5 ms·

Not "allowed"? By whom? I'm afraid it's you who is confused. The first amendment doesn't recognize a difference between "editorial content" and non-"editorial c

Not "allowed"? By whom? I'm afraid it's you who is confused. The first amendment doesn't recognize a difference between "editorial content" and non-"editorial content". Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue.

nametakenobv 10y ago
>Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue. This is nonsense. When there is concentration in information distribution, the distributor must allow anyone and everyone equal access to the channel.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  According to what, your gut? If you're going to keep insisting that companies "must" do this or that, you need to cite the law that requires them to do so.
  - nametakenobv 10y ago
    According to anti-trust law.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      Anti-trust laws are about preventing monopolies, which Facebook is not, and have nothing to do with mandating any kind of fair service for non monopolies. No case can be successfully made calling Facebook a monopoly on social networks, you don't have to use them there are many other options.
      - nametakenobv 10y ago
        Anti trust law does not deal only with monopolies. It is about companies with dominant positions. Is facebook a company with dominant position?
        gnaritas 10y ago
        You're talking about things you don't understand, there is no case anyone can rationally make that Facebook is subject to anti-trust laws. You do not have to use Facebook, there are tons of other social networking sites, Facebook is not using anti-competitive practices to prevent competition. Anti-trust laws require far more than just being popular to apply and there's nothing in them that applies to Facebook or any other website. Anti-trust laws in the U.S. have never successfully been used against a website because the very notion is absurd.
        nametakenobv 10y ago
        There are clear methods to decide if a company has dominant position or not. It has nothing to do with whether you can use another one or not. Perhaps you don't have an idea what you are talking about.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough. The FTC couldn't even make a case against Google, a far more dominant company than Facebook. You're just making shit up dude, just stop, there is no case here for anti-trust nor will there be.
        nametakenobv 10y ago
        >You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough. Yeah, I'm gonna bet on me and my law degree for being right about that. Whether Facebook is in a dominant position is for the court to decide. You on the other hand are a funny... dude. Haha, "dude" he says :)
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Great, get back to me when hell freezes over, because that'll happen before Facebook is ever taken down by anti-trust laws.

nametakenobv 10y ago

>Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue. This is nonsense. When there is concentration in information distribution, the distributor must allow anyone and everyone equal access to the channel.

gnaritas 10y ago
According to what, your gut? If you're going to keep insisting that companies "must" do this or that, you need to cite the law that requires them to do so.
- nametakenobv 10y ago
  According to anti-trust law.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Anti-trust laws are about preventing monopolies, which Facebook is not, and have nothing to do with mandating any kind of fair service for non monopolies. No case can be successfully made calling Facebook a monopoly on social networks, you don't have to use them there are many other options.
    - nametakenobv 10y ago
      Anti trust law does not deal only with monopolies. It is about companies with dominant positions. Is facebook a company with dominant position?
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        You're talking about things you don't understand, there is no case anyone can rationally make that Facebook is subject to anti-trust laws. You do not have to use Facebook, there are tons of other social networking sites, Facebook is not using anti-competitive practices to prevent competition. Anti-trust laws require far more than just being popular to apply and there's nothing in them that applies to Facebook or any other website. Anti-trust laws in the U.S. have never successfully been used against a website because the very notion is absurd.
        nametakenobv 10y ago
        There are clear methods to decide if a company has dominant position or not. It has nothing to do with whether you can use another one or not. Perhaps you don't have an idea what you are talking about.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough. The FTC couldn't even make a case against Google, a far more dominant company than Facebook. You're just making shit up dude, just stop, there is no case here for anti-trust nor will there be.
        nametakenobv 10y ago
        >You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough. Yeah, I'm gonna bet on me and my law degree for being right about that. Whether Facebook is in a dominant position is for the court to decide. You on the other hand are a funny... dude. Haha, "dude" he says :)
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Great, get back to me when hell freezes over, because that'll happen before Facebook is ever taken down by anti-trust laws.