Free market is just a myth, because there're players like the Big Tech who not only invented a new product/service, but also discovered a brand new market and a brand new business mode for that product/service. If you think about it, those social platforms are literally marketplaces of information. So they cornered those marketplaces - for messages, posts, pics, videos, respectively - when their marketplaces were the only marketplaces available to the public, then as they quickly reached the critical mass, they begin to dictate what kinds of information you can give and take, and nip any potential competitors in the bud. Apple has had a tough time in the market even though Steve Jobs invented smart phone, but for Goolag, Twatter and Fakebook, they OWN the market.
Oh really? What piece of legislation do you have in mind? Split Fakebook in four but all owned by Sucker a Burg as before? That would only make him more powerful. Maybe section 230 should be abolished, but Trump brought it up and wedged it into a defense budget bill, it was too late. Besides, I've made my point crystal clear that those "markets" are not really free. They might be free at the beginning to lure as much people in as possible, but then the Big Tech tightened the grip, slowly but surely. People feel it and whine about it, but they have grown dependent upon it and old habits die hard.
Imagine there's only one Walmart in town, and they get to decide who's allowed to sell in their market and who isn't, and they also get to decide where your product is placed, could be in the most visible spot right near the entrance, or in a dark dusty corner where nobody will visit. There're some big brands who sell faulty products that get a lot of complaints, but Walmart still give them preferential treatment and promote their trash, tell me, is that a free market?
Legislation that says social media outlets and user created content hosts much chose between being
A) publishers like a TV network, with the authority to censor anything they want for any reason they want and have no protections against lawsuits for things like defamation and libel
Or
B) A platform like a phone service provider or an internet service provider, with no authority to censor anything and have protections against things lile defamation and libel.
The problem right now is thag social media outlets are living in a gray area where the government is letting them be both platform and publisher at the same time. Solving thag problem is a very simple, stop letting them be both.
Free market is just a myth, because there're players like the Big Tech who not only invented a new product/service, but also discovered a brand new market and a brand new business mode for that product/service. If you think about it, those social platforms are literally marketplaces of information. So they cornered those marketplaces - for messages, posts, pics, videos, respectively - when their marketplaces were the only marketplaces available to the public, then as they quickly reached the critical mass, they begin to dictate what kinds of information you can give and take, and nip any potential competitors in the bud. Apple has had a tough time in the market even though Steve Jobs invented smart phone, but for Goolag, Twatter and Fakebook, they OWN the market.
You are essentially bashing capitalism becuase of a problem that can be solved easily with one single peace of legislation.
Go back to reddit with your commie Bullshit.
Oh really? What piece of legislation do you have in mind? Split Fakebook in four but all owned by Sucker a Burg as before? That would only make him more powerful. Maybe section 230 should be abolished, but Trump brought it up and wedged it into a defense budget bill, it was too late. Besides, I've made my point crystal clear that those "markets" are not really free. They might be free at the beginning to lure as much people in as possible, but then the Big Tech tightened the grip, slowly but surely. People feel it and whine about it, but they have grown dependent upon it and old habits die hard.
Imagine there's only one Walmart in town, and they get to decide who's allowed to sell in their market and who isn't, and they also get to decide where your product is placed, could be in the most visible spot right near the entrance, or in a dark dusty corner where nobody will visit. There're some big brands who sell faulty products that get a lot of complaints, but Walmart still give them preferential treatment and promote their trash, tell me, is that a free market?
Legislation that says social media outlets and user created content hosts much chose between being
A) publishers like a TV network, with the authority to censor anything they want for any reason they want and have no protections against lawsuits for things like defamation and libel
Or
B) A platform like a phone service provider or an internet service provider, with no authority to censor anything and have protections against things lile defamation and libel.
The problem right now is thag social media outlets are living in a gray area where the government is letting them be both platform and publisher at the same time. Solving thag problem is a very simple, stop letting them be both.
You are being rude. I'm done talking to you now.