I’m loathe to see government use its power against businesses just as I am loathe to see businesses abuse their power to censor and try to deceitfully rig elections. Why can’t FB, Twitter, Google, and others just be up front an honest about what they are doing?
There is a trap here because these companies have asked for regulation, not because they want to stop what they are doing but because they want the power of law backing up their actions.
How do non-Democrats craft regulations that wont be abused? What non-regulatory/legal options are there?
There has to be a business case for long term success of competitors. Starting a business based on ideological reasons is dangerous unless there is an untapped market. How many years have these left wing companies failed to make money before finally turning a profit? It is one thing to start a company and have some bad years if you are reasonably confident small measured risks will open a market and another if you are just lighting money on fire.
Speaking of starting a competitor, has anyone actually tried Parler?
Scott Adams on his periscope yesterday said that a tweet on Parler got 20 retweets, whilst the same one on Twitter got 2,000, and he has 500,000 followers on Twitter. Network effects do matter.
And there’s people like me who don’t use Twitter, Periscope, or Parler. I’m even using less broadcast television than I used to. I am concerned that Google/Twitter/Facebook are controlling perceptions by choosing what they allow to be published on their platform while having a pretense of open communication. But I’m not interested enough in the technology to use them or a competitor.
IANAL, but as I understand it, there are provisions in the law that cover this situation. From what I’ve read, if an Internet provider acts simply as a neutral agent, they are shielded from liability over comments by third parties. That would mean that if someone posted something on Rand’s blog and he didn’t edit it, he can’t be sued for that post. However, if the Internet service performs as an editor, then that suggests they must approve of the comments and can be liable. IIRC, it has something to do with 47 USC 230. If my take is correct, then when the big tech companies block conservatives, they’re exposing themselves to civil liability. More info on this is available here.
This law is a completely separate issue form possible anti-trust issues. Perhaps Google should be broken up like AT&T.
In related news, RainForest will soon announce “FaceClick” a one step process for ordering goods and services from RainForest using only the portrait camera in your smartphone. No more messing around with credit card numbers or having to remember lengthy and complicated passwords. With FaceClick a single facial portrait is enough to authorize a purchase with billing info already securely authenticated by RainForest Also shipping can be either to your home address or the address provided automatically by GPS tracking on your phone! Shopping by RainForest has never been easier. Just watch for the giant phallus on the box heading your way soon!
Though that’s (good) satire, I hope no one ever tries it. There have been apps out there which enhance people’s photographs, or ones that say they will show you what you will look like when you’re old given your picture today. Some of these were written by foreign companies, and were shown to transmit the original picture to an unknown location. Anyone who has used one of those has likely had their facial i.d. compromised – possibly irrevocably.
No, likely not a still picture, but maybe a FaceClick short movie of your face and voice recording a provided message for you to recite, for verification purposes, like: “Geoff Bozos is a wonderful person! Vote for Geoff!”
You know, innocuous stuff like that… All property of RainForest of course…
Back in 1984, there was a short-lived resurgence in interest in Orwell’s novel. Even then, the liberal media spun it to instill paranoia that 1984 was a story about a corporate dystopia. It used to really annoy me.
I never, ever dreamed that such a scenario was possible.
That computer company with a fruity name that ran that famous TV ad during 1984’s Superbowl was just slightly off. What they meant to say: Making sure 2024 is just like 1984!
I’m loathe to see government use its power against businesses just as I am loathe to see businesses abuse their power to censor and try to deceitfully rig elections. Why can’t FB, Twitter, Google, and others just be up front an honest about what they are doing?
There is a trap here because these companies have asked for regulation, not because they want to stop what they are doing but because they want the power of law backing up their actions.
How do non-Democrats craft regulations that wont be abused? What non-regulatory/legal options are there?
There has to be a business case for long term success of competitors. Starting a business based on ideological reasons is dangerous unless there is an untapped market. How many years have these left wing companies failed to make money before finally turning a profit? It is one thing to start a company and have some bad years if you are reasonably confident small measured risks will open a market and another if you are just lighting money on fire.
Speaking of starting a competitor, has anyone actually tried Parler?
Scott Adams on his periscope yesterday said that a tweet on Parler got 20 retweets, whilst the same one on Twitter got 2,000, and he has 500,000 followers on Twitter. Network effects do matter.
And there’s people like me who don’t use Twitter, Periscope, or Parler. I’m even using less broadcast television than I used to. I am concerned that Google/Twitter/Facebook are controlling perceptions by choosing what they allow to be published on their platform while having a pretense of open communication. But I’m not interested enough in the technology to use them or a competitor.
IANAL, but as I understand it, there are provisions in the law that cover this situation. From what I’ve read, if an Internet provider acts simply as a neutral agent, they are shielded from liability over comments by third parties. That would mean that if someone posted something on Rand’s blog and he didn’t edit it, he can’t be sued for that post. However, if the Internet service performs as an editor, then that suggests they must approve of the comments and can be liable. IIRC, it has something to do with 47 USC 230. If my take is correct, then when the big tech companies block conservatives, they’re exposing themselves to civil liability. More info on this is available here.
This law is a completely separate issue form possible anti-trust issues. Perhaps Google should be broken up like AT&T.
In related news, RainForest will soon announce “FaceClick” a one step process for ordering goods and services from RainForest using only the portrait camera in your smartphone. No more messing around with credit card numbers or having to remember lengthy and complicated passwords. With FaceClick a single facial portrait is enough to authorize a purchase with billing info already securely authenticated by RainForest Also shipping can be either to your home address or the address provided automatically by GPS tracking on your phone! Shopping by RainForest has never been easier. Just watch for the giant phallus on the box heading your way soon!
Though that’s (good) satire, I hope no one ever tries it. There have been apps out there which enhance people’s photographs, or ones that say they will show you what you will look like when you’re old given your picture today. Some of these were written by foreign companies, and were shown to transmit the original picture to an unknown location. Anyone who has used one of those has likely had their facial i.d. compromised – possibly irrevocably.
No, likely not a still picture, but maybe a FaceClick short movie of your face and voice recording a provided message for you to recite, for verification purposes, like: “Geoff Bozos is a wonderful person! Vote for Geoff!”
You know, innocuous stuff like that… All property of RainForest of course…
Back in 1984, there was a short-lived resurgence in interest in Orwell’s novel. Even then, the liberal media spun it to instill paranoia that 1984 was a story about a corporate dystopia. It used to really annoy me.
I never, ever dreamed that such a scenario was possible.
That computer company with a fruity name that ran that famous TV ad during 1984’s Superbowl was just slightly off. What they meant to say: Making sure 2024 is just like 1984!