IT's an argument the social media companies are not monopolies. Not to get the Gov involved and some ideas of what competitors might look like.

Tim's idea for a social media aggregator is in there.

get the gov less involved, always.

gas die gov

They might not be monopolies, but they *are* colluding. That has to end.

biggest issue is that payment processors are actively making competition impossible right now.
That can change tho, but right now its the biggest issue, not social media companies banning everyone not towing the line, thats just short term problem atm.

Only government can create monopolies, by definition https://youtu.be/76pWdExqfkY

Akanesasu Shoujou was nice
unexepcted ending though
expected more fighting
but it was a nice ending.
Was good


Change my mind 😉

halfthink, I don't think you can use terms in the original sense to disprove terms in the modern sense. Language is constantly changing, whether we like it or not, so the original idea of "monopoly privilege" while accurately only applying to governmental interference, doesn't apply to the modern conversation when discussing modern economics. collusion isn't a monopoly, it's an oligopoly, but still

Cant a company with enough freedom essentially have the power without needing to go through a government grant themselves the same advantages? In the right conditions?

maybe? more like they become the government

such as Disney owning the city of Disney World, FL

or Scientology giving themselves religious NFP status after infiltrating the government to give it to themselves

whoever claims the land becomes the governor of that land.

US government owns everything inside US borders.

you don't own anything in the US

we just pretend we do

so the commies have already won?

no, because the people still put up resistance

ah

But they wouldn't be able to take your home legally if you owned it.

also technically we do own, according to our rights to privacy

no, we don't.

it's "owned until bought" basically as I understood it

There is no private property right in the constitution. in fact, it explicitly allows the government to just come and take your house.

until the bill of rights came along

It says the government should really pay for it, but if the government just comes by, gives you money, and takes your house when you didn't want to sell, is that really a valid transaction?

no, that is IN the bill of rights.

"just compensation" which is very vague

eminent domain

yes, very vague.

and OC who decides what "just" or "unjust" means? the govt

technically the courts, which you could say are part of the government but at the same time not.

depending on the judge and the case

they *are*, just not the part that comes to take your stuff

which makes commies angry

can you tell I've been burned recently?

lol

kinda sick and tired of my interest group's political demographic. I need better friends

This is why I like living in a rural area, and going to a college that is almost 50/50 on political stances. I get the best and worst of both worlds.

oh, my college is fine. I just work with musicians every day, and musicians are always broke and communist