You know what *if* means, right? It kinda indicates a skepticism.

Isn’t it bad business? The big tech companies are just asking for the government to get into their business by doing this.

More corporate backlash and in a place that may really hurt Trump as his business bank and personal bank say 'You're Fired!'.


Trump reportedly dumped by lenders Deutsche Bank and Signature

As a growing list of companies cut political spending in the wake of last week’s Capitol Hill riots, some banks that have done business with President Donald Trump are following suit.

Deutsche Bank will no longer do business with Trump or any of his companies, .. Trump reportedly owes the bank over $300 million.

Meanwhile, Signature Bank on Tuesday released a statement on its website, calling for Trump to step down.

“At this point in time, to ensure the peaceful transition of power, we believe the appropriate action would be the resignation of the president of the United States, which is in the best interests of our nation and the American people,” said the New-York-based bank in a statement on its website on Tuesday.

...“In conjunction with all of this, Signature Bank began the process to close President Trump’s personal accounts. Signature Bank pledges it will not do business in the future with any members of Congress who voted to disregard the Electoral College,” ...

Let me show you something:





Obviously, those tweets are still live.

There are literally thousands of tweets like this from all across the political spectrum.

While GG may not have been accurate about Parler users, Amazon's decision is not about moderation,or lack there of. Guess who hosts Twitter?

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/new...help-f/592228/

Check the date.
the American left, nor Amazon, was concerned about insurection speech when it involves burning down black communities

Sounds like you should stay off Twitter, then.

Anyways, to help ishotinvegas I'll lay out the situation

ishotinvegas is taking the Matt Stoller position that concentrated economic power is anti-liberty, etc and that a better economic situation would be with dispersed economic power so that instead of having 2 or 3 web hosting providers who control 90% of the market with the remaining 10% being some shoddy services.

I dont know but I think the companies are damned whatever they do. It cannot be left them to decide the rules when it comes to such a serious and fundamental part of a functioning democracy.

Can you spot the differences? Because they're there.

This is accurate. It's not only about dispersing economic power per se. It's about competition. Consumers don't really have a choice which social media provider they use, this is largely due to the companies creating a moat, using anticompetitive behavior, rather than a superior service.

If every app company bans someone for whatever reason that seems more reasonable than a few companies deciding, as the consumer demand is what's going to determine it, not the company, i.e. competition, if healthy competition existed, it's unlikely one of them would turn down a controversial person unless that person has no appeal to a vast majority of consumers.

There's the rub with democracy that the left has an issue with, though, when its applied to economics and regulation. They don't want consumers (voters) to make the decision.

Conservatives define everything they don't like as 'the left'. It's easy to play the victim that way--christ look how many people have gone under the trumpbus as rinos etc that started out this term as Rs

"I don't know GG to make stuff up," said man who later claims he was quite skeptical of GG's easily falsified lie.

If Trump self-hosted a website and livestreamed himself 24/7 it would be the most popular site in the world.

He's too dumb, or he thinks being a victim is the right play.

Which one is 5d chess?

One problem is that it's fairly arbitrary. You're making an assumption about how a market should look like, lots of competitors, diffuse power, and then saying that when it's not like that it's anti competitive, but the logic of capitalism is that more efficient firms beat out less efficient ones and having a few competitors might serve the needs of a market more than having many competitors. Just look at Peter Thiel's book From Zero to One. In it he talks about the goal of any business should be to be the only business in a market. Being a monopoly is how you make real money.

Take web hosting. AWS is a huge competitor because it can offer huge scale and amenities that would be very expensive and time consuming to do on a smaller scale. While someone might want content to be a main point of competition, for a huge amount of the online hosting services, it's not, because they're mostly in the confines of what's acceptable content wise so they're mainly concerned with technical abilities.

Or take Apple's App Store. The 30% cut and wall garden approach is now seen as anti competitive, but at its inception having Apple handle the payment system and locking down their app store to keep out malware and pop up ads was seen as a huge value add and they gobbled up a huge share of the market.

So it's not exactly clear how we're going to make competition happen or if we did that it would result in more speech.

Btw these aren't my opinions just ones I've heard against the Matt Stoller idea of economic organization

lol how much did Hawley spend on pornhub? he probably got scammed in some "private room"?

So facebook, google, twitter, amazon have all been helped along the way with CIA seed money, are currently in bed with them, or have otherwise been heavily supported by the ruling class, correct?
And we know that Trump himself has also been heavily supported by these same people. So it should definitely not be the assumption that the "deplatforming' of Trump is in any way about actually silencing Trump or 'his movement/maga/etc".
From the pov of the ruling class, Trump's reign was almost certainly very effective. And now that it is Biden's turn, what better way to push the political divide than to deplatform Trump at this point? All of the "right" will continue believing that the election was stolen and believe in the deep state vs Trump narrative, and the big tech companies (which is just the ruling class) end up with a power grab that has the "left" going along with it-- more or less. Very Hegelian.

Another platform to hopefully be denied.

As a liberal, I am completely open to a good faith discussion of the regulation of social media companies.

But conservatives need to first come to the table with their current theory of the proper role of the government in regulating business. It can't just be that regulation is good when they do stuff that makes conservatives mad and it's communism otherwise.

For example if you reject an argument that labor regulations are bad because the employee can just find another job, then you can't reject an argument that companies like Parler can just build their own smartphone, app store, servers, etc. Freedom baby.

These words you use, why do you use them and what purpose do you think Trumpsters would say they serve in a discussion such as this?

Conservatives has spent the last 200 years in modern democracies outlawing expression they don't like, outlawing political beliefs they don't like and persecuting behaviors they don't like. Always hiding behind words like decency, tradition, law and patriotism.

We have already seen the conservative rhetoric in play in the US. After a 4 year presidency that hasn't been an assault on decency as much as it has been an assault on sanity and complete rejection of law, they are back at it. Many of their most popular politicians and pundits are already telling their followers that Joe Biden is not a decent man, that his wife doesn't know her place, that liberals despise the law and that only conservatives can be patriots.

To be honest, I don't even understand what conservatism is supposed to be anymore.

As a moderate, you make a good point and regulation is something I battle with. In my industry I've seen both parties add red tape after red tape. It started with the Patriot Act and concluded with Obama adding regulation right before he left office that Trump overturned. Did any of it help the consumer? No, it just added paperwork and increased costs to the people it was trying to protect. There needs to be a level of regulation in almost every business. Corporations have proven that they can't be trusted to go unregulated and that is across almost every industry in existence. The problem is that we go too far and overregulate stuff which either smothers growth or adds costs.

This misses the key difference of course. In the case of the wedding cake, the cake shop is legally required to make the cake for many marriages they might not agree with: interracial, interfaith etc. Liberals simply want to make the obvious extension to same sex. The notion that a business can refuse service to you for other non-discriminatory reasons is not controversial and only something conservatives are bringing up now because their ideology has become so extreme and trying to invent new protections that have never existed.

Conservatives don't oppose labor regulations. See, if you oppose certain labor regulations, the left is quick to label you as anti-regulation, and the conversation is constantly defending against that straw man.

WTF? That was preceded by "for example" (may or may not apply to you! It's an example!) and conservatives abso-****ing-lutely oppose labor regulations (teh free marketz!!!11), even if you personally do not.

Christ