|
Does Australia Suck? (pg. 178)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
epic sooking commenced. |
lol |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| I've only recently been introduced to the concept of "sooky" and its delightfully childish relative, "sooky lala". |
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Facebook is not a monopoly? And 'Beijing Biden'? What nonsense have you been reading now? |
Ah Lews, how long have you been living in the UK now? 5 to 6 years? So you really have no context at all over what's been happening here in the states. You've been gone for a while, and here you still try to act like you know what regular Americans are talking about, esp when it comes to social media. You don't. At least near half the population believes FB/Twitter are too powerful and wants their 230 protections removed, including some Democrats. The progressive Squad seems particularly keen, but I doubt Biden will bother.
I'm also curious to know what goes on in your head, when this sub forum's own moderator even laments about his loss of news article postings? I mean, a private American company, not elected to any position of office, just partially pulled the plug on 25 million people from a foreign country. And that's not Monopolistic to you? How do you even defend that?
I seriously hope Aus stands firm against FB, because our current inept President won't, dementia's got him pretty bad. It may very well be up to other countries to knock FB back down, alot of us have been calling for new regulations against Big Tech here in the states, and have been generally ignored. We even have a few celebs here who are concerned their right to free speech is being censored. Case in point
https://youtu.be/gzUnMtGdrV4
But Lews just wants you to believe that FB is merely running as a private company. A private company who is now controlling most of the world's information and can easily ban you without warning. Seems like the old bloke loves being ruled over, than having his voice heard in a representative government. In that case, stay there in England, matey.:stongue: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| yeah it's been pretty lol-worthy seeing morons on the populist right claiming free speech protections are somehow relevant to the actions of companies on its users :stongue: apparently some yanks dont understand the first amendment. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| Again, how “private” of a company is Facebook or Twitter if they face consistent pressure from Congress to censor speech? How “private” are companies like Amazon and Microsoft now that they’ve secured massive government defense contracts? For all intents and purposes the tech sector has become lumped in with our military/government in general and are the new Raytheons and Northrop Grumman’s of the modern era. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| In short, to act as though any of the large American tech companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.) are acting as independent, private companies, completely separate from American government control or input is both naive and demonstrably false. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
Ah Lews, how long have you been living in the UK now? 5 to 6 years? So you really have no context at all over what's been happening here in the states. You've been gone for a while, and here you still try to act like you know what regular Americans are talking about, esp when it comes to social media. You don't. At least near half the population believes FB/Twitter are too powerful and wants their 230 protections removed, including some Democrats. The progressive Squad seems particularly keen, but I doubt Biden will bother. |
Oh, boy, I forgot how your brain works. Where did I say anything about what regular Americans are talking about with regards to anything, especially social media? Short answer: I didn't.
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
I'm also curious to know what goes on in your head, when this sub forum's own moderator even laments about his loss of news article postings? I mean, a private American company, not elected to any position of office, just partially pulled the plug on 25 million people from a foreign country. And that's not Monopolistic to you? How do you even defend that? |
Where did I defend Facebook's behaviour? Short answer: I didn't. I merely said they are not a monopoly. They are not the sole provider of social media services.
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
I seriously hope Aus stands firm against FB, because our current inept President won't, dementia's got him pretty bad. It may very well be up to other countries to knock FB back down, alot of us have been calling for new regulations against Big Tech here in the states, and have been generally ignored. We even have a few celebs here who are concerned their right to free speech is being censored. Case in point
https://youtu.be/gzUnMtGdrV4 |
Again, whom have you been reading, that leads you to assert that Biden has dementia?
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
But Lews just wants you to believe that FB is merely running as a private company. A private company who is now controlling most of the world's information and can easily ban you without warning. Seems like the old bloke loves being ruled over, than having his voice heard in a representative government. In that case, stay there in England, matey.:stongue: |
They very much do not control most of the world's information. Why do you think that?
Personally, I hardly use Facebook. I think they're an incredibly unethical company, both in terms of how they work to keep users engaged, aka addicted, to their service, and in terms of how they present their 'reach' to advertisers, the people who actually give them money. I would never invest in them on both ethical and financial reasons. That said, they're still not a monopoly.
You seem to have completely misread my post, imagining I wrote things that I did not, in fact, write. I suggest you slow down and read what people actually write. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah it's been pretty lol-worthy seeing morons on the populist right claiming free speech protections are somehow relevant to the actions of companies on its users :stongue: apparently some yanks dont understand the first amendment. |
Pretty sure most Americans don't understand the first amendment. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
Again, how “private” of a company is Facebook or Twitter if they face consistent pressure from Congress to censor speech? How “private” are companies like Amazon and Microsoft now that they’ve secured massive government defense contracts? For all intents and purposes the tech sector has become lumped in with our military/government in general and are the new Raytheons and Northrop Grumman’s of the modern era. |
All companies face regulation from governments, how does that make them more or less private? Likewise, how does providing services to the government make a company more or less private? |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
In short, to act as though any of the large American tech companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.) are acting as independent, private companies, completely separate from American government control or input is both naive and demonstrably false. |
What? Literally every company in America has American government control and input. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
What? Literally every company in America has American government control and input. |
How many of those other companies have secured government defense contracts or are called up to congress to take direct action on something congress asks them to take action upon? Abiding by laws and regulations is different than securing defense contracts or taking action based upon direct congressional interference. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
All companies face regulation from governments, how does that make them more or less private? Likewise, how does providing services to the government make a company more or less private? |
If a company has secured billions of dollars from a particular party, in this instance the United States government, such a company is not prone to do anything which goes against the party which is paying them billions of dollars and is more prone to do whatever the party paying the money wants them to do. |
|
|
|
|
