But that's just not happening.

and they want to now increase my taxes again to fix them just so they can gibe away my money to people who retire at 50 just because they worked for the state and make 70k a year working 4 hours a day at the DMV

The industry has collectively decided it wants to lock people out.

people just sit on their hands after they're banned?

Have you been to a univeersity?

No. But they do self censor.

They do lose every battle and eventually the war.

universities, another thing that needs to be killed and reborn.

obamacare is what you get when you try this shit

Let's not get too badly sidetracked.

regulation does not fix anything

its all the government can do

Yes it does. If you do it carefully and correctly, you can fix things.

Core issue is that you're never going to fix these sites, it's better to let them die, and help them along

Unless you mean to tell me that noise ordinances have made your neighborhood more noisy.

they didn't stop it either

but they do allow your neighbors to call the cops on you for having a car and need to go to work at 1am.

Most regulation suffers badly from unintended consequences, that I will admit, but that's not the same as "regulation destroys everything"

name 1 regulation that doesn't destroy opportunity for competition?

name 1 regulation that helped the economy and didn't hurt it

name 1 thing the government has added to the economy

rather than removed

its not always bad to remove things. but you can;t tell me that's not their function

>Grenade123 Today at 8:56
"Anti-trust laws would be a better alternative before making them utilities"

So...anti-trust.

To be fair, better doesn't necessarily mean good

better is better than worse.

Getting stabbed in the eyes is better than dying, but I'd rather have neither

This conversation is going dumb places.

Are we really going to argue "better"?

yeah, and anti-trust is "break up a company for the crime of being successful... and maybe because we helped them regulate away competition"

I'm saying that's not necessarily a counterargument

i'd rather the devil i know than the devil i don't

As Grenade has now pointed out

doesn't make it not the devil.

choice between killing 1 and killing 10 is still a choice of killing

I got IRL business I need to take care of.

Yes, but if that's your choice, it is better to choose to kill 1.

Doesn't mean you have to like your choices.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Quit waiting for perfect.

Unless you have a better idea.

correct, i'd like to choose kill 1 before 10. but you want to kill 10

But remember that Europe is already making the decision for everyone else.

And nothign short of counter-regulation is likely to stop that.

hence why anti-trust: something already existing, is better than making them a public utility: something new and untested in this industry

Anti-trust is rather unkown too.

You don't know what will replace it all.

no, and it usually doesn't work well. didn't with at&t

You don't know it won't be like Microsoft.

It did keep them from censoring everyone.

but public utility its far worse

**I'm not arguing public utility**

I'm arguing for public square.

There's a key difference.

not really.

One is a legal precedent that basically bans censorship.

The other dictates how the business is run.

One is narrow, the other is broad.

It's not just "regulation"

There is issues of scope.

"A public utility is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service"

the service is being a public square as that is all they are

They both dictate how the business is run, if we're being honest

If you want to take the strictest, most technical sense. But one is basically banning a particular practice whereas the other is a regulation of the infrastructure itself.

its a dangerous foot in the door for something i don't think is necessary

It's not technical. It's forced association

One lets the FCC/FTC intervene at any time for any reason. The other would have let Prager hold something over Youtube and FB.

The foot is already in the door. It's called the EU and GDPR.

DMCA.

the regulations that were in place before FESTA

The immunity from tort.

You're not arguing something sensible.

Bad rules are a good reason to introduce more rules?

we going for "common sense" laws now?

have you seen bills go through our legislature?

No. Abuse of the platform to control the political system and fail to provide the service promised is a reason to introduce more rules.

you think the dems will let the power to fuck with social media get through without being gutted, or worse, giving them rights to ban hate speech?

@Grenade123 Not an argument.

Which is why this needs to be done *Now*

What services are or were promised?

And dems banning hate speech isn't feasbile due to the 1st amendment.

right, rushed legislation, even better

A fair place to upload videos, make tweets, etc.

You don't really think the Dems won't introduce legislation when they get elected, do you?

i will not force facebook to bake the cake

so to speak

Then die as someone bakes the cake and forces it down your throat in a couple years.

And you choke under the political system.

i don't use facebook or twitter

>I'm forced to use Twitter
Ok

Doesn't mean the people who do aren't interested in you.

you could pull the internet from me and i'd still get by just fine

And there are people you are (in theory) allied with who are being destroyed.

if anything, i'd have an easier time hiding

Also where is this promise listed?

"me" "me" "me" You're allies being removed should matter to you in the long run, should it not?

funny the companies so obsessed with tracking people.... would want to get people they hate away from their tracking

i can still find alex jones, tommy, Dank, Gavin.

Sargon

For now.

That won't be the case in a couple years if something isn't done.