What constitutes censorship, doesn't a company of a right to have what they want on their product or service? So then what has priority, the company or the consumer.

This is a sort of anti-trust kind of thing

Whos' rights get to override the others.

Not really.

Do you think this is an acceptable status quo?

Because the internet isn't a monopoly.

Are you a dickhead?

LOL

Great connection man

From to statues quo, to dickhead.

You managed to strawman and alienate me in two lines. That'll win you a seat.

We will not make a centimeter of progress in moving our ideas forward until silicon valley is dealt with

After Trump, they'll kill any ascendant right wing movement in the united states in the crib.

You're talking like There's a handful of people that control everything you see on the internet.

It's just not true.

There is

yes Twitter and Youtube censor.

do you live under a rock

Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Discord

Then make a new platform, and don't censor.

This bill is specifically for those monolithic organizations with market share

Those companies get the right to do that if you use their product.

They aren't fucking monoplies.

They hold the de-facto public square.

They have have vertical or horizontal control of the market.

@zakattack04 dude, Facebook and Google pretty much are monopolies

Gab.ai is not going to save the American right wing.

Facebook no.

Google you can arge.

argue*

"Your online bill of rights is going to flood the court system and skyrocket already high court prices."

and so what?

But if they were the FTC would've been on it by now, you have three solid anti trust regulations to support breaking up monoplies.

The point of social media is that it's central, that everyone can connect with each other with the same means, having all these different social media orgs for the same purpose is completely unpractical.

This is what has to be done.

That's what an industry is FLanon.

ancaps pls

This is a paleocon thread

"America has fallen but at least I didn't cuck on industry"

its' not just one company running all fo social media lol

Yeah, it's an oligarchy

Social media is an industry in which several companies can compete.

Probably yeah lol.

Youtube, Discord, Facebook, Twitter. Twitter fulfills a different purpose than facebook, YouTube fulfills a different purpose than Discord, etc. They're not competing.

my point is though, "It's unpractical" isn't a valid justification for using the government to crack down on businesses

Yes it is

lol

Tell me where it says that in the Sherman Anti Trust act

Or the Clayton Anti Trust Act

Or the FTC Charter

No, it says anti competitiveness

um no sweetie!

Not, "what's impractical"

Immigration is all that matters lmao

Nice, that was relevant

Anyway.

the internet can be fixed whenever

FLanon, I wasn't trying to shit on your agenda.

I was just brining up another point.

Things to consider.

But demographics cannot

Button mash

I'm just saying, what's more important is to get our ideas out there than protecting mark zuccerberg

i really don't care, I wasn't talking to you.

No offense.

I wasn't talking about protecting mark Zuccerberg.

Anyways, these guys hold an effective monopoly for their respective fields. Twitter has every federal politician in the United States logged in to it, Gab doesn't have any.

That's never going to be a reasonable competition.

They hold the public forum, it's a monopoly.

I honestly don't think so.

They're big but, they aren't the only social media platform.

The public forum is a very big deal.

Furthermore, the way social media functions encourages monopolies for each function. Sure, you have Twitter, but there's not really any serious competition to that. The reason is, people use this as a common ground, if you make videos and you want to link people to your social media, you're not going to link 50 different accounts, that's unwieldy.

I don't really mean the smaller industries, blogs and stuff, since there is competition that works that way, it's not entirely a sort of public forum as Twitter functions.

@FLanon can't wait to support your first shot at office

"but there's not really any serious competition to that"

It's not serious because Twitter satisfies a majority of its users. If another company creates a better platform, and gives a greater incentive for consumers to use their product, they will move there.

Look at FB today.

Plummeting after the story of them selling info.

Okay

SpaceEx deleted their FB page because of it.

What's replaced Facebook

What has replaced it?

Well nothing yet, because most of it's users are still satisfied. If they're not they can leave and use another platform.

Or use none, the consumer just needs to not be lazy

That's a monopoly

no it's not oh my gosh.

That's like going, "well Ford is plummeting, and since the market hasn't reacted that makes Toyota a monopoly."

A car is a car.

Things don't happen overnight in market trends.

Ok fine, use Cocola and Pepsi.

Coca Cola*

Social media is very different, no one goes to their YouTube channel and list all the different cars their friends have.

Same with soda.

The idea that Facebook is a monopoly because there isn't another social media platform as big or bigger is jsut not true.

It's because the nature of social media encourages monopolies.

This is a service which does not function under competition.

WHAT

Of course services are effected by competition!

Life insurance

Facebook fulfills a different function than YouTube, than Twitter.