Post: #1

Between Google cutting "fake news" from their searches, Twitter cracking down on "hate speech", Facebook cracking down on the proliferation of "fake news", Apple cutting "alternative media" apps from their store, there has been a wide spread crackdown on right-leaning counterculture speech.

The problem I see with this is that companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Twitter is that they are monopolies within the markets that they exist in.

Ex: https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-en...customd=0; Google controls 80% of the search market.

What we are seeing now is that large Silicon Valley companies are exerting their monopoly power to try and pervert the political process around their will. This has happened before with the rise of Rockefeller.

Because these companies are actively trying to silence our voice I believe that we need to start calling for the regulation of these monopolies.

An example of a perfect commission that already exists is the FCC:

Quote:The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security, and modernizing itself.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Co...Commission

The executive of the FCC is selected by the president, so it is subject to public opinion.

A lot of these Silicon Valley companies are media monopolies and should have their political behavior regulated by the FCC, so they can no longer exert political power independent of the American public.

Post: #2

Google is already starting to face anti-trust lawsuits in the EU over charges that they are forcing smartphone manufacturers to ship phones pre-installed with Android.

Breaking up these big tech companies will be a priority before the 2020 election, I think. Bannon understands.

Post: #3

The Trump admin needs to launch anti-trust lawsuits against Salesforce.com, Google, etc. They are all run by leftist and globalist scum. Their media empires are also in need of investigation. He's already Literally Hitler, so you might as well give 'em hell.

Post: #4

(02-21-2017 10:50 PM)Enoch Wrote:  Google is already starting to face anti-trust lawsuits in the EU over charges that they are forcing smartphone manufacturers to ship phones pre-installed with Android.

Breaking up these big tech companies will be a priority before the 2020 election, I think. Bannon understands.

Thank god for the EU.

------------------------------------

Also, to make my last point, take a look at this:



Source: http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-major-...for-trump/

An internet ad agency sent a letter to Alex Jones telling him that they are suspending advertising for his website using the "fake news" accusation as cover for their action.

These internet ad agencies should be subject to some level of public control too.

I swear literally all of these internet companies are out of control. They have exorbitant political power and are blatantly using it to suppress all dissident voices like Alex Jones. How is this even legal? It's a flagrant abuse of power.

I would even argue that even if you are private company, if you have a monopoly or exorbitant power to control people's livelihoods, you are subject to following the First Amendment because you have the capacity to exert political power.

Post: #5

Quote:Between Google cutting "fake news" from their searches, Twitter cracking down on "hate speech", Facebook cracking down on the proliferation of "fake news", Apple cutting "alternative media" apps from their store, there has been a wide spread crackdown on right-leaning counterculture speech.

They are incredibly regulated--however, not for the classical economic reasons with regard to monopolies and producer surplus, but rather PC facist-reasons--thus explaining a great deal of the "crackdown" that you (and me) observe.

Post: #6

What are the web search alternatives?

How would one stop searching with google?

Post: #7

(02-22-2017 12:19 AM)Swell Wrote:  What are the web search alternatives?

How would one stop searching with google?

That's the thing.

From what I have seen is a lot of guys have been arguing for creating alternatives to Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. That approach to me is futile because Twitter, Facebook, Google, and so on control the market that they are in and can find ways to undermine the smaller adversary companies. Not only that, but these specific "information" markets lead to naturally forming monopolies.

The point I am trying to make here is that making alternative media companies that can actually challenge Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc may be futile in the long run.

The question we should really be asking is why are Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc allowed to exercise the political power granted by having monopoly control over various information markets with impunity? No other monopoly company has been able to do this in perpetuity in the United States.

Our utility companies which form natural monopolies are regulated to limit abuses of their monopoly power.

Our internet media companies form natural monopolies that need to be regulated (similarly to utilities) in order to curb their abuses on their political power to suppress political speech they disagree with.

Private companies should not have direct political power, like our current internet media companies do, because it subverts the political process in a free democratic republic society.

Post: #8

(02-22-2017 12:19 AM)Swell Wrote:  What are the web search alternatives?

How would one stop searching with google?

Search is inherently a centralised service because it requires a massive amount of resources to determine what's "relevant" for each search term.

Searx is the best alternative to wean yourself off Google - it's a metasearch engine which aggregates the results of up to dozens of search engines at the same time (configurable in the settings menu).

Post: #9

^^^ Yeah Buddy!! Thank you Valentine.

(02-22-2017 12:39 AM)Valentine Wrote:  Searx is the best alternative to wean yourself off Google - it's a metasearch engine which aggregates the results of up to dozens of search engines at the same time (configurable in the settings menu).

Going take this for a test drive.

*Update! searx is next level. +1 rep for Valentine

Post: #10

I agree with you completely. People will yell "OMG but they are private business and can do whatever they want," not realizing we regulate services that are considered integral to society. For example, the electric company isn't allowed to shut off electricity just because they don't like your political views, the phone company can't tell you what you're allowed to say on your calls, etc.

At a certain point an online service becomes a public service. There is no doubt Google, and to a lesser extent Facebook, hold incredible power because they monopolize what has become an essential service in our society. A business or politician cannot succeed without either of these platforms. If there are simply no credible alternatives because of the nature of the market, then a business is a monopoly and open to regulation, in my humble opinion.

Then again, I know libertarians will argue with me that everything should be completely unregulated. I disagree with this view, having experienced monopolies first hand. In my neighborhood back in the US, for example, there were no other choice for cable, phone, and internet than Time Warner. They can jack up prices, lie, change their contracts at a whim - and thousands of people suffer for no other reason than TW have the market cornered. There is no way for another company to come along and lay down cables in my neighborhood - it's either TW or nothing.

Moving back on topic... if something is considered a public service with no credible alternative, it's open to regulation in order to protect the consumer who is forced to interact with it. Especially when it comes to free speech and politics.

How about the free market and competition? Well, it's difficult for a new Google to rise up and take a strong market share. Eventually these platforms will be replaced if they make a fatal mistake (like Myspace) or if simply a more innovative design appears. However it is extremely difficult to break through the number of users needed in order for a service to become mainstream. This follows the 90/10 rule: one platform will control 90% of the market always.

Now consider Google is embedded in almost every part of our lives: search engines, job search, maps, email, etc and it becomes nearly impossible for a competitor to step in and replace it. Look how long Microsoft how held on to the PC market, even though they have released several disastrous products. Any other company that made something like Windows 8 would have failed. But even though I hated Windows 8, there was simply no alternative for me to change, considering everything I do is connected to Windows in some way.

Post: #11

There's also a pretty serious knowledge gap between firms and those who ought to regulate them. All areas of law and regulation are lagging way behind technological progress, and those with the skills to understand complex CS tend also to be the kind of people who want nothing to do with the government or its associated institutions, until such time as they become extremely rich and powerful. At that point they still aren't going to tell the government how to curtail their power. I think you'd have a very hard time finding people with the tech skills to come up with effective regulation that wasn't arbitrary or easy to circumvent who were prepared to work for relatively little money for the powers that be.

Also, by its very nature, tech is disruptive, scalable, and very high growth. By the time you can do anything about it, you're really only dealing with the also rans. The main guys are out of site.

Post: #12

(02-21-2017 10:47 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  The problem I see with this is that companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Twitter is that they are monopolies within the markets that they exist in.

Ex: https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-en...customd=0; Google controls 80% of the search market.

What we are seeing now is that large Silicon Valley companies are exerting their monopoly power to try and pervert the political process around their will. This has happened before with the rise of Rockefeller.

...............................................

A lot of these Silicon Valley companies are media monopolies and should have their political behavior regulated by the FCC, so they can no longer exert political power independent of the American public.

This is an absolutely, positively horrible idea. It's also a totally absurd suggestion.

None of these companies are monopolies. Anyone can compete with them. Many do compete with them. Twenty years ago, you might have said that Altavista was a "monopoly." Where is it?

People can stop using Google tomorrow. They can go to another search engine.

People can stop using Facebook tomorrow. They can go to another social media site.

Lots of people don't use Apple. Lots of people don't use Twitter.

Post: #13

(02-22-2017 12:36 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Private companies should not have direct political power, like our current internet media companies do, because it subverts the political process in a free democratic republic society.

And you believe that the people in power of public entities are going to make decisions with your benefit in mind... why?

(02-22-2017 01:03 AM)AFS Wrote:  Then again, I know libertarians will argue with me that everything should be completely unregulated. I disagree with this view, having experienced monopolies first hand. In my neighborhood back in the US, for example, there were no other choice for cable, phone, and internet than Time Warner. They can jack up prices, lie, change their contracts at a whim - and thousands of people suffer for no other reason than TW have the market cornered.

The biggest monopoly of all is the government.

Post: #14

Note: I'm using information market as a framing mechanism to properly describe how Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. function. Each company provides an independent medium: user profile, search engine, news bulletin, etc. through which information is transferred on the internet, so that is why I am using information market.

(02-22-2017 09:16 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  I think you'd have a very hard time finding people with the tech skills to come up with effective regulation that wasn't arbitrary or easy to circumvent who were prepared to work for relatively little money for the powers that be.

Also, by its very nature, tech is disruptive, scalable, and very high growth. By the time you can do anything about it, you're really only dealing with the also rans. The main guys are out of site.

I don't believe you need strong tech skills to regulate the tech companies I listed above. Really what you need is a team of regulators who have a strong conceptual understanding of how these companies operate and how to apply laws to these tech companies in order to neutralize their exorbitant political power.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. exist in independent information markets that have solidified, so they are now the incumbents who are holding onto the market share in each separate market that they exist in. These markets are likely not to change anytime soon since they each serve a unique function tied to the internet: Google = search engine, Facebook = user profile, Twitter = news bulletin, Reddit = mass forum, etc. The only technology coming out that I know of that could change these markets is artificial intelligence, but AI will only serve to enhance the functionality of these markets and not fundamentally alter them.

(02-22-2017 07:56 PM)puckerman Wrote:  This is an absolutely, positively horrible idea. It's also a totally absurd suggestion.

None of these companies are monopolies. Anyone can compete with them. Many do compete with them. Twenty years ago, you might have said that Altavista was a "monopoly." Where is it?

People can stop using Google tomorrow. They can go to another search engine.

People can stop using Facebook tomorrow. They can go to another social media site.

Lots of people don't use Apple. Lots of people don't use Twitter.

Nope, I am just accurately describing what is happening right now in the internet age.

Altavista is a poor example. That company was popular when the search engine market was nascent and there was no clear leader. It was soon trounced by Google once they developed a superior search engine. It's also like asking why people aren't using OS/2 as their operating system anymore, it's because Microsoft won the battle for windows operating system dominance.

In fact I would say that bringing up Altavista actually strengthens my argument that Google is a monopoly. Like Google, Microsoft went on to trounce all adversaries in the windows markets and ended up using their monopoly power to suppress internet browsers that were not their own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...soft_Corp.

While Google is not suppressing competitive companies, they are suppressing political speech that they disagree with by manually changing how search engine results are returned for politically related searches. Since Google has a monopoly on the search engine market, which has become a public service in our post-industrialized society, one could argue that this a violation of our First Amendment rights.

By public service, I am pushing the idea that Facebook, Google, Twitter, Reddit, etc. are highly similar to public utilities in that they naturally form monopolies over the mediums through which the allow people to interact on the internet. This submits them to public controls on their behavior, so that they do not abuse their power. EX:

Quote:A public utility (usually just utility) is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service (often also providing a service using that infrastructure). Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_uti...ommissions

There is no real viable alternative to Facebook at this time that allows me to connect to friends and family.

It is not the size of the userbase that is relevant here with regards to Apple (talking about app market here) and Twitter what matters is that they have to capacity to totally suppress political speech they disagree with in the respective markets that they control.

(02-22-2017 08:51 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  And you believe that the people in power of public entities are going to make decisions with your benefit in mind... why?

Because they are in control of companies that provide a public service. In this case: Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. provide independent mediums through which people can interact and obtain information. This subjects them to public controls to prevent abuse of power.

Also, see public utility quote above.

Beyond answering to board room executives that have to answer to the public because they have now obtained political power through their ability to exert authority over which political speech is allowed to be spoken.

Post: #15

(02-22-2017 10:38 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 08:51 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  And you believe that the people in power of public entities are going to make decisions with your benefit in mind... why?

Because they are in control of companies that provide a public service. In this case: Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. provide independent mediums through which people can interact and obtain information. This subjects them to public controls to prevent abuse of power.

Also, see public utility quote above.

Beyond answering to board room executives that have to answer to the public because they have now obtained political power through their ability to exert authority over which political speech is allowed to be spoken.

The entire history of politics (~ public services) is a neverending story of abuse of power.

Post: #16

(02-21-2017 11:07 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 10:50 PM)Enoch Wrote:  Google is already starting to face anti-trust lawsuits in the EU over charges that they are forcing smartphone manufacturers to ship phones pre-installed with Android.

Breaking up these big tech companies will be a priority before the 2020 election, I think. Bannon understands.

Thank god for the EU.

Seriously? I think you might want to reconsider that statement. The European Union is a bureaucratic neo-Marxist globalist cancer that needs to be destroyed.

Post: #17

This is really the weak point of libertarianism IMO, the assumption through faith in the free market that allowing a private organization to control a natural monopoly will work itself out. Google and Facebook may be private companies, but it's pretty evident at this point that they have no problem with government collusion. Years before all these tech companies started flexing social justice muscle in the US, I was suspicious of them simply because they invariably were willing to censor or tolerate state censorship just to get into the Chinese market.

Post: #18

Google isn't a monopoly, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is.

As you pointed out, their government collusion is a major worrying factor.

Also, one of the problems with this whole "make it public, make sure there is oversight" angle is:

what do you propose when the political leaders are some of the worst SJWs? You think there is always going to be a Trump in power?

Post: #19

(02-23-2017 03:43 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  This is really the weak point of libertarianism IMO, the assumption through faith in the free market that allowing a private organization to control a natural monopoly will work itself out. Google and Facebook may be private companies, but it's pretty evident at this point that they have no problem with government collusion. Years before all these tech companies started flexing social justice muscle in the US, I was suspicious of them simply because they invariably were willing to censor or tolerate state censorship just to get into the Chinese market.

Not that I necessarily want to derail the thread, but fuck it, why not ...

Like Marxism, libertarianism is a late 19th century ideal that people try to graft onto a 21st century civilisation. Therefore, just like Marxism, its central assumptions about human behaviour don't reflect where our (diseased) culture presently is. This is important to realise: feudalism worked in the Middle Ages because an overwhelming majority of people believed in God, were prepared to believe that the king was appointed by God, and technology was such that the guys with chain mail armour and swords could beat the fuck out of anyone who thought it was a bad idea. Without those specific cultural features there is not a chance in hannah that anybody proposing an economic return to kings (b-boom tss) is going to be taken seriously in the modern era. Indeed it wasn't the death of God that led to the fall of feudalism, it was the invention of the firearm.

The chief feature that makes libertarianism unworkable (and Marxism so superficially attractive) is the modern world's complexity, brought on by the high level of technology -- not to mention the huge amount of attention we devote to meaningless shit. On a daily basis we process so much information that it barely leaves any time for any extended contemplation of a subject or a choice.

Libertarianism presumes as its economic unit a switched-on, fully-informed consumer and voter who has all the time in the world to make a fully rational and wise decision about where he spends his money or his vote. Marxism, by contrast, assumes the opposite: it presumes as its economic unit a drone who gives over all his decision-making responsibility to the state. But it does allow you the relief of making any decisions for yourself, which in our ADHD world is as attractive as heroin.

As for capitalism and libertarianism? Let's remember the Internet and the 24-7 news cycle was no product of socialism: the Internet might have been invented by DARPA, but it certainly doesn't require government funds to run anymore. Its explosion has been mainly a capitalist enterprise.

Fair enough that Fakebook and Ogle are in bed with government, but at the same time, is there any world you can conceive of where they would not be, libertarian or otherwise? Indeed a trim, lean, efficient government would likewise have a trim, lean, efficient and therefore terrifying secret service that would be inside all of these organisations anyway. And that's the best position you can imagine. These organisations need US infrastructure, finance, investors, and capitalism to survive. Government at its best a necessary parasite on that. Government at its worst is known by a name: Venezuela.

My main point is that putting Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard on loop is not going to solve these problems. Von Mises was dead before the Internet, and Rothbard was dead before Google. They could not have imagined a society as institutionally ADHD as we presently occupy, and could not have imagined the power and reach of organisations on the Internet, how as humans we have tied ourselves so deeply into the machine.

There's a panel from Frank Miller's Dark Knight Strikes Back featuring the libertarian The Question, who poses this point about his anti-Lex Luthor manifesto: "It will be typed. Computers can't be trusted. Once your thoughts are committed to disk, the tyrants have them." This seemed over the top, paranoid, at the time and was probably intended so. It's not so over the top now. I recently gritted my teeth and bought a cheap laptop with Windows 10 on it. Even installing the operating system and Office Home was creepy: you're always online and they're always watching. Can't get a physical copy of software anymore, you have to download it from Microsoft, which means you have an internet connection, which means they have you.

More generally: we are in a society built from top to bottom on narcissism. Marxism and Libertarianism were not built to contend with that. That's going to require more innovative solutions in economics, technology, public health, everywhere. Unless humanity goes through the tried-and-true method of fixing its fucked self by going to war en masse and/or economically collapsing the society, not necessarily in that order.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #20

(02-23-2017 07:51 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  Google isn't a monopoly, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is.

As you pointed out, their government collusion is a major worrying factor.

Also, one of the problems with this whole "make it public, make sure there is oversight" angle is:

what do you propose when the political leaders are some of the worst SJWs? You think there is always going to be a Trump in power?

It doesn't matter if the president selecting the executive who oversees the regulatory body is a hard-left Democrat because ultimately the fact that the president is subject to public opinion through democratic elections, it ultimately leads to a moderation on the behavior of the regulatory body.

In addition to this, slapping regulations on these various tech companies would ultimately bring their political power into the purview of our entire government. This means that individuals who get banned off of Twitter for example could sue the regulatory body and then the behavior of the regulatory body (which would exist underneath the executive branch) would be subject to judicial review (which exists in the judicial branch). You could also elect a Republican congress (congressional branch) to create laws to counteract regulatory overreach suppressing Republican aligned voices.

Once you bring the political power of these various companies underneath our government their power would be moderated by three separate but equal branches of government.

----------------------------------------------

I also want to point out that what we have currently is not working. Silicon Valley is becoming so powerful collectively (Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google) that it is essentially becoming a state within a state. In this case it is a city-state, Silicon Valley, absorbing power and exerting it independently of our federal government, the United States of America.

What I am saying here is that through the creation of regulatory bodies our federal government needs to absorb the political power of Silicon Valley, so that these two entities no longer compete against each other and our federal government (United States of America and not Silicon Valley) once again becomes the supreme law of the land as it should be.

Post: #21

(02-23-2017 08:50 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Fair enough that Fakebook and Ogle are in bed with government, but at the same time, is there any world you can conceive of where they would not be, libertarian or otherwise? Indeed a trim, lean, efficient government would likewise have a trim, lean, efficient and therefore terrifying secret service that would be inside all of these organisations anyway. And that's the best position you can imagine.

Your whole post was fantastic, but especially the part I kept here.

I certainly don't agree with most of what you wrote, especially that the existence of Google renders the observations of Rothbard and Mises passe.

However, you made an excellent argument and excellent points and it got me thinking like crazy. I don't think it derailed the thread -- it most definitely added to it.

Post: #22

@All or Nothing

You want to allow people to file a lawsuit over getting banned off Twitter? I can't imagine how that could go wrong. .

Post: #23

(02-23-2017 09:16 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  slapping regulations on these various tech companies would ultimately bring their political power into the purview of our entire government. This means that individuals who get banned off of Twitter for example could sue the regulatory body and then the behavior of the regulatory body (which would exist underneath the executive branch) would be subject to judicial review (which exists in the judicial branch).

Imagine some of the negative consequences of that scenario, but this time for a company you value, who you think is doing decent work. And imagine the regulatory body being staffed by lifelong (near un-fireable) bureaucrats and/or plants, who would seek out "victims" of said company to use as legal missiles against them.

This type of scenario played out in my country with a thing called the Human Rights Commission.

Here's one such case: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...cle714291/

Post: #24

(02-23-2017 09:50 PM)Repo Wrote:  @All or Nothing

You want to allow people to file a lawsuit over getting banned off Twitter? I can't imagine how that could go wrong. .

You make a good point. The lawyers would have a heyday if such laws were created.

But you have to understand that I am trying to lay out a conceptual framework for:

- Why these companies need to be regulated.
- How regulation would moderate the political behavior of these companies.

That does not mean that I want everything I say to be taken literally or as some final idea, rather my goal here is to lay out an initial set of ideas that once properly marinated can evolve into some kind of effective political action.

(02-23-2017 10:00 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  Imagine some of the negative consequences of that scenario, but this time for a company you value, who you think is doing decent work. And imagine the regulatory body being staffed by lifelong (near un-fireable) bureaucrats and/or plants, who would seek out "victims" of said company to use as legal missiles against them.

You see the government as a curb on freedom while I see the corporations as a curb on freedom.

You see the increase in power of the government as a move towards autocracy while I see the increase in power of technology companies as a move towards technocracy.

One thing we have to ask ourselves though is which view is more libertarian as a whole.

The power of technology companies to suppress speech is the antithesis of libertarian ideology, it is the antithesis of individual freedom. These companies are infringing on our civil liberties for freedom of thought and expression.

So you have to ask yourself, which view is more libertarian? Regulating companies to maximize freedom of speech for the collective society or to allow technology companies the maximum amount of freedom to suppress political speech?

Post: #25

@All or Nothing

I agree there should be more regulation, and this is something I strongly disagree with Trump on, as he is against Net Neutrality.

I think an easier first step would be to ban corporations from donating to political campaigns and ending SuperPacs.