4 ms·

Facebook is far more dangerous to society than any patent troll. Facebook is in the business of selling the ability to coerce people into doing things that are

Facebook is far more dangerous to society than any patent troll. Facebook is in the business of selling the ability to coerce people into doing things that are against their best interests. It's very dangerously good at it. Facebook has also turned a blind eye to its platform being used to organize politically-motivated violence. It needs to be heavily regulated or shut down completely. . . That said, I don't expect Washington to break up the tech giants. Meaningful anti-trust enforcement has not happened in decades and would go against very long standing, but unspoken, precedents against Washington harming large piles of money. Any action taken by the government would likely be for show (in no small part to pander to conservative fears over platform bias, and possibly to extract superficial concessions from the tech sector on this front), and would be very unlikely to survive the post-Trump Supreme Court intact.

dantheman 6y ago
Please cite some sources for your claims - because to the best of my knowledge facebooks is basically no different than any other media company. I mean the new york times actively advocated for the Iraq -- should they exist, maybe be shut down?
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Given that you're involved in a discussion regarding Facebook's connections to the Rohingya genocide elsewhere in this thread, it's hard not to conclude that your demand for sources connecting Facebook to politically-motivated violence is disingenuous. It's a matter of opinion whether Facebook is responsible in any way for that genocide, but it's a matter of record that Facebook did very little to prevent its platform from being used to organize it. As for 'sources' for the outcome I expect from any anti-trust enforcement, it's really not appropriate to demand an a cited essay/publishable work reviewing the past fifty years of antitrust law and practice combined with a detailed analysis of the GOP platform and the established views of Trump's USSC justices. That kind of analysis takes a lot of time and isn't usually done for free.
  - dantheman 6y ago
    It's not disngenous; they could have done more, but I don't think 1 then caused it and 2 had any material impact on it. It was a military/government run operation - did they need Facebook?

dantheman 6y ago

Please cite some sources for your claims - because to the best of my knowledge facebooks is basically no different than any other media company. I mean the new york times actively advocated for the Iraq -- should they exist, maybe be shut down?

bleepblorp 6y ago
Given that you're involved in a discussion regarding Facebook's connections to the Rohingya genocide elsewhere in this thread, it's hard not to conclude that your demand for sources connecting Facebook to politically-motivated violence is disingenuous. It's a matter of opinion whether Facebook is responsible in any way for that genocide, but it's a matter of record that Facebook did very little to prevent its platform from being used to organize it. As for 'sources' for the outcome I expect from any anti-trust enforcement, it's really not appropriate to demand an a cited essay/publishable work reviewing the past fifty years of antitrust law and practice combined with a detailed analysis of the GOP platform and the established views of Trump's USSC justices. That kind of analysis takes a lot of time and isn't usually done for free.
- dantheman 6y ago
  It's not disngenous; they could have done more, but I don't think 1 then caused it and 2 had any material impact on it. It was a military/government run operation - did they need Facebook?