It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DoJ Launches Anti-Trust Investigation Into Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: burntheships

Yea. And so are alot of exec's in all industries. It's not uncommon.


So, you admit your ignoring the facts presented
in support of the Anti Trust case?




posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

You haven't even posted evidence. But if they do support left leaning politics does it have anything to do with bias on their platforms? No it doesnt.

If bill gates supported say bernie sanders, hypothetically, does that mean he will implement software to suggest voting for Bernie?
Nope.

Google cant do what you are implying. Most of their infrastructure wont allow it. And they know who is watching. But they also have moral obligations to not allow dumbasses who abuse their company to spread hate. Those people who use YouTube as a platform are abusers and lucky they even have such a company like google that gave them the chance for FREE!
edit on 25-7-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

No kidding ?

I’m glad you looked it up .


If you can’t answer my question directly we are done.


^^^Did you miss this ?

I’ll give you one more try with clarification .

If tomorrow the supreme court rules that Facebook is a publisher . Alex Jones the KKK or any other group is allowed back on by law . Keep in mind they would be allowed to edit content then but could be held liable under the first amendment .

Would you approve yes or no ?



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Facebook isnt in the game of publishing content. Its user driven. They are a social media platform that allow people to use it within their guidelines. You break those rules then goodbye.

That said you are steering me into a trap to fit your free speech for racists, hate speech, outright dissinfornstion, etc.
Let me remind you this is 2019, not 1986 and the internet has changed humanity forever. Stop living in nostalgia. Like Zuckerberg himself has said control the internet itself. He didnt mean control the company's that use it. So if the supreme court did rule it as a publisher, what are they themselves going to publish? Are they going to force every user to sign a legal binding contract to be a journalist?

I find people like you rather unhinged to defend such groups. Racism and hate begin when people allow it. But it ends when people say enough. See how it's the people power? You know, that make up 95% of the content on the internet, a global telecommunications system. Like I said earlier, and you clearly didnt read the article I posted, sorry conservatives want free stuff and were parasites sucking the infrastructure of google and Facebook dry to spread their gibberish. Meanwhile it looks like left leaning sites pay for what is owed and get the traffic.
Funny how capitslism work, guess alex Jones just had a poor product no one wanted.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
"Then don't take their highways."

Who created those highways originally hmm? The government.

Who paid for those highways? And the government acts as the agent for who?



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: yuppa
"Then don't take their highways."

Who created those highways originally hmm? The government.

Who paid for those highways? And the government acts as the agent for who?


Imminent domain is a option.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

All I did was ask you a direct question .

Don’t expect any more replies .

Kbye



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
" "Who created those highways originally hmm? The government." "

"Who paid for those highways? And the government acts as the agent for who?"

Imminent domain is a option.

Imminent domain does require people be paid FMV for their property that is taken. I understand and agree that sometimes what that value is is arguable, and sometimes property has sentimental value (maybe it has been in the family for generations) - but, it is what it is, how else is a cross country super highway system going to get built?
edit on 26-7-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

I really don't want the government in control of them, but they've proven they can't be trusted. I would disagree that no one needs these platforms. The public discourse takes place on them. Never in human history have so many people been able to make a difference. When you cut people out of that discourse, it's a huge disadvantage to our nation. I mean, the whole idea of fascism is an unholy alliance between the state and corporations to subvert the people, the corporations are doing their part by ignoring the profit motive to push politics. The question is, how "in on it" is the government?

Honestly, I think the best solution is to revoke their platform status that protects them from legal action stemming from violence or other such posts. That's the easiest, fastest way to get them to stop with the political censorship. To be honest, they may have actually already done that to themselves. Someone needs to bring a lawsuit that frames them as a publisher and blames them for a terror attack or child pornography ring or something. I don't know how they could possibly defend themselves as a platform when they find the time to remove and ban political users but can't seem to keep the disturbingly violent posts and child porn under control.



posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Ironclad1964

Facebook never has and wont ever
Its against their interest to do so. Again, and again it's the users and people who create the bias on the internet, not the suppliers of the infrastructure.

They are already under the watch dogs and know th rules, why would they compromise over such petty differences of political bias?


Try reading the FB Community Standards.

It's all in there...

Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s), where threat is defined as any of the following:

Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations Policy).

I won't post the whole thing, go read it for yourself...

Now who exactly comes under the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Policy..?

Hmm... Laura Loomer was banned and actually listed as a Dangerous individual. Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Proud boys and several individual members of that organization. They have all been listed as dangerous individuals by FB.

Facebook has literally put a Fatwa on these people and many others like them.

So "Yes", Face Book is showing a great deal of bias towards right wing individuals who speak out, both silencing them and issuing a call to violence against them and Zukky is right at the center of it all..!!

With any luck, he'll soon be well on his way to Guantanamo..!! lol



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join