Looks like it's this guy.
2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
I respect you POV, but I disagree. While I would agree that if any Big Tech company should be considered for break-up it would be Google…I am not convinced that is the answer. Shouldn’t the government have to prove that Google obtained their monopolistic position by unlawful activities and behaviors that were not market competition? Paying competing browsers to feature google seems like a competitive behavior.
Some of the best innovations in the past 25 years have been from Google. Plus Google provides strong competition with other Big Tech players. Android is a strong alternative to iOS and Microsoft. Google has been a major force driving down costs for home automation. YouTube has been a major free communication tool to tens of millions.
If there is anyone that should be upset with Google, it is me. In my gig, Google is the devil. There is no other company I go up against more and they have definitely personally cost me $$$$. But, at least for now, I don’t believe the government involving themselves in free enterprise and breaking-up Google is the answer.
Misinformation according to who? Information should come out and an independent robust media should verify through concrete proof/solid vetted sources the merit of the info. The Justice dept shouldn't lean on media outlets to spread misinformation or squash what they know to be true. We know they have done that through this letter and the twitter files. That should trouble us all.
Last edited:
So your concern isn't so much that Facebook demoted content (they can do that, they're a private company). It's that the government pressured them to do so in some cases? Because I absolutely agree with you there. I'm not on Facebook and this is one reason why. I guess I'm so "meh" about it because, in the letter, it sounds like Facebook told them to buzz off a lot and the Biden administration got frustrated with them. The decision was ultimately Facebook's. But again, it is troubling that the government tried to control content. However, I'd bet if you gave me a list of the content they wanted suppressed, I'd probably be okay with the vast majority it. There were some easily falsifiable and dangerous things passed as real.
Maybe we have a different definition of misinformation. As I used it, this is content presented as fact with no legitimate source to back it up (think conspiracy theories or my aunt Sarah says vaccines cause cancer and you should drink bleach to treat covid). Legitimate source being peer reviewed journal for scientific articles, quotable dependable properly source for much other content.
Hence my question of: was this gov attempting to prevent spread of misinformation on Facebook, Instagram etc about a pandemic or was this suppression of actual fact based content?
We have laws about libel, you can't make detrimental false statements/ claims about someone without being subject to suit. How do we determine that? You have to prove the statement caused damage and was false. Pretty simple process. How is this different?
You should be able to back up statements that are made when posting information about certain subjects otherwise you need to be stating as personal opinion and not statement of fact. Companies have control over what content is on their sites and should be able to limit spread of misinformation when it is known to be false. We have to be careful with 1st amendment rights but we've already shown that damaging false statements are not protected under 1st amendment. So if these statements are provably false and can cause damage they are potentially not protected... right (I'm not a lawyer so thats just my line if thought).
Media is largely not interested in fact any more - that is another issue at hand. Media is only concerned about eyes on site/channel not quality of content. Those that attemp to fast check are disagreed with by those that don't care about facts. We need to reincentivize factual accuracy in the media, once that happens this cleans up to a point.
Sorry for the rambling and that could be naïve of me.
TLDR. Gov shouldn't suppress provable facts that are pro or against it but false claims shouldn't be defended or spread.
Did you SEE Facebook during the pandemic?? Just an absolute cesspool of insanity and conspiracy theories. Zuckerberg knew it then and he knows it now. But he's never cared how toxic Facebook is to civil society as long as the more poisonous the well, the better the engagement.
This is my point.
Yeah, answers always in the middle of it all.
Like, no the government shouldn't be the ones to tell what content a private company takes down, but also yes the private company should have probably taken most of it down....
HacklemanPoke
Deputy
Nate Silver out w an update post convention and post RFK. Shows Harris up nationally by 3.8. That’s a 1.2 point bump over last week but down from a peak last week of Harris + 4.0.
Swing states are all moving Harris’s direction.
PA up 1.9 & 0.5 week over week
MI up 3.3 & 0.3 wow
NC up 0.6 & 0.6 wow
WI up 3.6 & 0.2 wow
GA down 0.6 but up 0.9 wow
AZ up 1.5 & 0.5 wow
NV up 1.4 & 0.9 wow
Georgia is interesting. Harris and Walz are headed there for a bus tour this week. Trump was there a couple of weeks ago and by most unbiased accounts crapped the bed. Polling and modeling confirms this as it’s now moved to Harris. I think Trump all but acknowledged this last week when among a boat load of flip flops he flip flopped his position on the Gov and Lt Gov.
Swing states are all moving Harris’s direction.
PA up 1.9 & 0.5 week over week
MI up 3.3 & 0.3 wow
NC up 0.6 & 0.6 wow
WI up 3.6 & 0.2 wow
GA down 0.6 but up 0.9 wow
AZ up 1.5 & 0.5 wow
NV up 1.4 & 0.9 wow
Georgia is interesting. Harris and Walz are headed there for a bus tour this week. Trump was there a couple of weeks ago and by most unbiased accounts crapped the bed. Polling and modeling confirms this as it’s now moved to Harris. I think Trump all but acknowledged this last week when among a boat load of flip flops he flip flopped his position on the Gov and Lt Gov.
I appreciate your response. That being said, if there is a monopoly in an industry, the free market is already dead--it does not exist. The issues with monopolies and monopolistic behavior is that they are inherently unfair. You use the example of google providing a lot of value the last 25 years, but what about the last 5 years? The value they have provided has slowed considerably and in many ways has started to reverse.
While I do agree it is worse when businesses create monopolies by breaking laws, they are far more likely to use existing or new laws to support their rise.
When companies approach monopolistic status in a specific industry, there are well documented and repeatable negative effects:
- Rising costs passed on to consumers
- Stifled innovation
- Regulatory capture & use of regulations horizontally against competitors
- Unfair labor practices
- Lack of consumer choice or alternatives
- Increased customer hostile changes to services
- Big moats which can make disruption impossible
The latter is especially important in regard to tech companies, but nature of hardware, software and expertise can be near insurmountable for new entrants to overcome.
Take a look at Intel for example. Despite being a market leader for 30+ years in cpu's and an infusion by an estimated $50 Billion from the CHIPS Act, they cannot produce a reliable, competitive gpu in the field as a new entrant. If they can't, who can?
Stillwater Townie
Deputy
The government or well-educated people, such as scientists, should make it a full-time job on Facebook and other social media to debunk the conspiracy theory nuts. Censoring, deleting or banning them won't make them go away. They will just go elsewhere to spread their crazy, paranoia crap or even create their own platforms as Alex Jones and his friend Mike Adams, the quack's quack did. And, of course, most of them try to make millions off the gullible by selling snake oil, gold or survival gear, etc.
I wasn't excited by Kamala replacing Joe (relieved, not excited) but I had honestly never even heard her speak before. Policies aside, the more I see of her the more I like her. This is the first ticket I've seen where I can tell myself these are two generally decent human beings. Anyways I'm curious if we'll see something like that reflected in the polls as more of the country gets to know her.
It doesn’t even require a showing that they engaged in illegal activity to obtain their monopoly under anti-trust law. It only requires that they engaged in anti-competitive behavior to maintain and keep or profit unfairly from a monopoly that they have…however they reached monopoly status.
HacklemanPoke
Deputy
Personally I don’t want the government anywhere near fact checking, debunking or regulating content.
Where I do think they have a role is at least ensuring fair competition in the space and making sure the algorithms and then the content do not present a danger to kids.
The algorithms are where the problem lies. You can get all the fact checkers you want but once you get into the echo chamber the algos will force you deeper into that hole.
In the case of Alex Jones or people like him, I don’t know what you do. There’s not enough electro shock therapy to the family jewels to make that man pay for the harm he caused.
He did the opposite, he told his supporters to still vote for him while endorsing Trump. Talk about confusing.
RFK Jr. suspends his presidential bid and backs Donald Trump before appearing with him at his rally
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his independent campaign for president Friday and endorsed Donald Trump.
apnews.com
Republicans want voters to think Tim Walz lied about his dog. Such claims could cause real damage
Republicans have turned Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s outing at a dog park nearly three years ago into an attack on the Democratic vice presidential nominee this week, building on an online narrative that attempts to paint Walz as a liar.
apnews.com
You can't believe ANYTHING the Republican Party says about someone. Just flat out easily disproveable lies, and they just keep repeating them.and making up new ones.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. chain-sawed the head off a dead whale, bungee-corded it to the roof of a minivan and drove it five hours home with “whale juice” streaming down the car, his daughter recounted in a 2012 magazine article. Now, an environmental group is calling for an investigation.
www.threads.net
The New York Times (@nytimes) on Threads
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. chain-sawed the head off a dead whale, bungee-corded it to the roof of a minivan and drove it five hours home with “whale juice” streaming down the car, his daughter recounted in a 2012 magazine article. Now, an environmental group is calling for an investigation.
www.threads.net
They are convinced the only way they lose is if Dems cheat
Texas Republicans are doubling down on claims that Democrats in the state’s biggest cities are attempting to steal the 2024 election – a contest in which the GOP’s leads in the Senate and presidential races are increasingly narrowing.
www.threads.net
Texas Republicans are doubling down on claims that Democrats in the state’s biggest cities are attempting to steal the 2024 election – a contest in which the GOP’s leads in the Senate and presidential races are increasingly narrowing.
The Hill (@thehill) on Threads
Texas Republicans are doubling down on claims that Democrats in the state’s biggest cities are attempting to steal the 2024 election – a contest in which the GOP’s leads in the Senate and presidential races are increasingly narrowing.
www.threads.net
After suspending his campaign, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed to run for president in Kentucky • Kentucky Lantern
After suspending his presidential campaign last week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday afternoon filed to run for president in Kentucky.
kentuckylantern.com
Why did he just file to be on the ballot in Kentucky after suspending his campaign?
Similar threads
