Regulation that helps Socialists censor Conservatives is not regulation. It is infringement of Constitutional rights of US citizens if they maintain a monopoly on social media sites, despite the fact those sites are privately owned. The reasoning is easy to follow; the advantage of the monopoly on the ‘market’ implies equal protection is not provided by the market; i.e. anti-trust collusi…. er, cooperation.
How can you deem Facebook or Twitter as a monopoly when literally anyone in the USA has the ability to start their own social media website to compete against them?
Define “monopoly” then explain how Facebook & Twitter can be considered a monopoly when they don’t have exclusive possession or control of the commodity or service as people can use any of the other social media platforms readily available online.
I answered your question.
Definition of monopoly is irrelevant. If you think otherwise, look it up and consider the characteristics in relation to the Social Media market.
April 5, 2019 at 8:22 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
The definition IS relevant based on your original comment where you claimed (obviously incorrectly) that they were monopolies.
April 3, 2019 at 2:54 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
7
8
How can you compare a start up with these giants? By the way, they lean heavily left and own lawmakers that are supposed to regulate them. Built in corruption at the highest level
So you can be a monopoly even though start-up’s can easily enter the marketplace by creating a website and directly compete with you? I don’t think you understand what a monopoly is.
In the US, Instagram has a bigger market share than Twitter. In the world, there are half a dozen other sites that have a larger market share than Twitter.
You mentioned Facebook too. Hilarious. STILL laughing. Keep it up. Just great stuff . . .
April 3, 2019 at 8:04 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
7
1
Facebook doesn’t have 98% of the market share. Facebook + Twitter doesn’t even have 98% of the market share. I stand by post calling your stat factually incorrect.
April 4, 2019 at 5:02 pm
PouellerBeaReport Fail says:
Like or Dislike:
3
5
I’m laughing at you, Rosie, not with you. Monopolies do not have to be the exclusive provider of a product or service if it controls the near entirety of a market in regard to price and supply.
April 5, 2019 at 8:26 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
“Monopolies do not have to be the exclusive provider….”
What? Of course they do! That’s how they can be called a MONOpoly. (the prefix “mono” means one).
I can’t believe we’re arguing that there can be many companies who compete with each other in an industry yet you are claiming they can (all?) be a monopoly.
This is such an absurd thing for you to try and argue otherwise.
April 5, 2019 at 8:41 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
Rosenblatt,
Welcome to Tramp’s America where facts and truth do not matter. Deflection and hypocrisy soon to follow…
April 5, 2019 at 9:55 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
It baffles me (but mostly, it saddens me) that I have to post half a dozen or more comments explaining that a company can’t be considered a monopoly when there are competitors in that industry.
April 4, 2019 at 8:42 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
APRIL 6, 2018 AT 11:19 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
5
Have some pride, man. Try actual insight instead of insults.
If you would like a debate on any of the subjects you mention, lets go.
If you want to stay with third grade insults, you are on your own.
Rosenblatt, I get your point, but that is a tad disingenuous. Facebook, Twitter, et al are run by folks who are openly affiliated with the political left. Your comment is a bit like saying Bell Corp. is not a monopoly! You can set up your own phone company any time you want! While technically true, there are antitrust laws for a reason. Additionally, the above referenced companies have been known to actively censor conservative speech.
I don’t think your phone example is a good comparison. In order to create a new phone company, you need to heavily invest in infrastructure (unless you’re creating an MVNO, then you can rent the infrastructure from an existing mobile network.)
In order to start your own social networking website, you need to purchase the rights to a URL (very cheap) and create a website (free templates exist online).
Literally anyone with an internet connection and $15 a year can compete with FB and Twitter. The same can’t be said for phone services.
I get the concern with the political issues with FB and Twitter, but again – MANY competitors already exist, have already successfully penetrated the market (evidences by Twitter not even being in the top 5 social networking sites across the globe) AND new ones can be created to increase competition by ANYONE with $20 and a stable WiFi connection.
Yes Rosenblatt, I am sure MySpace would agree with you.
April 4, 2019 at 11:23 am
Augustine says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
I was being a bit facetious with the Bell example. And while I agree that the investment in infrastructure is very small, the investment in marketing is absolutely monumental for a social media site. If Google can fail with their media site (google+) then it just shows how enormously difficult this market would be to enter.
April 4, 2019 at 11:25 am
Augustine says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
We need an article on here about financial blacklisting, now THAT is interesting.
April 5, 2019 at 9:56 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
100% agree, Augustine — I’d love to see a financial backers report on these companies rather than everyone just presuming they know where their money actually comes from.
April 3, 2019 at 2:04 pm
Ummm.... says:
Like or Dislike:
12
3
Last I checked, neither Facebook or Twitter are government entities. They can scrub anything they want from their platform. A conservative social media site could be your alternative. You just need a conservative that is technologically savvy enough to develop one.
Isn’t the mantra “keep government out of business”? Or is there a second part I missed that stated, “unless I don’t like how the business operates” that I was unaware of?
Sounds great. Now reverse “discrimination against conservatives” with “discrimination against liberals” and tell me how the Left would react to Facebook or Google. (The frightening thing is how few people left are truly “liberal”, meaning people who believe in freedom of speech and all of the other freedoms for everyone, not just Lefties.)
Well, I can’t speak for the left, or the right. I don’t much care for either of their antics these days. Hypocritical, spineless, snowflakes. Both sides. The whole lot of them.
If I don’t like the way a company operates, I stop being a patron of said company. It’s pretty straightforward.
Ummm wins the internet today – I echo your comments!
April 4, 2019 at 12:38 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
Sounds great, if you ignore the massive and sudden power of Google.
Or Facebook. Or the overwhelmingly liberal media. Or the overwhelmingly liberal universities. Or the overwhelmingly liberal entertainment industry.
let’s see: suppression of free speech? Who cares, says the Left. If it hurts conservatives, we don’t believe in free speech. That is such an old fashioned concept (and it doesn’t hurt me, so I don’t care). Principles!
(Did you see the near boycott by television advertisers of the movie about abortion called “Unplanned?”, a movie with no graphic scenes in it? Or what Twitter did to their website the week the movie launched? No? No surprise.)
April 4, 2019 at 5:07 pm
PouellerBeaReport Fail says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Craig didn’t ask you to speak for the Left or Right. He asked how one side would view Google or Facebook if it was biased against them. That’s not difficult to answer. You’re avoiding the conclusion that was obvious from Craig’s post.
April 4, 2019 at 5:22 pm
Ummm.... says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Dear Poueller,
I assume, they would…wait for it…**boycott** the platform. (That means the same as to stop being a patron.)
Perhaps the right should do the same, you know, instead of whining about it…like a bunch of snowflakes.
Just sayin…
April 4, 2019 at 9:11 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Two words to answer you, Yogi – Faux Newz.
April 4, 2019 at 10:29 am
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
It cost nothing for someone to create a FB account and then the user posts personal information about what they like, where they go, political views, who they love, personal photos, opinions, etc. What do we expect could happen to our info? And why should our gov’t need to get involved? Don’t feel comfortable about how someone is using your precious info, wake up and don’t give it out to someone who offers you a “free” service. I continue to be mystified by this entire debate.
Regulation that helps Socialists censor Conservatives is not regulation. It is infringement of Constitutional rights of US citizens if they maintain a monopoly on social media sites, despite the fact those sites are privately owned. The reasoning is easy to follow; the advantage of the monopoly on the ‘market’ implies equal protection is not provided by the market; i.e. anti-trust collusi…. er, cooperation.
How can you deem Facebook or Twitter as a monopoly when literally anyone in the USA has the ability to start their own social media website to compete against them?
Size & popularity, thus ~98% of market share.
You still didn’t answer my question.
Let me phrase it this way:
Define “monopoly” then explain how Facebook & Twitter can be considered a monopoly when they don’t have exclusive possession or control of the commodity or service as people can use any of the other social media platforms readily available online.
I answered your question.
Definition of monopoly is irrelevant. If you think otherwise, look it up and consider the characteristics in relation to the Social Media market.
The definition IS relevant based on your original comment where you claimed (obviously incorrectly) that they were monopolies.
How can you compare a start up with these giants? By the way, they lean heavily left and own lawmakers that are supposed to regulate them. Built in corruption at the highest level
So you can be a monopoly even though start-up’s can easily enter the marketplace by creating a website and directly compete with you? I don’t think you understand what a monopoly is.
I’ll help out, Rosenblatt:
mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
noun
1.
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
So, by definition, FB and Twitter are not a “monopoly”.
You fail to grasp the GENERALLY ACCEPTED definition of monopoly.
Alternative facts, Yogi? What is the oranges of the word “monopoly”?
Rosenblatt is routinely hilarious. I wonder who writes his material.
“How can you call an entity with 98% of the market share a monopoly?”
I am STILL laughing. (Imagine if an oil company had 98% of the market share and Rosenblatt’s comedy writer was at work . . .)
In the US, Instagram has a bigger market share than Twitter. In the world, there are half a dozen other sites that have a larger market share than Twitter.
Your argument is factually incorrect as usual
You mentioned Facebook too. Hilarious. STILL laughing. Keep it up. Just great stuff . . .
Facebook doesn’t have 98% of the market share. Facebook + Twitter doesn’t even have 98% of the market share. I stand by post calling your stat factually incorrect.
I’m laughing at you, Rosie, not with you. Monopolies do not have to be the exclusive provider of a product or service if it controls the near entirety of a market in regard to price and supply.
“Monopolies do not have to be the exclusive provider….”
What? Of course they do! That’s how they can be called a MONOpoly. (the prefix “mono” means one).
I can’t believe we’re arguing that there can be many companies who compete with each other in an industry yet you are claiming they can (all?) be a monopoly.
This is such an absurd thing for you to try and argue otherwise.
Rosenblatt,
Welcome to Tramp’s America where facts and truth do not matter. Deflection and hypocrisy soon to follow…
It baffles me (but mostly, it saddens me) that I have to post half a dozen or more comments explaining that a company can’t be considered a monopoly when there are competitors in that industry.
APRIL 6, 2018 AT 11:19 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
5
Have some pride, man. Try actual insight instead of insults.
If you would like a debate on any of the subjects you mention, lets go.
If you want to stay with third grade insults, you are on your own.
Rosenblatt, I get your point, but that is a tad disingenuous. Facebook, Twitter, et al are run by folks who are openly affiliated with the political left. Your comment is a bit like saying Bell Corp. is not a monopoly! You can set up your own phone company any time you want! While technically true, there are antitrust laws for a reason. Additionally, the above referenced companies have been known to actively censor conservative speech.
I don’t think your phone example is a good comparison. In order to create a new phone company, you need to heavily invest in infrastructure (unless you’re creating an MVNO, then you can rent the infrastructure from an existing mobile network.)
In order to start your own social networking website, you need to purchase the rights to a URL (very cheap) and create a website (free templates exist online).
Literally anyone with an internet connection and $15 a year can compete with FB and Twitter. The same can’t be said for phone services.
I get the concern with the political issues with FB and Twitter, but again – MANY competitors already exist, have already successfully penetrated the market (evidences by Twitter not even being in the top 5 social networking sites across the globe) AND new ones can be created to increase competition by ANYONE with $20 and a stable WiFi connection.
Yes Rosenblatt, I am sure MySpace would agree with you.
I was being a bit facetious with the Bell example. And while I agree that the investment in infrastructure is very small, the investment in marketing is absolutely monumental for a social media site. If Google can fail with their media site (google+) then it just shows how enormously difficult this market would be to enter.
We need an article on here about financial blacklisting, now THAT is interesting.
100% agree, Augustine — I’d love to see a financial backers report on these companies rather than everyone just presuming they know where their money actually comes from.
Last I checked, neither Facebook or Twitter are government entities. They can scrub anything they want from their platform. A conservative social media site could be your alternative. You just need a conservative that is technologically savvy enough to develop one.
Isn’t the mantra “keep government out of business”? Or is there a second part I missed that stated, “unless I don’t like how the business operates” that I was unaware of?
Sounds great. Now reverse “discrimination against conservatives” with “discrimination against liberals” and tell me how the Left would react to Facebook or Google. (The frightening thing is how few people left are truly “liberal”, meaning people who believe in freedom of speech and all of the other freedoms for everyone, not just Lefties.)
Well, I can’t speak for the left, or the right. I don’t much care for either of their antics these days. Hypocritical, spineless, snowflakes. Both sides. The whole lot of them.
If I don’t like the way a company operates, I stop being a patron of said company. It’s pretty straightforward.
Ummm wins the internet today – I echo your comments!
Sounds great, if you ignore the massive and sudden power of Google.
Or Facebook. Or the overwhelmingly liberal media. Or the overwhelmingly liberal universities. Or the overwhelmingly liberal entertainment industry.
let’s see: suppression of free speech? Who cares, says the Left. If it hurts conservatives, we don’t believe in free speech. That is such an old fashioned concept (and it doesn’t hurt me, so I don’t care). Principles!
(Did you see the near boycott by television advertisers of the movie about abortion called “Unplanned?”, a movie with no graphic scenes in it? Or what Twitter did to their website the week the movie launched? No? No surprise.)
Craig didn’t ask you to speak for the Left or Right. He asked how one side would view Google or Facebook if it was biased against them. That’s not difficult to answer. You’re avoiding the conclusion that was obvious from Craig’s post.
Dear Poueller,
I assume, they would…wait for it…**boycott** the platform. (That means the same as to stop being a patron.)
Perhaps the right should do the same, you know, instead of whining about it…like a bunch of snowflakes.
Just sayin…
Two words to answer you, Yogi – Faux Newz.
It cost nothing for someone to create a FB account and then the user posts personal information about what they like, where they go, political views, who they love, personal photos, opinions, etc. What do we expect could happen to our info? And why should our gov’t need to get involved? Don’t feel comfortable about how someone is using your precious info, wake up and don’t give it out to someone who offers you a “free” service. I continue to be mystified by this entire debate.