jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Vini said: You're losing the plot here and we're talking past each other I'm saying the admins of twitter.com don't have the privilege of doing whatever they want on twitter.com any more It's too big and powerful now, the population of twitter can fill a continent. It can't be solely ran at the whim of an unelected group of owners. No I'm not. You're trying to get us in a circular argument, and it isn't working. Every single tenet that multiple people have said so far REMAINS TRUE, and UNCHANGED, no matter how many times you try to move the goal posts or re-contextualize it. -Freedom of Speech ONLY APPLIES between the people and the GOVERNMENT. Period -Privately-owned entites run these social media websites. -You have NO OWNERSHIP over your content on said websites. -You agree to allow the owners of the website to manage your content that you put on there, as they see fit. You haven't come remotely close to debunking ANY OF THIS........................like not even in the slightest. Stop trying to pretend that this is a complex subject. It isn't. Quote It can't be solely ran at the whim of an unelected group of owners. Yes. It. Can. You ever seen the server bandwidth costs for a network that has 400 million users? Whoever is currently PAYING FOR THAT can do whatever the fuck they want. Edited December 12, 2018 by jehurey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 Pure and simply I'm saying that twitter, facebook and google are no longer private entities and they do not get the same privileges. They're big enough to be considered empires ran by unelected leaders. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Vini said: Pure and simply I'm saying that twitter, facebook and google are no longer private entities and they do not get the same privileges. They're big enough to be considered empires ran by unelected leaders. No, rest assured............their lawyers, shareholders, and board of executives are HIGHLY CONFIDENT that they are in complete control of those companies, and are not public entities. The only way is if the United States government turns into a communist state and takes ownership over the literal company/resources/servers. You KNOW this.............You're not making an argument..................you are basically telling me YOUR HOPES AND WISHES. Edited December 12, 2018 by jehurey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, jehurey said: No, rest assured............their lawyers, shareholders, and board of executives are HIGHLY CONFIDENT that they are in complete control of those companies, and are not public entities. The only way is if the United States government turns into a communist and takes ownership over the literal company/resources/servers. You KNOW this.............You're not making an argument..................you are basically telling me YOUR HOPES AND WISHES. The government can interfere with monopolies and duopolies just fine and dissolve them without turning communist. In fact I believe this will be necessary in the near future. We'll see. Edited December 12, 2018 by Vini Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Vini said: The government can interfere with monopolies and duopolies just fine and dissolve them just fine without turning into communists. In fact I believe this will be necessary in the future. We'll see. Social media networks do not own a FINITE resource..........therefore they can not monopolize something that does not run out of something. Its not like you can only get on ONE social media network. LOL I love how I KNOW that you are keenly aware that you lost this argument...............the big giveaway is that you just RAN TO ANOTHER TANGENT. You are now saying that its a "monopoly" problem. LOL Edited December 12, 2018 by jehurey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, jehurey said: Social media networks do not own a FINITE resources..........therefore they can not monopolize something that does not run out of something. Its not like you can only get on ONE social media network. LOL Yea well phone companies don't own a FINITE resource either and it's not like you can only get ONE phone provider but the government still stopped AT&T and Tmobile from merging. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, jehurey said: I love how I KNOW that you are keenly aware that you lost this argument...............the big giveaway is that you just RAN TO ANOTHER TANGENT. You are now saying that its a "monopoly" problem. LOL Enough bragging faggot The social media giants are a much deeper problem than merely business monopolies but my point was the government has legal non authoritarian ways to interfere Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Vini said: Yea well phone companies don't own a FINITE resource either and it's not like you can only get ONE phone provider but the government still stopped AT&T and Tmobile from merging. Yes they do own a finite resource. Its LITERALLY the fucking phone lines. And for cell phones its LITERALLY THE FUCKING RADIO SPECTRUM that those companies own the licenses for. Jesus, you are stupid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, jehurey said: Yes they do own a finite resource. Its LITERALLY the fucking phone lines. And for cell phones its LITERALLY THE FUCKING RADIO SPECTRUM that those companies own the licenses for. Jesus, you are stupid. Yea and bandwidth is finite also what's your argument lmao Jerry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, Vini said: Enough bragging faggot The social media giants are a much deeper problem than merely business monopolies but my point was the government has legal non authoritarian ways to interfere No the government does not have have "legal non-authoritarian" ways to interfere. The government can only RESTRICT what content they can host, if it interfers with public decency laws and privacy laws. That literally means the government can only REMOVE content from Twitter/Youtube...........but NOT FORCE THEM TO ADD content that they don't want to have for whatever reason they want. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, Vini said: Yea and bandwidth is finite also what's your argument lmao Jerry No..........they pay for their OWN bandwidth to host the content. Not to mention that they probably build their own data centers, or rent out from data centers. Those are business interactions in which YOU......the end user, have no part of. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) Both social media and phone companies use finite resources to ease human communication AT&T and T-Mobile tried to merge and own the means of communication of the majority of Americans. The government prevented that from happening. Facebook already has more American users than AT&T and T-Mobile combined. Edited December 12, 2018 by Vini Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Vini said: Both social media and phone companies use finite resources to ease human communication AT&T and T-Mobile tried to merge and own the means of communication of the majority of Americans. The government prevented that from happening. Facebook already has more American users than AT&T and T-Mobile combined. You can't regulate a company through ANOTHER INDUSTRY. US Government can't tell the private online data center industry what to do with HOW they sell their online server space. They are going to sell it to whomever will pay the most for it, or the most of it. LOL, I love how you are well beyond comparing apples and oranges at this point, and are just making dumber and dumber associations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, jehurey said: You can't regulate a company through ANOTHER INDUSTRY. US Government can't tell the private online data center industry what to do with HOW they sell their online server space. They are going to sell it to whomever will pay the most for it, or the most of it. LOL, I love how you are well beyond comparing apples and oranges at this point, and are just making dumber and dumber associations. Nope, it's apples and apples. Both social media companies and phone companies are in the business of human communication. The only difference is one's a subscription profit model and the other is based on ads and analytics. If the US government can tell the private phone companies how to sell their service and how many customers they're allowed to have then they sure as shit can regulate and limit private data centers and servers. Edited December 12, 2018 by Vini Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, Vini said: Nope, it's apples and apples. Both social media companies and phone companies are in the business of human communication. One's a subscription profit model and the other is based on ads and information. If the US government can tell the private phone company what to do and how to sell their service then they sure as shit can regulate private data centers and servers. No. Social media companies are classified as communications companies. Sweetie. There's even a thing called Title 2 classification as a public utility that are applied to phones. The FCC, especially this Republican-controlled FCC, chose to NOT ASSIGN TITLE II CLASSIFICATION............TO INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. Not even the internet service providers. ...............and you think that they would apply it to Social Media companies ON THE INTERNET???????? When not even the INTERNET PROVIDER is listed as a "public utility"? I love how I am making you type stupider and stupider things. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 Social media companies are not ISPs what does that have to do with anything? Social media is a communication platform just like a telephone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 Didn't I tell you to stop bragging like a faggot every other post? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Vini said: Social media companies are not ISPs what does that have to do with anything? Social media is a communication platform just like a telephone. Because the government can only regulate something if it is a NECESSARY "public utility" that society and the economy needs to have in order to operate. Phones are classified as a public utility in the 1930's because it was necessary for the country. It was literally deemed necessary for society to have it, and for the free market to benefit from it. I would LOVE to see you try to type your bullshit to try and make the argument that Twitter and Youtube reach that threshold. Edited December 12, 2018 by jehurey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 Social media is not a public utility? That's strange coming from you considering things like BLM, Arab Spring and #metoo wouldn't have even happened without Social Media. When they topple shitty governments like the last one in my country I tend to see them as public utilities. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Vini said: Social media is not a public utility? No. It's not. Quote That's strange coming from you considering things like BLM, Arab Spring and #metoo wouldn't have even happened without Social Media. When they topple shitty governments like the last one in my country I tend to see them as public utilities. Then they should regulate them in those other countries. Think about how stupid you sound, Vini. Russians used social media to influence the US elections that helped Trump got into the White House, and do you see Democrats wanting the US Government to TAKE OVER FACEBOOK and TWITTER????????? LOL, you're losing this argument, hard. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.