.

 

If the ruling stands, it could reshape the company’s behavior in one of its most lucrative markets. And the way Google presents its search results could shift worldwide.

 

“Google has abused its market dominance in its search engine by promoting its own shopping comparison service in its search results and demoting its competitors,” E.U. competition chief Margrethe Vestager told reporters in Brussels.

 

(source)

 

$2.7 billion sounds like a lot of money but both Google founders are worth over $40 billion each. Google easily has that much cash on hand.

 

Exactly. Plus, it is Europe only, not the US where they're based. Unfortunately it'll never happen here and they'll be able continue doing whatever they want.

 

 

Another good example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...