@Jerm you are missing my point

you defend the free market using the same logic that communists use to defend communism

I gave examples to highlight my point. I noted the problem with state healthcare, for example.

- in this particular case

Let me make it even simpler.

I dont know why we got to healthcare frankly... I am raising the issue of FB and free speech.

your argument is that FB is not really operating in a free market

so the problem wouldnt exist if we just did it right

I have a guitar. I want to sell it and somebody wants to buy it.

The trade can be as simple as that. But the state interferes in that trade by forcing itself into getting a cut of the sale. It then takes that cut to expand its own authority.

more like... you have 90% of all the guitars.... someone else has the other 10% but none of them can be tuned properly. You refuse to sell me one of your guitars because you dont like the music I will play

or we can skip analogies and look at the actual case I put forward

@Tom_Servo You only think about the big guns without thinking about the consequences for the start up. Strict regulations will make it much harder to to even start your business.

it is easy enough to understand without a metaphor

Facebook having the right to choose who gets kicked as opposed to being told who to kick are two very different political spectrums

FB got big because the market liked it. Now that it's very big, suddenly it can't have a say over its own behaviour?

@Gonzo This is a valid concern... and I am not dismissing it... as I said, I dont know what the solution is, but I think the solution lies outside of a pure free market solution

@Tom_Servo Never. Free market gave us everything we have now.

"pure"

I dont think we have had a "pure" free market anywhere

sometimes this has worked out well, and othertimes badly

but I think it is naive to believe that a pure free market can realistically exist. (a lovely ideal, but not realistic)

@Tom_Servo I dont think there is an example of a pure free market (Not on a big scale anyway)

Facebook funds political parties. The fact that the state allows this is what starts making things complicated. This obviously affects Facebook's political influence later on. And this is an example something simple being turned into something complicated.

@Jerm so facebook shouldnt have the freedom to have a political view

?

how dare you limit the market this way 😬

They should have the freedom to a political view, but I think they should then be outspoken about it

I am being faecitious

Well, Facebook is just a group of individuals, so obviously they have their own interests. They should fund out of their own, rather than on behalf of Facebook.

but if shareholders dont agree with how they spend money politically they could disinvest

or use gab

are you even slightly seeing my point here?

nothing exists in a vacuum

theory is just theory and reality is sometimes messier

doesnt mean we should throw the theory out though

I see your point, but it's not very strong. You're not happy with FB's size and want them to be more regulated by the state, but can't clarify exactly what your criteria is.

Again it comes down to choices and our little negotiations in our heads , do I use Facebook or Gab? Facebook gives me reach, but Gab gives me political freedom... We make these choices as individuals and most prefer reach to political freedom for some strange reason

@Jerm nope cathy newman... I am concerned about the power Facebook has over free speech and am not convinced that free market theory will address this adequately

@Tom_Servo FB only has influence over free speech on its own platform.

@Jerm sorry unneccessarily rude - being said with a smile on my face

Also, free speech does not exist.