|
Does Australia Suck? (pg. 179)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
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. |
All regulations are direct governmental interference?
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
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. |
How does this make a company not private? They are following their financial interest to cater to their client? |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| Provided the party in question is the US government that’s paying a substantial sum of taxpayer money to a “private” company for their services, I personally begin to question how “private” that company actually is. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
All regulations are direct governmental interference? |
While I somewhat agree, I hold it in a different light than Facebook and Twitter being called up to congress and told they must censor speech or face regulation. With established laws and regulation on the books, while I may disagree with whatever those laws and regulations are, they’ve at least been voted on and codified into law. Congress has recently been dictating to Facebook and Twitter to regulate speech without creating actual written regulation, pressuring “private” companies to do the direct bidding of congress, who’ve abstained from actually enacting regulation. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| With respect specifically to Facebook and Twitter, I’d prefer for congress to write and pass an actual law determining what “misinformation” is and what specifically is to be censored rather than calling up the CEOs of these respective companies to just scold them into censoring. Congress should Be The Whole Bitch, do their actual job, and write a law. Instead, in keeping with congress being the most moribund and ineffective branch of government, they want to offload the responsibility of governing to “private” companies that are randomly interpreting whatever congress is scolding them to do. Congress has by and large morphed into a fundraising branch of government, allowing the heavy lifting of government to be done via executive action or Supreme Court rulings. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
Provided the party in question is the US government that’s paying a substantial sum of taxpayer money to a “private” company for their services, I personally begin to question how “private” that company actually is. |
Yes, I understand that you question how private the company is. I am asking why. Shareholders have elected a board that has hired individuals to run the company; the individuals have decided that they should provide services to numerous clients, including the US government. What about that is not private?
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
While I somewhat agree, I hold it in a different light than Facebook and Twitter being called up to congress and told they must censor speech or face regulation. With established laws and regulation on the books, while I may disagree with whatever those laws and regulations are, they’ve at least been voted on and codified into law. Congress has recently been dictating to Facebook and Twitter to regulate speech without creating actual written regulation, pressuring “private” companies to do the direct bidding of congress, who’ve abstained from actually enacting regulation. |
Again, how does this make the companies not private? Congress threatening regulations? |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Yes, I understand that you question how private the company is. I am asking why. Shareholders have elected a board that has hired individuals to run the company; the individuals have decided that they should provide services to numerous clients, including the US government. What about that is not private? |
In my personal assessment, any company that has significant government contracts subsidizing their operations is not entirely private. Again, this is my personal assessment.
| quote: |
Again, how does this make the companies not private? Congress threatening regulations? |
The threat of regulation allows these companies to take unilateral action at the behest of the government that is not clear or distinct. The policies of these companies seems to change frequently and to be randomly enforced without a clear mechanism to appeal decisions taken unilaterally. By congress actually writing a law and enacting it, it would provide more clarity and more of a mechanism to legally challenge perceived wrongdoing. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
"private" (um, public) corporations are owned and controlled by their shareholders. yes, big bad government and greedy corps are constantly in bed with each other. this doesn't change the structure of big business or the application of supposed free speech "rights". if the relationship was as cosy as you suggest there would've been no need to drag zuckerberg or others before the senate judiciary.
| 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. |
who ever gets to act completely independently? i sure wasn't implying that no organisation ever influenced any other or that Big Tech are free from government buttery. but that influence sure doesn't equate to ing with the first amendment which mcgee suggested.
let's cut the . the main reason we're even discussing this is some on the (US) right (whose support of individualism and property rights apparently only extends as far as it serves their ideology) have found themselves outgunned on social media access because none of them were quick or smart enough to develop their own infrastructure or brand. boo hoo. people have a right to express their dumb-as- opinions - they don't have a right to do so via the platform(s) created by others. swamper doesn't owe you . |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I've only recently been introduced to the concept of "sooky" and its delightfully childish relative, "sooky lala". |
:stongue: god i haven't heard that in ages! |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
let's cut the . the main reason we're even discussing this is some on the (US) right (whose support of individualism and property rights apparently only extends as far as it serves their ideology) have found themselves outgunned on social media access because none of them were quick or smart enough to develop their own infrastructure or brand. boo hoo. people have a right to express their dumb-as- opinions - they don't have a right to do so via the platform(s) created by others. swamper doesn't owe you . |
Actually, for the most part I agree with this. The right was and is piss ing retarded when it comes to tech and has been for quite some time. I mainly take issue with how big tech/congress is responding. I think it’ll be interesting to see how atomized the right will become as a result of this and whether it’ll actually drive them to develop their own siloed internet infrastructure (if they even have the capability or knowledge to do so, rofl). |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
In my personal assessment, any company that has significant government contracts subsidizing their operations is not entirely private. Again, this is my personal assessment. |
I hardly think that government contracts are subsidising the operations of big tech companies.
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
The threat of regulation allows these companies to take unilateral action at the behest of the government that is not clear or distinct. The policies of these companies seems to change frequently and to be randomly enforced without a clear mechanism to appeal decisions taken unilaterally. By congress actually writing a law and enacting it, it would provide more clarity and more of a mechanism to legally challenge perceived wrongdoing. |
The threat of regulation does not 'allow' companies to take unilateral action - it pushes or impels.
I agree that Congress should actually write laws and enact them, but that doesn't make these companies not private. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I hardly think that government contracts are subsidising the operations of big tech companies. |
I’d need to see the actual numbers, but for certain entities I’d say they are. To what degree I’d say is debatable.
| quote: |
The threat of regulation does not 'allow' companies to take unilateral action - it pushes or impels.
I agree that Congress should actually write laws and enact them, but that doesn't make these companies not private. |
An argument of semantics doesn’t change the overall point I’m attempting to make. And as stated, it’s my personal assessment of what is or isn’t private, but I am opposed to simply calling them private companies given the context. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| Perhaps more agreeable would be to state that for these larger tech companies there is a gradient of privatization of which they lie somewhere within, and to which it’s debatable where on this mysterious gradient each of these companies lie. |
|
|
|
|
