Progressive Ideology

[tech37]

So no regulation becomes a problem and reality is massaging the regulation in while giving a reacharound ti said regulators is really what “business” wants.

Bingo.

The part I"m mocking is a bunch 2020 Republicans begging for the regulation of a multinational corporation simply because they think they're run by liberals.

That's it. That's all this is about. If Facebook was "mean to libs"? Tech and the rest of Fox Nation wouldn't give one single fig about anything they did.

How do I know this?........ when Trump was doing his thing on twitter daily...for four years? Anyone remember FoxNation or Tech complaining about Twitter's monopoly powers back then?

Whoops. They both "forgot" to tell us that Twitter and Facebook were monopolies when Trump was using those tools to his advantage, and boy, we better break them up.

THAT is why I'm laughing. He's welcome to his opinions, of course. But he doesn't get to be this absurdly transparent about what his ACTUAL complaint is when it comes to BigTech .......without getting some well earned grief.

a fan, as with most complicated topics, your need to separate, categorize, label, place in buckets and silos, compartmentalize, falls flat, when in reality, the issues with Big Tech, including free speech, regulation, and monopoly status are more like a Venn Diagram. These issues are not an either or situation, they're related. No one moved any "goal posts."

And obviously, I posted the story re FTC Commissioner because the monopoly issue had gained traction. We'll see how Biden's pick handles things.

Still playing your little d, little r game I see, and posting false information as well. Now let's not lie anymore a fan

I complained numerous times over the years re Trump and his tweeting and you know it.

And how Trump used social media has nothing to do with the topic... nice try though.

[tech37]

Alcohol production affects everyone’s lives socially and economically all the time.

There isn't a business sector that doesn't affect everyone's lives in America.

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

There was a federal prohibition in the 20th century on alcohol. In fact that’s a business that’s highly regulated, tons of power and the state and local level only rivaled by auto dealerships and NAR (realtors). I always assumed that’s a part of why Afan was so pro govt regulation because he’s lived with it for a long time (time spent in formative years in Germany and N Europe also contributing I figured).

I prefer .gov regulation, because without what little we have, my business wouldn't exist. Budweiser(ABInBev) owned a laughable 50% of the beer market in the US, and regulators stood by and did NOTHING about this obvious monopoly. I have no interest in removing even more regulations.

[MDlaxfan76]

Alcohol production affects everyone’s lives socially and economically all the time.

There isn't a business sector that doesn't affect everyone's lives in America.

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

There was a federal prohibition in the 20th century on alcohol. In fact that’s a business that’s highly regulated, tons of power and the state and local level only rivaled by auto dealerships and NAR (realtors). I always assumed that’s a part of why Afan was so pro govt regulation because he’s lived with it for a long time (time spent in formative years in Germany and N Europe also contributing I figured).

I prefer .gov regulation, because without what little we have, my business wouldn't exist. Budweiser(ABInBev) owned a laughable 50% of the beer market in the US, and regulators stood by and did NOTHING about this obvious monopoly. I have no interest in removing even more regulations.

If we stipulate that the information economy is enormously influential, and we also stipulate that all businesses face some measure of regulation due to any "pollution" or other public safety priorities, the "fences" and 'rules' that enable private enterprise to compete on a known, hopefully 'level' playing field, the question becomes what regulations are appropriate and beneficial and which are not.

IMO, the "pollution" produced in the information economy is "disinformation", the purposeful lies designed to benefit one party at the expense of another. So, we have slander and libel laws. And we have false advertising laws. And we have laws restricting incitement to violence.

The question is whether we should have other laws/rules restricting certain speech or not.

It would seem that the far right is not concerned with the "pollution" produced by disinformation (as long as it benefits their preferred parties and/or damages competing parties), instead they actually want to require private companies to carry and propagate such disinformation, even that which is clearly designed to divide and inflame through lies.

That's a rather radical, certainly not "conservative', view of the role government should play in regulating private business...the requirement to "pollute".

[Typical Lax Dad]

Alcohol production affects everyone’s lives socially and economically all the time.

There isn't a business sector that doesn't affect everyone's lives in America.

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

There was a federal prohibition in the 20th century on alcohol. In fact that’s a business that’s highly regulated, tons of power and the state and local level only rivaled by auto dealerships and NAR (realtors). I always assumed that’s a part of why Afan was so pro govt regulation because he’s lived with it for a long time (time spent in formative years in Germany and N Europe also contributing I figured).

I prefer .gov regulation, because without what little we have, my business wouldn't exist. Budweiser(ABInBev) owned a laughable 50% of the beer market in the US, and regulators stood by and did NOTHING about this obvious monopoly. I have no interest in removing even more regulations.

Ummm social media companies on the internet are businesses....political content is big business.....

[tech37]

Alcohol production affects everyone’s lives socially and economically all the time.

There isn't a business sector that doesn't affect everyone's lives in America.

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

There was a federal prohibition in the 20th century on alcohol. In fact that’s a business that’s highly regulated, tons of power and the state and local level only rivaled by auto dealerships and NAR (realtors). I always assumed that’s a part of why Afan was so pro govt regulation because he’s lived with it for a long time (time spent in formative years in Germany and N Europe also contributing I figured).

I prefer .gov regulation, because without what little we have, my business wouldn't exist. Budweiser(ABInBev) owned a laughable 50% of the beer market in the US, and regulators stood by and did NOTHING about this obvious monopoly. I have no interest in removing even more regulations.

If we stipulate that the information economy is enormously influential, and we also stipulate that all businesses face some measure of regulation due to any "pollution" or other public safety priorities, the "fences" and 'rules' that enable private enterprise to compete on a known, hopefully 'level' playing field, the question becomes what regulations are appropriate and beneficial and which are not.

IMO, the "pollution" produced in the information economy is "disinformation", the purposeful lies designed to benefit one party at the expense of another. So, we have slander and libel laws. And we have false advertising laws. And we have laws restricting incitement to violence.

The question is whether we should have other laws/rules restricting certain speech or not.

It would seem that the far right is not concerned with the "pollution" produced by disinformation (as long as it benefits their preferred parties and/or damages competing parties), instead they actually want to require private companies to carry and propagate such disinformation, even that which is clearly designed to divide and inflame through lies.

That's a rather radical, certainly not "conservative', view of the role government should play in regulating private business...the requirement to "pollute".

Personally, I have mixed feelings re this complex issue. I'm all for free speech but at same time concerned that hate speech and/or terrorist planning will lead to bad outcomes. Perhaps an initial move would be to repeal Section 230 but then let the platforms monitor free speech as they see fit. This is in keeping with what Stoller says in the podcast. That way the onus/liability is on the platforms and they can sink or swim with how they handle information.

a fan mentioned FB could handle any law suit and that's probably true. Isn't that cause for a break up right there?

Seems to me Parler is a different situation where there is no equal access on equal terms. They are being cancelled due to their politics. This goes to free speech and to a company like Amazon being too big/powerful.

Just my opinion but I do believe there are too few players with too much power. And of course politics is involved.

[MDlaxfan76]

Alcohol production affects everyone’s lives socially and economically all the time.

There isn't a business sector that doesn't affect everyone's lives in America.

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

There was a federal prohibition in the 20th century on alcohol. In fact that’s a business that’s highly regulated, tons of power and the state and local level only rivaled by auto dealerships and NAR (realtors). I always assumed that’s a part of why Afan was so pro govt regulation because he’s lived with it for a long time (time spent in formative years in Germany and N Europe also contributing I figured).

I prefer .gov regulation, because without what little we have, my business wouldn't exist. Budweiser(ABInBev) owned a laughable 50% of the beer market in the US, and regulators stood by and did NOTHING about this obvious monopoly. I have no interest in removing even more regulations.

If we stipulate that the information economy is enormously influential, and we also stipulate that all businesses face some measure of regulation due to any "pollution" or other public safety priorities, the "fences" and 'rules' that enable private enterprise to compete on a known, hopefully 'level' playing field, the question becomes what regulations are appropriate and beneficial and which are not.

IMO, the "pollution" produced in the information economy is "disinformation", the purposeful lies designed to benefit one party at the expense of another. So, we have slander and libel laws. And we have false advertising laws. And we have laws restricting incitement to violence.

The question is whether we should have other laws/rules restricting certain speech or not.

It would seem that the far right is not concerned with the "pollution" produced by disinformation (as long as it benefits their preferred parties and/or damages competing parties), instead they actually want to require private companies to carry and propagate such disinformation, even that which is clearly designed to divide and inflame through lies.

That's a rather radical, certainly not "conservative', view of the role government should play in regulating private business...the requirement to "pollute".

Personally, I have mixed feelings re this complex issue. I'm all for free speech but at same time concerned that hate speech and/or terrorist planning will lead to bad outcomes. Perhaps an initial move would be to repeal Section 230 but then let the platforms monitor free speech as they see fit. This is in keeping with what Stoller says in the podcast. That way the onus/liability is on the platforms and they can sink or swim with how they handle information.

a fan mentioned FB could handle any law suit and that's probably true. Isn't that cause for a break up right there?

Seems to me Parler is a different situation where there is no equal access on equal terms. They are being cancelled due to their politics. This goes to free speech and to a company like Amazon being too big/powerful.

Just my opinion but I do believe there are too few players with too much power. And of course politics is involved.

Indeed complex. And indeed, there's a lot of power...which would be a serious issue if they were to also act collusively...but their competitors, both here in the US and abroad are massive as well, all jockeying to gain advantage relative to others.

I DO think there are legit antitrust issues that could be pursued, ala how the Europeans treat anti-competitive behaviors more aggressively than we have done, but I don't think that mere size is the issue to be addressed...it's when they use that size to squash nascent competitors that antitrust should play a role.

Re Parler I think it's a false narrative to say they are being "cancelled". They are free to host their system on their own computers or to pay someone else to host them other than Amazon. I repeat...they can host it on their own computers.

Amazon simply doesn't want the liability of doing business with an avowed and unrepentant "polluter". They have too much else at stake to want that liability.

[a fan]

a fan, as with most complicated topics, your need to separate, categorize, label, place in buckets and silos, compartmentalize, falls flat

Yeah, I should really stop looking at all sides of a topic, and just shoot my mouth off without thinking...

when in reality, the issues with Big Tech, including free speech, regulation, and monopoly status are more like a Venn Diagram. These issues are not an either or situation, they're related

And you can say that about every major business sector in America. You're just paying attention to what's in the news today, and don't want to hear that we've been allowing obvious monopolies for decades in every business sector---some worse than others. Ma Bell was the last big break up. Know how many years ago that was?

Still playing your little d, little r game I see, and posting false information as well. Now let's not lie anymore a fan

I complained numerous times over the years re Trump and his tweeting and you know it

If you're going to give me grief for lying, you don't get to do it yourself.

So sure, you said you'd prefer Trump shut up with the twitter. In what world is that in the same ballpark as "twitter and facebook are monopolies that need to be broken up"? So no, my man, you did NOT complain about this until AFTER they started weeding out dangerous tinfoil hat posts. And as you know, some of those dangerous posts led to a murdered Capitol police officer, and the breaking of numerous Federal laws.

So gee whiz golly, I just can't figure out why facebook and twitter would want to reduce the tinfoil hat postings that are stuffed with lies and Russian propaganda? Can you? Must be a conspiracy against conservatives, because gee whiz, I can't come up with another reason as to why twitter and facebook would want to weed out politically motivated lies and disinformation.

And how Trump used social media has nothing to do with the topic... nice try though.

Riiiiiiiiight. Fake Conservatives who swear they hate regulation, and who do everything in their power to ENABLE monopolies just "coincidentally" want to break up twitter and facebook AFTER those two platforms started removing tinfoilhat political conspiracies from their platforms.

If you're telling us that you're this dumb.....ok. But you see----I don't believe you're anywhere near this stupid. Sorry, my man. Trump is the ONLY reason Republicans are pretending to want to break up monopolies.

(pssst, they won't do it)

[a fan]

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

You mean like when for decades, we only had three National TV stations? You know---when you and others were bragging about Cronkite and the other two networks reading the EXACT same news every day?

Naaaaaah. That wasn't an example of a monopoly that "affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like TV, and the three giants that controlled it. "

[a fan]

Personally, I have mixed feelings re this complex issue. I'm all for free speech but at same time concerned that hate speech and/or terrorist planning will lead to bad outcomes. Perhaps an initial move would be to repeal Section 230 but then let the platforms monitor free speech as they see fit. This is in keeping with what Stoller says in the podcast. That way the onus/liability is on the platforms and they can sink or swim with how they handle information.

So....you want to kill Laxpower? You think Matnumpi can handle a lawsuit launched by an angry parent over some idiotic post made by nutjob lacrosse fans?

a fan mentioned FB could handle any law suit and that's probably true. Isn't that cause for a break up right there?

Yep. So please, break up every company that can handle lawsuits. Works for me. We can start with the big alcohol companies. It would certainly make my marketplace (gasp) fair.

Seems to me Parler is a different situation where there is no equal access on equal terms. They are being cancelled due to their politics.

Picture you're in charge of a company that does business with Parler. You're telling me that you'd want to put your ENTIRE business at risk for some pointless APP that does NOTHING for your bottom line?

It has NOTHING to do with politics. If THAT was the issue? Carriers would cancel Fox. Or Rush. Or any number of right wing media shows.

[njbill]

You think Matnumpi can handle a lawsuit launched by an angry parent over some idiotic post made by nutjob lacrosse fans?

I know you are being serious, and I shouldn’t laugh, but “angry parent” and “nut job lacrosse fans” got me rolling on the floor. If we get rid of both categories, we wouldn’t have very many posters around here.

[a fan]

You think Matnumpi can handle a lawsuit launched by an angry parent over some idiotic post made by nutjob lacrosse fans?

I know you are being serious, and I shouldn’t laugh, but “angry parent” and “nut job lacrosse fans” got me rolling on the floor. If we get rid of both categories, we wouldn’t have very many posters around here.

Want to laugh more? I initially wrote "nutjob Hopkins fan" for a bit of fun, and reconsidered.

We've had more than a few posts over the years where player's parents asked "what the F is wrong with you?" when a poster singled out a player by name. And it was ALWAYS in the Hopkins thread.

[njbill]

[tech37]

a fan, as with most complicated topics, your need to separate, categorize, label, place in buckets and silos, compartmentalize, falls flat

Yeah, I should really stop looking at all sides of a topic, and just shoot my mouth off without thinking...

when in reality, the issues with Big Tech, including free speech, regulation, and monopoly status are more like a Venn Diagram. These issues are not an either or situation, they're related

And you can say that about every major business sector in America. You're just paying attention to what's in the news today, and don't want to hear that we've been allowing obvious monopolies for decades in every business sector---some worse than others. Ma Bell was the last big break up. Know how many years ago that was?

In the news, sure. In the news for good reason. No other business sectors and their affects on our society are comparable.
Sorry, I think you're wrong.

Still playing your little d, little r game I see, and posting false information as well. Now let's not lie anymore a fan

I complained numerous times over the years re Trump and his tweeting and you know it

If you're going to give me grief for lying, you don't get to do it yourself.

So sure, you said you'd prefer Trump shut up with the twitter.

Oh, so now you admit it... nice... you weren't honest about it.

In what world is that in the same ballpark as "twitter and facebook are monopolies that need to be broken up"? So no, my man, you did NOT complain about this until AFTER they started weeding out dangerous tinfoil hat posts.

That's classic strawman arguing, your go to method. Why would I complain when they had every right to do so? That's why I've said each platform could still handle info as they wish but would be liable for bad outcomes. If you poison one of your customers, that's a bad outcome, you're liable, as it should be. Why is Big Tech any different?

So gee whiz golly, I just can't figure out why facebook and twitter would want to reduce the tinfoil hat postings that are stuffed with lies and Russian propaganda? Can you? Must be a conspiracy against conservatives, because gee whiz, I can't come up with another reason as to why twitter and facebook would want to weed out politically motivated lies and disinformation.

They can, and do, and would continue to... no problem.

And how Trump used social media has nothing to do with the topic... nice try though.

Riiiiiiiiight. Fake Conservatives who swear they hate regulation, and who do everything in their power to ENABLE monopolies just "coincidentally" want to break up twitter and facebook AFTER those two platforms started removing tinfoilhat political conspiracies from their platforms.

Except that it has bipartisan support:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... m-amid-co/

https://apnews.com/article/technology-5 ... 0c12292436

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -big-tech/

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/26/22241053/ ... h-monopoly

As I said, nice try...

If you're telling us that you're this dumb.....ok. But you see----I don't believe you're anywhere near this stupid. Sorry, my man. Trump is the ONLY reason Republicans are pretending to want to break up monopolies.

Thanks a fan... no, you never shoot off your mouth

(pssst, they won't do it)

Maybe, we'll see.

[Farfromgeneva]

Alcohol production affects everyone’s lives socially and economically all the time.

There isn't a business sector that doesn't affect everyone's lives in America.

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

There was a federal prohibition in the 20th century on alcohol. In fact that’s a business that’s highly regulated, tons of power and the state and local level only rivaled by auto dealerships and NAR (realtors). I always assumed that’s a part of why Afan was so pro govt regulation because he’s lived with it for a long time (time spent in formative years in Germany and N Europe also contributing I figured).

I prefer .gov regulation, because without what little we have, my business wouldn't exist. Budweiser(ABInBev) owned a laughable 50% of the beer market in the US, and regulators stood by and did NOTHING about this obvious monopoly. I have no interest in removing even more regulations.

If we stipulate that the information economy is enormously influential, and we also stipulate that all businesses face some measure of regulation due to any "pollution" or other public safety priorities, the "fences" and 'rules' that enable private enterprise to compete on a known, hopefully 'level' playing field, the question becomes what regulations are appropriate and beneficial and which are not.

IMO, the "pollution" produced in the information economy is "disinformation", the purposeful lies designed to benefit one party at the expense of another. So, we have slander and libel laws. And we have false advertising laws. And we have laws restricting incitement to violence.

The question is whether we should have other laws/rules restricting certain speech or not.

It would seem that the far right is not concerned with the "pollution" produced by disinformation (as long as it benefits their preferred parties and/or damages competing parties), instead they actually want to require private companies to carry and propagate such disinformation, even that which is clearly designed to divide and inflame through lies.

That's a rather radical, certainly not "conservative', view of the role government should play in regulating private business...the requirement to "pollute".

Personally, I have mixed feelings re this complex issue. I'm all for free speech but at same time concerned that hate speech and/or terrorist planning will lead to bad outcomes. Perhaps an initial move would be to repeal Section 230 but then let the platforms monitor free speech as they see fit. This is in keeping with what Stoller says in the podcast. That way the onus/liability is on the platforms and they can sink or swim with how they handle information.

a fan mentioned FB could handle any law suit and that's probably true. Isn't that cause for a break up right there?

Seems to me Parler is a different situation where there is no equal access on equal terms. They are being cancelled due to their politics. This goes to free speech and to a company like Amazon being too big/powerful.

Just my opinion but I do believe there are too few players with too much power. And of course politics is involved.

Indeed complex. And indeed, there's a lot of power...which would be a serious issue if they were to also act collusively...but their competitors, both here in the US and abroad are massive as well, all jockeying to gain advantage relative to others.

I DO think there are legit antitrust issues that could be pursued, ala how the Europeans treat anti-competitive behaviors more aggressively than we have done, but I don't think that mere size is the issue to be addressed...it's when they use that size to squash nascent competitors that antitrust should play a role.

Re Parler I think it's a false narrative to say they are being "cancelled". They are free to host their system on their own computers or to pay someone else to host them other than Amazon. I repeat...they can host it on their own computers.

Amazon simply doesn't want the liability of doing business with an avowed and unrepentant "polluter". They have too much else at stake to want that liability.

The Parler part of the argument is bs (that you’re addressing) because there’s solid alternative cloud options out there that many commercial businesses use. Anyone who ignores or denies this does it willfully and is being dishonest or ignorant to the actual reality that exists today.

We don’t want the EUs version of antitrust enforcement I promise. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attach ... 0-full.pdf

[Farfromgeneva]

a fan, as with most complicated topics, your need to separate, categorize, label, place in buckets and silos, compartmentalize, falls flat

Yeah, I should really stop looking at all sides of a topic, and just shoot my mouth off without thinking...

when in reality, the issues with Big Tech, including free speech, regulation, and monopoly status are more like a Venn Diagram. These issues are not an either or situation, they're related

And you can say that about every major business sector in America. You're just paying attention to what's in the news today, and don't want to hear that we've been allowing obvious monopolies for decades in every business sector---some worse than others. Ma Bell was the last big break up. Know how many years ago that was?

Still playing your little d, little r game I see, and posting false information as well. Now let's not lie anymore a fan

I complained numerous times over the years re Trump and his tweeting and you know it

If you're going to give me grief for lying, you don't get to do it yourself.

So sure, you said you'd prefer Trump shut up with the twitter. In what world is that in the same ballpark as "twitter and facebook are monopolies that need to be broken up"? So no, my man, you did NOT complain about this until AFTER they started weeding out dangerous tinfoil hat posts. And as you know, some of those dangerous posts led to a murdered Capitol police officer, and the breaking of numerous Federal laws.

So gee whiz golly, I just can't figure out why facebook and twitter would want to reduce the tinfoil hat postings that are stuffed with lies and Russian propaganda? Can you? Must be a conspiracy against conservatives, because gee whiz, I can't come up with another reason as to why twitter and facebook would want to weed out politically motivated lies and disinformation.

And how Trump used social media has nothing to do with the topic... nice try though.

Riiiiiiiiight. Fake Conservatives who swear they hate regulation, and who do everything in their power to ENABLE monopolies just "coincidentally" want to break up twitter and facebook AFTER those two platforms started removing tinfoilhat political conspiracies from their platforms.

If you're telling us that you're this dumb.....ok. But you see----I don't believe you're anywhere near this stupid. Sorry, my man. Trump is the ONLY reason Republicans are pretending to want to break up monopolies.

(pssst, they won't do it)

We don’t have many true monopolies more like oligopolies. Microsoft got slapped pretty bad turn of the millenia, outcome similar to a “breakup”. They’ve pivoted a lot better than AT&T did.

[Farfromgeneva]

Personally, I have mixed feelings re this complex issue. I'm all for free speech but at same time concerned that hate speech and/or terrorist planning will lead to bad outcomes. Perhaps an initial move would be to repeal Section 230 but then let the platforms monitor free speech as they see fit. This is in keeping with what Stoller says in the podcast. That way the onus/liability is on the platforms and they can sink or swim with how they handle information.

So....you want to kill Laxpower? You think Matnumpi can handle a lawsuit launched by an angry parent over some idiotic post made by nutjob lacrosse fans?

a fan mentioned FB could handle any law suit and that's probably true. Isn't that cause for a break up right there?

Yep. So please, break up every company that can handle lawsuits. Works for me. We can start with the big alcohol companies. It would certainly make my marketplace (gasp) fair.

Seems to me Parler is a different situation where there is no equal access on equal terms. They are being cancelled due to their politics.

Picture you're in charge of a company that does business with Parler. You're telling me that you'd want to put your ENTIRE business at risk for some pointless APP that does NOTHING for your bottom line?

It has NOTHING to do with politics. If THAT was the issue? Carriers would cancel Fox. Or Rush. Or any number of right wing media shows.

I think a private equity firm killed LaxPower, but fanlax is around.

[tech37]

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

You mean like when for decades, we only had three National TV stations? You know---when you and others were bragging about Cronkite and the other two networks reading the EXACT same news every day?

I said nothing about Walter Cronkite. More fake news/misinformation from you.

Naaaaaah. That wasn't an example of a monopoly that "affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like TV, and the three giants that controlled it. "

Completely different medium, completely different time. Why bother?

[a fan]

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

Well, if that's what you believe, vote for very liberal Democrats every chance you get. No one else is going to dismantle these companies.

Bernie has been telling you this his entire career. Vote for leaders like Bernie....

[cradleandshoot]

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

You mean like when for decades, we only had three National TV stations? You know---when you and others were bragging about Cronkite and the other two networks reading the EXACT same news every day?

Naaaaaah. That wasn't an example of a monopoly that "affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like TV, and the three giants that controlled it. "

I gots news for you buckwheat, nothing has changed in our nightly news. On rare occasions I watch NBC news if I'm slow on the remote control. I could, if I was a glutton for punishment, toggle over to ABC or CBS news. They report the news off off the same script a Fan. You will listen to the same bullchit only presented by a different, smiling, happy anchor head with dazzlingly white teeth and perfectly couffured hair. They sure as effing hell don't pretend to be Walter Cronkite. Walter NEVER delivered the evening news with a chit eating grin plastered on his face but what the hell.. if that's your preferred cup of news tea.

[cradleandshoot]

Disagree. Nothing affects society, culture, the mental health of the nation like the internet and the few giants that control it.
It's incomparable IMO.

Well, if that's what you believe, vote for very liberal Democrats every chance you get. No one else is going to dismantle these companies.

Bernie has been telling you this his entire career. Vote for leaders like Bernie....

I'm visualizing the day Bernie shows up at your door and starts dictating to you, the capitalist pig that you are, how to run your bidness. Then he will hop into a hot tub and demand samples of your silver tree vodka so he can decide how much you owe in reperations to the Russians.