LaxPower Back-Up Stick

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:51 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:32 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:18 pm It's been established that the vast majority of communication/planning re Capitol siege was done on platforms other than Parler, yet Parler gets all the scrutiny. Wonder why?

So you can't figure it out?

Is Parler moderated in any way? No.

So what does that mean? Think for a change, without your right wing lense.

"Wonder why?" was rhetorical but that's OK. Funny thing how free speech used to be a liberal cause.

So you can't figure it out. Ok.

As for your 'free speech used to be liberal cause' comment....you're telling me that you buy the moronic FoxNation argument, and now think free speech means that you get to FORCE a company to publish whatever you want?

Up is down. Down is up. Trump has done such a number on millions of Americans, it's ridiculous.

Do I get to force TrumpInc. to publish my book idea? And if they refuse to do it-----they're stifling (snicker) my rights?

Come on. You're smarter than this.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:04 pm What IS your problem with being able to say what you want on an electronic keyboard ?

So you think you get to tell twitter and facebook and the NYTimes what to publish?

And if they don't publish every word you want, you think that's bad?

They don't get a choice in the matter----they HAVE to do what you want?

Come on. You don't actually think that.....

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:18 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:51 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:32 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:18 pm It's been established that the vast majority of communication/planning re Capitol siege was done on platforms other than Parler, yet Parler gets all the scrutiny. Wonder why?

So you can't figure it out?

Is Parler moderated in any way? No.

So what does that mean? Think for a change, without your right wing lense.

"Wonder why?" was rhetorical but that's OK. Funny thing how free speech used to be a liberal cause.

So you can't figure it out. Ok. and you refuse to educate us ? just leave us ignorant? I for one, would like to know exactly what you think/meant.

deleted the rest as it brought nothing to this discussion
Come on. You're smarter than this. Yet, Coach Striebel, correctly so, emphasizes the importance of using cones, no matter what the level.

So, one last time, please explain why it is harmful to say what ever you want on a social media business, the TRUE definition of 230 protection. Once you censor, is it, to take your demeanor, that hard to figure out that IS editing

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:27 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:04 pm What IS your problem with being able to say what you want on an electronic keyboard ?

So you think you get to tell twitter and facebook and the NYTimes what to publish?

And if they don't publish every word you want, you think that's bad?

They don't get a choice in the matter----they HAVE to do what you want?

Come on. You don't actually think that.....

I would prefer it if you answered why you think it is bad to publish whatever you want. THAT.....is the topic. What is the question at hand.

Stop answering questions with a question. You seem to endorse editing, explain the harm of having a platform that does not. Simple enough question, I thought.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:27 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:04 pm What IS your problem with being able to say what you want on an electronic keyboard ?

So you think you get to tell twitter and facebook and the NYTimes what to publish?

No, the law, 230, TELLS them they have to publish EVERYTHING. what part of this aren't you getting? (to use your phrase )

And if they don't publish every word you want, you think that's bad? They can ban whomever they want, they just automatically loose certain legal benefits. Easy. Don't use, will never use, these business, that, are USELESS to mankind.

They don't get a choice in the matter----they HAVE to do what you want? If, I, being equal to certain laws, than of course.

Come on. You don't actually think that.....same can be said to you if you think RULES, or terms of agreement, are applied equally. The NYTimes/Don McNeil case is all you need. Enough is enough. If twatts that get you fired are protected speech, even if lies, I guess, Is cool with you?

cue the ,
whoa there, who pooped in your cocoa puffs response

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:30 pm So, one last time, please explain why it is harmful to say what ever you want on a social media business

Already told you. You don't get to tell another business what to do, or how to run its business. That's it. That's as complicated as it gets.

I don't care if YOU think it's bad. I have ZERO interest in someone else telling me how to run my business. And neither do you, for that matter. I don't even have to ask you the question "do you want someone else to tell you what to do".

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:30 pm So, one last time, please explain why it is harmful to say what ever you want on a social media business

Already told you. You don't get to tell another business what to do, or how to run its business. That's it. That's as complicated as it gets. But, THIS is precisely what "you" did. Amazon told another business, how to run its business. Why not just say you agree with that in the first place?

I don't care if YOU think it's bad. I have ZERO interest in someone else telling me how to run my business. And neither do you, for that matter. I don't even have to ask you the question "do you want someone else to tell you what to do".

forgive me if it appears I have offered an opinion, good or bad. If that is what I have inferred, I apologize for being my self agrandizing self, acting all intricate with response. like bad shakespeare.

What YOU, if I am understanding you correctly, will be completely happy when you can NO longer purchase grains from anyone, b/c you disregarded your theoretical associations "terms of Agreement" (which ALWAYS include arbitration, theirs, btw ) savvy. there are a few "platforms" where you can get your grains from, but one is in Vermont, per the King Arthur gang. No out of state shipping due to covid tho. so, there is one in brazil, but, on backorder. So, you CAN purchase grains.......just gonna make it hard for you.

You still haven't answered , as always the simple, specific answer. You claim you don't like govt. telling you what to do. Not buying it. Not for one moment. Rightfully so, you love the obviousness of pointing out the government funds, virtually everywhere. (the essence of TAATS, btw ) besides what they steal from you (taxes, fees, etc. ) is there nothing good the govt. does? Come on, we know your answer....right.

Are you inferring that you do NOT think that Parler should be shut down? Or that the , like theoritical grains example. the free market and "terms
rules.

Is it wrong to infer you approve of twitter, or in this case, amazon, in denying someone an opportunity to conduct business, IE editing, hence, you approve of their 230 exclusion & status?


or, we could just answer......

I think I pointed out here, or another thread, not too long ago that AWS is NOT a monopoly. They may have half the market but there is very good quality competition for cloud hosting. Have learned this in the last 6mo or so working on developing a software with my partner supplying the domanin knowledge and cash and them doing their coding thing. We aren't using AWS, though we may switch over at some point.

Absent a monopoly, what Amazon did is sever a business relationship. Parler has other options.

BTW, what ever happened to "if I ever post again..." that you just sent me?

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:56 pm What YOU, if I am understanding you correctly, will be completely happy when you can NO longer purchase grains from anyone, b/c you disregarded your theoretical associations "terms of Agreement" (which ALWAYS include arbitration, theirs, btw ) savvy.

This is a bad analogy because I pay for my grain. Do users pay facebook or twitter? Nope. And even if they did.....so what?

Still, sticking to your analogy..... every single farmer, broker, and wholesalers can----at any time-----CHOOSE to not sell me grain. What you are telling me is: a farmer, for example, MUST sell me grain. That farmer has NO CHOICE but to sell me that grain. The farmer doesn't have free will----the consumer TELLS the Farmer what to do.

Come on. You're waaaay too smart to think that that makes sense.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:56 pm You still haven't answered , as always the simple, specific answer.

Well then ask a clearly written, direct question. Happy to answer it. I answered your question three times now.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:56 pm Is it wrong to infer you approve of twitter, or in this case, amazon, in denying someone an opportunity to conduct business, IE editing

Yes, I approve of twitter and Amazon running their shops the way that they want. Just as I'd 1000% approve of you running your business the way that you want if you should choose to start a business. It's absurd to think otherwise.

If I call up Coors, and tell them to stop making beer-----you're telling me that they HAVE to listen. Do you REALLY not understand how silly this idea of yours is?

Do you also get to dictate when your local watering hole is open?

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:56 pm you approve of their 230 exclusion & status?

Yep. Because without that? This site that you're enjoying wouldn't exist. You're telling me that that's what you want?

Meanwhile, Facebook could handle ANY lawsuits heading their way. All you'd be doing is eliminating all internet forums. No Craiglist. No comment sections. No reddit. No Yelp. No comments on Amazon products.

Come to think of it? Maybe that's not the worst thing that could happen to the world.

You----and FoxNation----seem to think that changing these laws would only apply to facebook or other companies you don't like.

That's what you and Tech37 wants? Fine. Let's do it.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:30 pm So, one last time, please explain why it is harmful to say what ever you want on a social media business

Already told you. You don't get to tell another business what to do, or how to run its business. That's it. That's as complicated as it gets.

I don't care if YOU think it's bad. I have ZERO interest in someone else telling me how to run my business. And neither do you, for that matter. I don't even have to ask you the question "do you want someone else to tell you what to do".

Hold the phone... you're not actually comparing your business in any way with the issues the big tech firms that wield enormous social, economic, political power, affecting every aspect of our lives have created? Tell me again how I misunderstand what you're saying, please. Otherwise this is comical beyond belief.

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:01 pm Hold the phone... you're not actually comparing your business in any way with the issues the big tech firms that wield enormous social, economic, political power, affecting every aspect of our lives have created? Tell me again how I misunderstand what you're saying, please. Otherwise this is comical beyond belief.

Well I'll be........ Look who became a far left liberal overnight! The libs have been telling you this since the 1960's!!!

Congratulations-----you and FoxNation have gone so far to the right, that you've landed on the far left.

What's comical is that you don't understand what you're asking. Go right ahead. Start telling every single Corporations listed on Nasdaq what to do. After all, they wield "enormous social, economic, political power...affecting every aspect of our lives", right?

Please----BY ALL MEANS-----start hammering Multinational Corporations. Tell ABC and NBC what they SHOULD be airing on their networks. Tell Ford what kind of cars they should be making. AOC is in her office, waiting for your support. Bernie, too. He's been making this case of yours his entire life. And now that FoxNation tells you this obvious fact? You're telling me that you're on board? '

Brookie should the THRILLED. How about the rest of you----YouthAthletics, Kramerica,and Old Salt----you're on the Bernie train now? Tell Facebook what to do? Tell twitter what to publish?

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:17 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:01 pm Hold the phone... you're not actually comparing your business in any way with the issues the big tech firms that wield enormous social, economic, political power, affecting every aspect of our lives have created? Tell me again how I misunderstand what you're saying, please. Otherwise this is comical beyond belief.

Well I'll be........ Look who became a far left liberal overnight! The libs have been telling you this since the 1960's!!!

Congratulations-----you and FoxNation have gone so far to the right, that you've landed on the far left.

What's comical is that you don't understand what you're asking. Go right ahead. Start telling every single Corporations listed on Nasdaq what to do. After all, they wield "enormous social, economic, political power...affecting every aspect of our lives", right?

Please----BY ALL MEANS-----start hammering Multinational Corporations. Tell ABC and NBC what they SHOULD be airing on their networks. Tell Ford what kind of cars they should be making. AOC is in her office, waiting for your support. Bernie, too. He's been making this case of yours his entire life. And now that FoxNation tells you this obvious fact? You're telling me that you're on board? '

Brookie should the THRILLED. How about the rest of you----YouthAthletics, Kramerica,and Old Salt----you're on the Bernie train now? Tell Facebook what to do? Tell twitter what to publish?

I posted a podcast the other day featuring Matt Stoller, a smart guy who has, IMO, a great perspective on monopolies, specifically big tech, and their affect on democracy. Take a listen... it's an hour well spent. His ideas might frame things better for you, so you're not flailing about, yelling Fox Nation and claiming broad generalizations.

Here you go: https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/social ... t-stoller/

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/ftc-commi ... investors/

If, in fact, there are dominant firms that are actively acquiring potential competitors to maintain their monopoly, that is something that we have to look at. If they are engaging in unlawful contract terms with small businesses or with users, that is something that we need to look at. If they are discriminating in terms of who they might be sharing data with to deter entry or to deter potential challengers, we have to tailor the remedy to where the anti-competitive conduct might be. Of course, mergers is a very, very significant interest for me. I have raised the question, what would the world look like today if Google had not bought YouTube, or if Facebook had not bought WhatsApp or Instagram, or even if Amazon had not bought Zappos? What would the world look like?”

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

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:09 pm I posted a podcast the other day featuring Matt Stoller, a smart guy who has, IMO, a great perspective on monopolies, specifically big tech, and their affect on democracy. Take a listen... it's an hour well spent. His ideas might frame things better for you, so you're not flailing about, yelling Fox Nation and claiming broad generalizations.

I'm not flailing about, old Bean. You are. First you were complaining about free speech at twitter and FB. When I pointed out, correctly, that what a private company does has NOTHING to do with free speech, you promptly moved the goalposts and decided that monopolies were now the problem.

To the point: how will breaking up Facebook or twitter "fix" this made up free speech issue of yours? Your problem before you moved the goalposts was that facebook and twitter were refusing to allow postings of their choosing. How is making them smaller going to change how they handle who posts what?

Answer: it won't. So now you're back to moving your goalposts again.


As for your sudden realization that we have monopolies in America simply because you're upset because you think those mean ol' libs are calling the shots at Big Tech?

What's the Republican position on monopolies in various business sectors, Tech? Got that picture in your mind? Great.

Now what's AOC and Bernie's position? Got that picture in your mind? Great.

Which view are you selling here? Yep. You're selling the liberal position.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:41 pm 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.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:41 pm 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.

Well the dirty reality is it’s better to be regulated and then achieve “regulatory capture”, the best case scenarios are Finra (former NASD an SRO that regulates the brokerage industry) and, tangentially related, the NCAA. They provide the appearance of being regulated but aren’t really big picture. This has happened to varying degrees in finance (SEC, OCC, FDIC), telecom, defense, etc.

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.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 7:42 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:09 pm I posted a podcast the other day featuring Matt Stoller, a smart guy who has, IMO, a great perspective on monopolies, specifically big tech, and their affect on democracy. Take a listen... it's an hour well spent. His ideas might frame things better for you, so you're not flailing about, yelling Fox Nation and claiming broad generalizations.

I'm not flailing about, old Bean. You are. First you were complaining about free speech at twitter and FB. When I pointed out, correctly, that what a private company does has NOTHING to do with free speech, you promptly moved the goalposts and decided that monopolies were now the problem.

To the point: how will breaking up Facebook or twitter "fix" this made up free speech issue of yours? Your problem before you moved the goalposts was that facebook and twitter were refusing to allow postings of their choosing. How is making them smaller going to change how they handle who posts what?

Answer: it won't. So now you're back to moving your goalposts again.


As for your sudden realization that we have monopolies in America simply because you're upset because you think those mean ol' libs are calling the shots at Big Tech?

What's the Republican position on monopolies in various business sectors, Tech? Got that picture in your mind? Great.

Now what's AOC and Bernie's position? Got that picture in your mind? Great.

Which view are you selling here? Yep. You're selling the liberal position.

Bippitty, Bippitty, Bippitty...

..

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 9:13 pm 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.

afan liked it better when Anheusher-Bush dominated the market. Times were simpler & more predictable then.
Fewer choices for the consumer before all those craft brews popped up.