Well to be fair, big tech is out to get (or I should say silence) conservatives. This has been proven many times over the past few years.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
United States Justice Department Launching Antitrust Review of Major Tech Companies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I
[doublepost=1563998201][/doublepost]
Why don’t you ask a conservative. I’m not your errand boy.
[doublepost=1563998201][/doublepost]
Total ********, but then you already knew that.
"Zuckerberg's large donation to Democrats and his criticism of Trump have led some to the conclusion that the Facebook CEO is a Democrat. But Zuckerberg did not contribute to anyone in the 2016 congressional or presidential races, not even Democrat Hillary Clinton. He also stayed out of the 2018 midterm elections, records show. But Zuckerberg and Facebook have nonetheless come under intense scrutiny for the social network's outsized influence on American political discourse, in particular its role in the 2016 election.Zuckerberg's large donation to Democrats and his criticism of Trump have led some to the conclusion that the Facebook CEO is a Democrat. But Zuckerberg did not contribute to anyone in the 2016 congressional or presidential races, not even Democrat Hillary Clinton. He also stayed out of the 2018 midterm elections, records show. But Zuckerberg and Facebook have nonetheless come under intense scrutiny for the social network's outsized influence on American political discourse, in particular its role in the 2016 election."
Not really. He just stays out of politics now given his status.
He's still liberal.
because its a response to you. so i asked you. errand boy. not hard to understand.
haha and you really are showing your ignorance about aws but you knew that already.
But are they a platform if they are limiting free speech? This suppression would signify they are a publisher, which means they are responsible for all content uploaded just like a newspaper. I am really not sure they want to go there.
If they want to be a platform like a phone line then they need to stop suppressing speech.
Still not your errand boy. Use Google.
If you’re going to call someone ignorant, try and form it into a coherent set of words and punctuation. We call it a sentence in case you were wondering.
Last time I checked, the EU parliament hasn’t stopped the UK from doing a hard exit. The problem is the UK wants to exit on their terms and not simply leave.
If you read the news about Barr, this appears to be some kind of scare tactic to make companies give the FBI a backdoor into services. I'm fed up with them acting like they have some kind of right to access all the information of everyone in the world. We need some new constitutional amendments protecting our rights in the modern age.
I agree Either they exert no control or control and accept responsibility for content.
sorry your not anyone important enough. and no, I don't need to use google when your the one making blanket statements of identity politics.. so why don't you back up your claim. oh maybe because it's just a talking point.
hahaha
also proving yourself as a true conservative. no facts.
Genius. Why don't we just ban the whole internet, then nobody you disagree with will be able to say anything at all.
As far as Facebook is concerned, I have my own reasons why I despise this app and its CEO.. which I won't disclose here. But, let me assure you that in Ukraine and Poland we don't like him, though we use his disgusting app. All I am saying is don't post any personal information, or it can be used by the government to harm you.
Exactly my point. The UK parliament is the "highest law in the land". The "will of the people" is subordinate.
Many people fall for the lie that the UK is a "Constitutional Monarchy". The UK is neither - it has no constitution, and the monarchy is just a show pony tabloid spectacle.
The misconception was that the "monarchy" would uphold the will of "The Sovereign's" people, but there is nothing in UK governance to actually uphold that accountability.
Last edited:
Good points, but all of which could be applied to Amazon and Google today. Just as AT&T was spit to separate telephone service providers from equipment development/manufacturing - Google can be split to separate search service provider and search tech development - Amazon can be split to separate online retail sales from online retail tech development :: DONE!
But you missed my main point in that AT&T Network Systems, which became Lucent was never protected from harm inflicted by the the French monopoly Alcatel. Today, the US government must also effectively protect the Google and Amazon post-split entities from foreign monopolies. It makes no sense for the US government to split up a US monopoly on the basis that they harm competition, only to have those residual entities exposed to that same harm by foreign monopolies.
Actually,WalMart did with their domination of the CD market. MP3's set the path to the end of music stores before Apple got into music.
[doublepost=1564085138][/doublepost]
I'm not sure it is as easy with tech companies as it was with the old Bell System. Western Electric / Bell labs developed technology that was then deployed and while integral to the phone system once deployed was a static omponent until rpelaced. Search and online sales have an evolving underlying technology that is not easily seperated from each other.
I'm not sure what your point is. You said the EU was preventing the UK from leaving, if I recall. The EU isn't doing that, it's the UK that can't decide what they want to do if they don't like the terms the EU offered when faced with a hard exit.
I can understand the EU's position that the UK got themselves into this mess and it isn't their job to help them leave on the UK's terms, as it seems some politicians promised their constituencies in the UK. I seems to me, as an outsider, that both sides sold the people a bill of goods and now are worried about their political fate if Brexit happens; as well as the possibility of the UK splitting up.n After all, if the UK can leave the EU why can't Scotland, Wales and N Ireland leave the UK?
It's the UK version of waking up in a Vegas hotel room with a new wedding band and a stripper named Merceds in bed with you who also has a ring on. You're buddies' idea seemed good at the time, but now what?
Once deployed, an e-commerce system can be static, until the "Mom and Pop" retailer can afford to upgrade. Rack space is cheap.
Again, this is about small businesses having their needs served fairly by tech, something that big tech actively stifles.
Search engines and Video sites can diversify around industries/themes/specialties/themes - Google prevents this.
For example (and a very good one): The gun industry can support both a specialized search, and video sites for gun industry topics. The gun industry will have their needs met, and Google can get out of the business of policing the gun industry based on Google's politics. And the "Mom and Pop" gun shop mentioned above can get proper visibility on both the search and video sites.
Hope someone at the FTC is reading my posts.
I did. And I repeat myself. Are they a government entity?
If you make an ass of yourself on here, you have your posts removed and you're possibly banned. MacRumors "violated" your freedom of speech. Will you be suing them? Would you complain to your local representatives? If MacRumors sees fit, they can screen your posts indefinitely, choosing what to allow to be seen by other users and what cannot be seen by other users. This is a form of censorship. Will you being suing MacRumors or any other forum for violating your so-called freedom of speech when they're not a government entity?
Free speech laws protect you from government actions. It's what allows me to call certain politicians "dumbasses" without being tazed, thrown into prison, or fined. It allows me to be highly critical in a respectable manner of government without fearing retribution. You're free to say whatever you want on any other platform or intended target, but don't presume you won't be punished by a non-government entity.
You could go up to Cory Booker and call him the 'N' word or something equally racially charged like "monkey" and he won't have you arrested or fined because he can't.Because as a government official he'd be violating your freedom of speech laws. Now, if you get your ass knocked out by a Black person, they're not violating your freedom of speech. They're wanting to beat the **** out of a racist. Or if you get your house set alight. Lose your job because your employer heard about it or was forced to rid themselves of a vile and despicable human being.
Not suggesting you'd do this, but I needed an example. In the same manner you could go up to Buttigieg and drop the F word in front of him and his husband. They can't do much about it apart ask you to leave, nicely, or invite you to stay which is more likely since they're mid-westerners. But you might be named and shamed in the press, you may lose your job, standing in your community, and so forth. Those don't violate your rights. Kindly asking you to leave also wouldn't. If you were forcefully removed, you could sue for violation of freedom of speech.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure this information is incorrect.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is what gives "interactive computer service" providers immunity from the content of posts made by their users. If you're thinking of some other law, then please specify exactly what it is.
Section 230 is fairly brief, and quite clearly written.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Subsection (c)(1) makes it clear that an "interactive computer service" provider (or user) is not a publisher. (c)(2) says that restricting access or availability of information (i.e. limiting what appears on the service) cannot result in civil liability. (d) says what the obligations are.
There are more provisions, which can be read at the above link.
The definitions used in Section 230 are listed under (f). The distinction between "information content provider" and "interactive service provider" is an important one, when it comes to who is responsible for what under the law.
I don't see "platform" defined in (f), so unless you're using it as a synonym for a defined term in the legislation, you'll have to explain what you mean by "platform", using the definitions that are used.
Telephone lines are covered by different statutes. One of the main distinctions is point-to-point (telephone) vs. general access (interactive service provider).