5 ms·

> It's wrong for the government to tell businesses how they should operate Unless the companies are monopolies.

by lightgreen 6y ago

epistasis 6y ago
I think that you'll find most conservatives want to get rid of regulations controlling monopolies.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  I don't believe that, but if you have evidence confirming your statement, I'd like to view it.
- tathougies 6y ago
  Then why did the supposedly far right donald trump dept of justice file the first major anti trust case in decades?
yazaddaruvala 6y ago
Where is the line? Do you include oligopolies like Apple, Google who don’t have monopoly in the phone market but both banned the same apps? What if there were 5 (50?, 500?) competitors that all independently decided it was economically beneficial for them to ban the same thing?
- lightgreen 6y ago
  > Where is the line? Hard to say. They written books about monopolies, I would not be able to explain it a single comment. For Twitter it's clear (to me) it's kind of monopoly: if you a politician (or commercial company), it's critical to you to have twitter to access your electorate (or customers). > Do you include oligopolies like Apple, Google who don’t have monopoly in the phone market but both banned the same apps? Yes, I completely agree that these companies need to be regulated. In particular: * 30% tax seems arbitrary * app moderation policy is anti-competitive * promotion of own services (like Apple TV+) on iPhones is again anti-competitive > What if there were 5 (50?, 500?) competitors that all independently decided it was economically beneficial for them to ban the same thing? I don't have an answer to that question. But I believe that Trump/Parler bans have nothing to do with economical benefits.
  - abernard1 6y ago
    > But I believe that Trump/Parler bans have nothing to do with economical benefits. Agreed. They're more along the civil rights dimension. The 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't mandate equal access because of Big Restaurant or Big Bus Stop--it was because segregation was an exceedingly immoral, dehumanizing, discriminatory action against millions of people. That Big Tech finds half the country so odious they are willing to ban them is pretty gross to me. I think people should be served, as humans, irrespective of their beliefs. I don't think it matters whether those beliefs are religious or political (the new religion for a lot of people).
    - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
      > But I believe that Trump/Parler bans have nothing to do with economical benefits. This doesn’t make sense to me, companies are obligated to make the most possible money for their shareholders. Otherwise their shareholders withdraw investments and invest elsewhere. Deplatforming is a money making strategy (it might succeed or it might fail but the goal is to make money). To add more data, in Nov 2020 7 MM more “potential customers” voted for Biden compared to Trump. Additionally, the “potential customers” that voted for Biden were predominantly younger i.e. more time to purchase good and services from company X. It seems clear to me deplatforming is a medium-term and long-term financial numbers game. > The 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't mandate equal access because of Big Restaurant or Big Bus Stop--it was because segregation was an exceedingly immoral ... The way I see this is: Historically we thought free market economics only applied to the monetary aspect of socio-economics. “deplatforming”/“cancel culture” seems to be the free market “solution” to social issues. It is basically the “popular vote” weighted by capital, forcing social change. Historically social issues were dictated by one person one vote and required government regulation, and moved very slow (for many reasons, one of them being a disproportionate voting power to low population states). Perhaps we are now witnessing the efficiency of the free market to solve social issues? Which is an interesting/ironic result, given historic Republican policy about free markets. P.S. FWIW, I’d be happy with more regulation in this area, even though the free market “solution” is in my favor.
      - 6y ago

> It's wrong for the government to tell businesses how they should operate Unless the companies are monopolies.

epistasis 6y ago

I think that you'll find most conservatives want to get rid of regulations controlling monopolies.

lightgreen 6y ago
I don't believe that, but if you have evidence confirming your statement, I'd like to view it.
tathougies 6y ago
Then why did the supposedly far right donald trump dept of justice file the first major anti trust case in decades?

yazaddaruvala 6y ago

Where is the line? Do you include oligopolies like Apple, Google who don’t have monopoly in the phone market but both banned the same apps? What if there were 5 (50?, 500?) competitors that all independently decided it was economically beneficial for them to ban the same thing?

lightgreen 6y ago
> Where is the line? Hard to say. They written books about monopolies, I would not be able to explain it a single comment. For Twitter it's clear (to me) it's kind of monopoly: if you a politician (or commercial company), it's critical to you to have twitter to access your electorate (or customers). > Do you include oligopolies like Apple, Google who don’t have monopoly in the phone market but both banned the same apps? Yes, I completely agree that these companies need to be regulated. In particular: * 30% tax seems arbitrary * app moderation policy is anti-competitive * promotion of own services (like Apple TV+) on iPhones is again anti-competitive > What if there were 5 (50?, 500?) competitors that all independently decided it was economically beneficial for them to ban the same thing? I don't have an answer to that question. But I believe that Trump/Parler bans have nothing to do with economical benefits.
- abernard1 6y ago
  > But I believe that Trump/Parler bans have nothing to do with economical benefits. Agreed. They're more along the civil rights dimension. The 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't mandate equal access because of Big Restaurant or Big Bus Stop--it was because segregation was an exceedingly immoral, dehumanizing, discriminatory action against millions of people. That Big Tech finds half the country so odious they are willing to ban them is pretty gross to me. I think people should be served, as humans, irrespective of their beliefs. I don't think it matters whether those beliefs are religious or political (the new religion for a lot of people).
  - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
    > But I believe that Trump/Parler bans have nothing to do with economical benefits. This doesn’t make sense to me, companies are obligated to make the most possible money for their shareholders. Otherwise their shareholders withdraw investments and invest elsewhere. Deplatforming is a money making strategy (it might succeed or it might fail but the goal is to make money). To add more data, in Nov 2020 7 MM more “potential customers” voted for Biden compared to Trump. Additionally, the “potential customers” that voted for Biden were predominantly younger i.e. more time to purchase good and services from company X. It seems clear to me deplatforming is a medium-term and long-term financial numbers game. > The 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't mandate equal access because of Big Restaurant or Big Bus Stop--it was because segregation was an exceedingly immoral ... The way I see this is: Historically we thought free market economics only applied to the monetary aspect of socio-economics. “deplatforming”/“cancel culture” seems to be the free market “solution” to social issues. It is basically the “popular vote” weighted by capital, forcing social change. Historically social issues were dictated by one person one vote and required government regulation, and moved very slow (for many reasons, one of them being a disproportionate voting power to low population states). Perhaps we are now witnessing the efficiency of the free market to solve social issues? Which is an interesting/ironic result, given historic Republican policy about free markets. P.S. FWIW, I’d be happy with more regulation in this area, even though the free market “solution” is in my favor.
    - 6y ago