Tech Question

[cheebs09]

Underground.  And more dangerously.

The Underboard?

[The Sultan]

Not sure I've seen this verified but hope y'all not using Parler

https://twitter.com/birdrespecter/status/1348557067351519234?s=21

[dgies9156]

Sounds like the new administration needs to  start using the antitrust laws that have not been enforced in the last 30 years.

Do you really believe Facebook and Twitter are monopolies?

They manage content. So long as there are television and radio stations, cable networks, newspapers and the ability to print and mail anything your heart desires (except porn and national security matters), Facebook and Twitter are NOT monopolies. Some methods make it harder than others to communicate, but neither social media is a monopoly.

As to the question of whether Facebook, Twitter or any other social media can ban President Trump, of course they can. There's no first amendment issue here. Now if it were the other way around, and Trump was banning Facebook or Twitter, of course there would be. The First Amendment controls the government's ability to regulate speech.

Near versus Minnesota (SCOTUS, 1941) limits governmental prior restraint to issues of national security, public safety (i.e, no screaming fire in a crowded theater when none exists) and pornography.

[naginiF]

^^^this guy gets it^^^

[tower912]

Same concept as scoop banning (X).   Just much more public.

[GooooMarquette]

Not sure I've seen this verified but hope y'all not using Parler

https://twitter.com/birdrespecter/status/1348557067351519234?s=21

Signing up for Parler automatically gets you on the no-fly list and FBI's radar screen?

Natural selection at work.

[cheebs09]

Not sure I've seen this verified but hope y'all not using Parler

https://twitter.com/birdrespecter/status/1348557067351519234?s=21

Was Parler the one requiring a Social Security number for sign up?

[Skatastrophy]

Signing up for Parler automatically gets you on the no-fly list and FBI's radar screen?

Natural selection at work.

There's a Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

[tower912]

Interesting that the rest of the business community is choosing to not do business with them right now.   I think this will be a temporary thing, as eventually other vendors will step up.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

There's a Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

I saw a news report this Parler went dark yesterday and will probably never "reopen".

[forgetful]

Do you really believe Facebook and Twitter are monopolies?

They manage content. So long as there are television and radio stations, cable networks, newspapers and the ability to print and mail anything your heart desires (except porn and national security matters), Facebook and Twitter are NOT monopolies. Some methods make it harder than others to communicate, but neither social media is a monopoly.

As to the question of whether Facebook, Twitter or any other social media can ban President Trump, of course they can. There's no first amendment issue here. Now if it were the other way around, and Trump was banning Facebook or Twitter, of course there would be. The First Amendment controls the government's ability to regulate speech.

Near versus Minnesota (SCOTUS, 1941) limits governmental prior restraint to issues of national security, public safety (i.e, no screaming fire in a crowded theater when none exists) and pornography.

To be fair, this is a terrible analogy. Just because they all deliver content does not make them comparable markets.

For instance, was US Steel not a monopoly, because they just made building materials and you could use wood instead?

Were the railroads not monopolies, because it was just a means of transportation and delivery, and you could use stagecoach instead?

What about international harvester? Not a monopoly, because they just produced farm equipment, and you could always buy an ox?

Facebook and twitter are closer to a standard oil. Where they are natural monopolies because the there is a rarity of their product content, and because when competitors came up, they often squashed them, or bought them, and froze others out of the market.

I understand your point, but it is incomplete. The bigger question is, are these monopolies a problem? And are their products actually a rarity in terms of content or are twitter/facebook actually competitors?

[Galway Eagle]

To be fair, this is a terrible analogy. Just because they all deliver content does not make them comparable markets.

For instance, was US Steel not a monopoly, because they just made building materials and you could use wood instead?

Were the railroads not monopolies, because it was just a means of transportation and delivery, and you could use stagecoach instead?

What about international harvester? Not a monopoly, because they just produced farm equipment, and you could always by an ox?

Facebook and twitter are closer to a standard oil. Where they are natural monopolies because the there is a rarity of their product content, and because when competitors came up, they often squashed them, or bought them, and froze others out of the market.

I understand your point, but it is incomplete. The bigger question is, are these monopolies a problem? And are their products actually a rarity in terms of content or are twitter/facebook actually competitors?

You do have a point about the comparisons. But for the record one can always go back to MySpace or Friendster if they don't want Facebook

[JWags85]

I'm conflicted on this.  Not about banning Trump, but rather the large scale discussion.  I detest both Jack Dorsey and Zuckerberg, FWIW.  Zuckerberg at least doesnt even pretend to be anything but a power and revenue hungry megalomaniac.  Dorsey postures as some super aware and woke crusader but refused to take a stand until the 25th hour.

FWIW, if anyone on the left had as large of a following and audience as Trump and was saying dumb inflammatory stuff, they'd be banned as well.  I know of two different associates of mine (friend would be a past tense term) who were banned, one temporarily, one permanently, for overly aggressive stuff on Twitter.  And one would absolutely be quite left.  Its no secret that the social media providers by and large skew left, but I struggle to see it as a partisan thing here.

[MUfan12]

I'm with ya, Wags. Really uncomfortable with the outsized (and largely unchecked) power they have over public discourse.

While I think it was the right call, I just hope they go back to their previous distaste for being free speech police.

[The Sultan]

I'm with ya, Wags. Really uncomfortable with the outsized (and largely unchecked) power they have over public discourse.

While I think it was the right call, I just hope they go back to their previous distaste for being free speech police.

But they were getting criticized for NOT policing what was being said on their forums.  They really are in a no win situation.

[tower912]

It really is scoop writ large.   Moderators criticized for being too lax.   Then, when something hugely, obviously, most wrong ever is done and they drop the banhammer, they are again criticized.

I don't think the social media platforms should have banned people before.   Let them hang themselves with their own words.   But the big lie led to insurrection, violence, and a coup attempt.    There are lines that can't be uncrossed.

[MUBurrow]

What's tough is that while this is really about the role of dominant social media platforms on our political discourse, we are contorting outselves into an antitrust framework to try to discern if regulation is appropriate.  Whether myspace is a legitmate economic competitor to facebook to prevent application of antitrust law really has nothing to do with whether or not we think facebook should have increased corporate responsibilities with regard to moderating political speech on its platform.  I'm not sure what legal framework we use to get there, but this is really more akin to a campaign finance reform-styled question than an antitrust question.

[Pakuni]

I'm with ya, Wags. Really uncomfortable with the outsized (and largely unchecked) power they have over public discourse.

While I think it was the right call, I just hope they go back to their previous distaste for being free speech police.

Admittedly it's a fine and difficult line to tread, but there is indeed a line between allowing "free speech" and serving as medium for encouraging and planning violence.
Nobody is being banned from any platform for simply "being conservative."

That said, there are definitely issues with Twitter, Facebook and Google having monopolistic or near-monopolistic control over their mediums. It's just that those problems aren't related to who they choose to ban from their platforms.

[Jockey]

It really is scoop writ large.   Moderators criticized for being too lax.   Then, when something hugely, obviously, most wrong ever is done and they drop the banhammer, they are again criticized.

I don't think the social media platforms should have banned people before.   Let them hang themselves with their own words.   But the big lie led to insurrection, violence, and a coup attempt.    There are lines that can't be uncrossed.

I agree with most of this. Shine light on the darkness.

But this is not what it is about with Amazon no longer hosting Parler. That is strictly Amazon looking at their own liability and future. They hosted a service that called for the violent overthrow of our country - both last Wednesday and in the weeks ahead.

This was 95% CYA and 5% doing what is right.

[GooooMarquette]

There's a Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

"In the case of The United States vs [admitted insurrectionist], the People would like to introduce Exhibit A, the defendant's admission of guilt."

[Pakuni]

There's a Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

So, this is the 2020s version of the TV giveaway sting to get the criminals to come to the cops, right?

[Lighthouse 84]

There's a fake Parler thread where people are signing up for presidential pardons. They're listing their name, address, and crimes committed:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1347991059616444421/photo/1

FIFY.

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/01/fact-check-white-house-pardon-office-not-offering-pardons-to-patriots-in-capitol-insurrection.html

[Galway Eagle]

FIFY.

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/01/fact-check-white-house-pardon-office-not-offering-pardons-to-patriots-in-capitol-insurrection.html

You placed fake in the wrong spot. Where you put it implies the thread isn't real, the thread is real. what is fake is the office of presidential pardons.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Whether myspace is a legitmate economic competitor to facebook to prevent application of antitrust law really has nothing to do with whether or not we think facebook should have increased corporate responsibilities with regard to moderating political speech on its platform.  I'm not sure what legal framework we use to get there, but this is really more akin to a campaign finance reform-styled question than an antitrust question.

Thanks for that perspective. Beyond just political speech, the platforms have been weaponized against us across many areas. The Russians, for example, were pumping out disinformation about the COVID vaccine to sow mistrust.

I'm a little confused as to why Trump and his allies what to overturn Section 230. It seem to me overturning Section 230 would lead to exactly what we've seen the last couple of days already: a spectrum of platforms purging members whose content would open them up to liability.

I do think platforms need to regulate content. QAnon was incredibly successful in radicalizing millions of people even spewing transparently ridiculous conspiracy theories. Here is a really interesting read on how Ashli Babbitt was rapidly radicalized until the point she got herself killed thinking she was going to "save the children". https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/

[dgies9156]

To be fair, this is a terrible analogy. Just because they all deliver content does not make them comparable markets.

For instance, was US Steel not a monopoly, because they just made building materials and you could use wood instead?

Were the railroads not monopolies, because it was just a means of transportation and delivery, and you could use stagecoach instead?

What about international harvester? Not a monopoly, because they just produced farm equipment, and you could always buy an ox?

Facebook and twitter are closer to a standard oil. Where they are natural monopolies because the there is a rarity of their product content, and because when competitors came up, they often squashed them, or bought them, and froze others out of the market.

I understand your point, but it is incomplete. The bigger question is, are these monopolies a problem? And are their products actually a rarity in terms of content or are twitter/facebook actually competitors?

Brother Forgetful, I respectfully disagree.

1) USS had considerable competition, both domestic and foreign. Bethlehem Steel, for one, Republic Steel for another. The Chinese and Japanese for a third.

2) International Harvester -- I assume you have heard of Deere & Co., JI Case, Ford Tractor, Kubota etc. They all are direct competitors. Deere, in fact, is the largest farm equipment manufacturer in the world.

3) Railroads -- There may have been city pairs with only one railroad, but nationally, there was competition on most every major transcontinental and north-south route. And, the concept of alternative goods, in the form of trucking and air freight, holds.

4) Digital -- You get banned from Twitter and Facebook, there's Linkedin as well as other social networks. I'm sure you can find one.

From a legal perspective, the anti-trust law requires that you consider substitute goods and the capability to carry on a function with multiple channels and providers. The product is communication and the ability to manage technology, control its use and access is an outgrowth of intellectual capital. In today's world, if you don't like it, go get some venture capital or an Angel Investor and start your own network.

The railroads are a good example of necessity and opportunity, which applies here. With the interstate highway system and more freight moving to trucks in the 1960s and 1970s, Class 1 railroads began abandoning thousands of miles of right-of-way that was expensive, duplicative and not profitable. Short Line railroads found a way to fill the gap and, in many cases, make significant profit.

Likewise, if Facebook, Twitter and Google become too restrictive, some techno-genius will step in and fill the void. Thus we will have the Fox News of Social Networking and further stratify our nation away from a community discussion

There is no governmental requirement to assure you have 100 percent access to the lowest cost form of electronic delivery of your musings, whether you're Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi. If you want guaranteed access, then have the government legislate it and, oh by the way, be prepared to pay Facebook, Twitter and others for the effective seizure of their intellectual property.