Money talks, bullshit walks.
1 Like
Itâs not about free speech - they are not the government and no private entity has to give a platform to anybody they donât want to.
Nobody wants to hear what the racists have to say and nobody has to
5 Likes
Of course they are near-monopolies. And I am talking about today, not all time. The economic barriers for entry are too high to even try to compete successfully. And these companies have the economic power to keep it that way, at least for now.
Oh, the poor, white snowflakes! No one appreciates their purity and beauty, and so they fall, silent and out of sight.
4 Likes
I hope theyâre meeeeeeelting
6 Likes
Here we are at TPM
2 Likes
Man Pam is looking pretty rough these days. Wow
2 Likes
A lifetime of hate will do that to you.
3 Likes
We are talking about white supremacists and Nazis, so the answer to your question isâYes, it is all about hate.
3 Likes
Hate to see what Michelle Malkin looks like lately then.
Your analogy is flawed. The comparison of the internet to a highway is roughly accurate. We all have access to the highway. There are many on-ramps, and yo may choose from among them. If you travel along the highway, enter a bar and start yelling âKill the Jewsâ you will probably be kicked out of that bar. If you go down the street to the Klan bar, you will be welcomed. The establishment has a right to restrict your access and it doesnât matter whether you got there by car, bus, or bicycle.
I agree with your concern about internet access monopolies. With a stranglehold on access, and a Congress willing to gut net neutrality, they could make it impossible to reach sites that do not profit the provider. That would be highly objectionable.
Access to the internet is a different problem from access to particular sites.
3 Likes
Precisely correct. @georgeh is one of the Unicorn Bridage, and freely embraces the same tactics in his quest for âpurityâ, as he defines purity.
2 Likes
Facebook was the product of a tech-bro with a $0 budget operating out of a dorm room at a time when massively popular sites like MySpace, LInkedIn and Friendster, among others, existed. For social media platforms, you donât need material costs, permits, a huge workforce or eager investors. You just need some good ideas and a population that demands a new platform. Calling current social media platforms a monopoly just doesnât fit the definition of monopoly no matter how hard you squint. 
Anyway, this is an off-topic derail, so Iâll read whatever you respond but for the sake of other posters Iâll refrain from any further posts on this.
4 Likes
3 Likes
Ah, yes. Just like the Soviet Union, where privately or publicly held companies made decisions that were right for their business without government interference. Facebook banning someone over hate speech that violates their TOS is just like the USSR.
2 Likes
It isnât âall about hate,â it is about not allowing corporations to ban speech and ideas because they are abhorrent to many people.
There are millions of people who sincerely believe that âpro-choiceâ equals âpro-murder.â That is pretty hateful, donât you think? I strongly disagree with them, but I donât believe in banning them any more than I believe that they should be allowed to ban me.
Must be all that orange tab tRump ecstasy sheâs been taking.
5 Likes
Something happened alright. hahahahahaha
2 Likes
Monopolies are a separate matter. Those should be broken up, and I fear this administration would ignore violations of anti-trust laws.
What any corporation, big or small, decides to allow on their website is up to them, as long as they are not violating the law. If the law has ignored certain groups that ought to be protected, then the law should be changed. This is the essence of the current battle to recognize LGBT as a protected group. I remain quite skeptical that Nazis and white supremacists would ever be protected groups.
2 Likes