We all knew it. Everyone who gets censored or banned is done so across the board. I just don't get why they waste time thinking they're going to get honest answers from thieves. REMOVE THEIR PROTECTIONS and we won't have all this horse shit to have to deal with. Put on your big boy pants and for once, stand up for us Republicans.
Not so much illegal i don't think, but it should invalidate any protection they get as a platform. If they are censoring, and worse if they are all coordinating censorship they are not platforms. I'm pretty sure the goal is to get them to just stop censoring stuff, or make them pay the price of being a publisher, and being responsible for everything they allow to remain. Not to mention if that becomes accepted that they are doing this, maybe congress will make the law explicitly forbid this in clearer terms. One can dream. Also it was under oath from what I saw, not sure if the rest were? I know in the Hawley questioning I watched, zuckerberg seemed to be choosing his words pretty carefully. Everyone knows their claims of no bias are bullshit, maybe lies under oath will carry a penalty one of these days.
If their goal is just to get these conglomerates to stop being mean, these politicians are even more worthless than a Trump ballot in a Dominion machine.
I consider targeted censorship to be more than just “being mean”, but that’s me. Being a publisher would destroy these companies, can’t have million of people who you are responsible in some capacity for what they post. They would have no choice really but to stop the censoring or do what was required to be a platform. What do you think the goal should be in ref to “big tech”? An antitrust would be good to but if they ever actually get serious about this that would be good as well.
My point is that getting them to stop for a minute doesn't do anything... They'll just do it again. These companies' value relies on their ability to manipulate, so they must be broken up. Preferably shattered so thoroughly that the pieces are worthless, but I think that's a lot to ask for.
At the very least, alphabet needs to get anti trusted. That one seems obvious.
The section 230 bit is interesting... As surely if twitter is a pro global publisher, then TD is a pro Trump publisher.
Isn't it illegal for companies to work together like this? How do their shareholders feel knowing that one trillion dollar company is helping out another trillion dollar company? This is akin to price gouging and tech cartel.
He then went on to tell Josh Hawley, that he will ensure he tailors Josh's request to ensure he gets the right information -- this arrogant fuck believes he can alter the senators request to be how he wants it framed, then produce nothing accordingly.
Secondly, he makes the bold claim that he has to ensure he's not giving over his companies private data, while admitting, run-of-the-mill-partisan-employees have access to ALL YOUR PRIVATE DATA AND MESSAGES, including your behavioral Meta-Data such as what images you like, what pages you visit, building a repertoire of your behavior.
So any dude can look at your persona, identifiable information -- but Mark is refusing to be forthcoming about his secret-unified-censorship-and-collusion-platform that Big Tech use without any of the public knowing, until now.
Huge anti-trust violation on top the repercussions of the election meddling via censorship. How are there no legal consequences? Trump better open up a sinkhole on these swamp dwellers.
We all knew it. Everyone who gets censored or banned is done so across the board. I just don't get why they waste time thinking they're going to get honest answers from thieves. REMOVE THEIR PROTECTIONS and we won't have all this horse shit to have to deal with. Put on your big boy pants and for once, stand up for us Republicans.
Can they talk? Then of course they have the ability to coordinate. The question is are they and IMO the answer is obviously yes.
.... Is that illegal?
Not so much illegal i don't think, but it should invalidate any protection they get as a platform. If they are censoring, and worse if they are all coordinating censorship they are not platforms. I'm pretty sure the goal is to get them to just stop censoring stuff, or make them pay the price of being a publisher, and being responsible for everything they allow to remain. Not to mention if that becomes accepted that they are doing this, maybe congress will make the law explicitly forbid this in clearer terms. One can dream. Also it was under oath from what I saw, not sure if the rest were? I know in the Hawley questioning I watched, zuckerberg seemed to be choosing his words pretty carefully. Everyone knows their claims of no bias are bullshit, maybe lies under oath will carry a penalty one of these days.
If their goal is just to get these conglomerates to stop being mean, these politicians are even more worthless than a Trump ballot in a Dominion machine.
I consider targeted censorship to be more than just “being mean”, but that’s me. Being a publisher would destroy these companies, can’t have million of people who you are responsible in some capacity for what they post. They would have no choice really but to stop the censoring or do what was required to be a platform. What do you think the goal should be in ref to “big tech”? An antitrust would be good to but if they ever actually get serious about this that would be good as well.
My point is that getting them to stop for a minute doesn't do anything... They'll just do it again. These companies' value relies on their ability to manipulate, so they must be broken up. Preferably shattered so thoroughly that the pieces are worthless, but I think that's a lot to ask for.
At the very least, alphabet needs to get anti trusted. That one seems obvious.
The section 230 bit is interesting... As surely if twitter is a pro global publisher, then TD is a pro Trump publisher.
Isn't it illegal for companies to work together like this? How do their shareholders feel knowing that one trillion dollar company is helping out another trillion dollar company? This is akin to price gouging and tech cartel.
He completely admitted it.
He then went on to tell Josh Hawley, that he will ensure he tailors Josh's request to ensure he gets the right information -- this arrogant fuck believes he can alter the senators request to be how he wants it framed, then produce nothing accordingly.
Secondly, he makes the bold claim that he has to ensure he's not giving over his companies private data, while admitting, run-of-the-mill-partisan-employees have access to ALL YOUR PRIVATE DATA AND MESSAGES, including your behavioral Meta-Data such as what images you like, what pages you visit, building a repertoire of your behavior.
So any dude can look at your persona, identifiable information -- but Mark is refusing to be forthcoming about his secret-unified-censorship-and-collusion-platform that Big Tech use without any of the public knowing, until now.
Huge anti-trust violation on top the repercussions of the election meddling via censorship. How are there no legal consequences? Trump better open up a sinkhole on these swamp dwellers.
Ok, and? What portion of that is a crime?
Section 1 Sherman Act theory is exponentially harder in this regard than a Section 2 against one.
And section 2 theory is no walk in the park.