3 ms·

Better ban signal. Do you want that wrapped in "fighting terrorism", "war on drugs" or "think of the children". We google should not be in a position of power

by harry8 7y ago

Better ban signal. Do you want that wrapped in "fighting terrorism", "war on drugs" or "think of the children". We google should not be in a position of power to decide what is allowable and what is not. That is for elected officials. If they have more than reasonable influence, break them up. Same for any group of people anywhere. Get elected.

plemer 7y ago
By using their services, we elect them. Still, yes, citizens could attempt to effect government intervention. But probably the average person has more leverage as a consumer than as a political actor.
- harry8 7y ago
  Nope. They have market power. If there's 30 equivalent services to choose from and using none is also a viable option there's no market power and no issue. I hope they get rich without market power but it's of no significance to me. As soon as they (for all values of they) have market power and can have a huge effect over what you can and can't do - they need to be bound by law and regulation. This is the textbook definition of market failure. Libertarians and Bernie should see it much the same way. I personally believe you keep regulation the hell out it until you have market failure (so I'm not with bernie) - which this is, they're enacting defacto laws and taxes on the population here for an agenda not agreed to by that population. Same as if standard oil could tell you where you could drive your car. Same as if your electricity company could tell you what you are allowed to read with your electric lights. Same as if your phone company dropped your call for saying "fk" out loud. Market failure is a thing that happens often (public goods, property rights enforcement, industries that tend to monopoly) and we bring in regulation when it does and watch those regulators closely(!!) We have elections to make sure the regulation is done in a way that we can live with.
tssva 7y ago
Elected officials in Google's home country have made the decision. They decided to make marijuana illegal at the national level, they decided to make facilitating financial transactions supporting sales of illegal drugs also illegal and they have repeatedly choosen not to change those laws. More recently elected officials have decided to appoint law enforcement officials that are less willing to overlook violation of federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana at a state level. It is this later move which has most likely made Google decide to make the changes in their content policy. So in effect Google is doing exactly as you suggested, allowing elected officials to make this decision.

by harry8 7y ago

plemer 7y ago

By using their services, we elect them. Still, yes, citizens could attempt to effect government intervention. But probably the average person has more leverage as a consumer than as a political actor.

harry8 7y ago
Nope. They have market power. If there's 30 equivalent services to choose from and using none is also a viable option there's no market power and no issue. I hope they get rich without market power but it's of no significance to me. As soon as they (for all values of they) have market power and can have a huge effect over what you can and can't do - they need to be bound by law and regulation. This is the textbook definition of market failure. Libertarians and Bernie should see it much the same way. I personally believe you keep regulation the hell out it until you have market failure (so I'm not with bernie) - which this is, they're enacting defacto laws and taxes on the population here for an agenda not agreed to by that population. Same as if standard oil could tell you where you could drive your car. Same as if your electricity company could tell you what you are allowed to read with your electric lights. Same as if your phone company dropped your call for saying "fk" out loud. Market failure is a thing that happens often (public goods, property rights enforcement, industries that tend to monopoly) and we bring in regulation when it does and watch those regulators closely(!!) We have elections to make sure the regulation is done in a way that we can live with.

tssva 7y ago

Elected officials in Google's home country have made the decision. They decided to make marijuana illegal at the national level, they decided to make facilitating financial transactions supporting sales of illegal drugs also illegal and they have repeatedly choosen not to change those laws. More recently elected officials have decided to appoint law enforcement officials that are less willing to overlook violation of federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana at a state level. It is this later move which has most likely made Google decide to make the changes in their content policy. So in effect Google is doing exactly as you suggested, allowing elected officials to make this decision.