Big tech, monopoly and anti trust

So big tech companies like YouTube Facebook and twitter are able to control their users content (speech) and flow of information. There are no viable alternatives services to there’s available, and it seems as though the actions of these companies are not in the best interest of their users, or the governments in which they reside and pay taxes. When does their monopoly turn into an antitrust issue? I’m not familiar with the subject but it seems they are able to act with unchecked power and there are no alternatives to their services giving the power to act with ill will towards the people while seeking their own interests. Is kind of this kind of monopoly over services OK? Imagine if the telephone company censored your texts. You have no alternative telephone company to use, so they will keep censoring your texts...

a reply to: Rob808

But..... There are alternatives to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

a reply to: Rob808
Well since those are private companies they have every right to do what TF they want. So if ya don’t like like it then be done with it. Simple as that.

a reply to: Rob808


It's called paying off your politicians.

I just recently ran into some issues with Cover Corp. Hololive, some of their streamers mentioned Taiwan and all of a sudden got banned.

If I understand correctly, the streamers or vtubers are employees of Hololive, Cover Corp., but Cover has recently moved into and recieved some "generous" donations from China. Well China doesn't like Taiwan being left alone, so the streamers got canned, moved to a 3 week suspension from Twitter and Youtube.

Now, does China own Twitter and YouTube? Should employees get hammered, because they showed a GOOGLE chart that listed Taiwan as a country?

Edit: Trying to add something instead of the typical responses from derailers.

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: Rob808

But..... There are alternatives to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

No, not really.

The second they become big enough to become a threat or they "go to far" in publishing content that the leftest don't like they get defunded. Paypal, Banks, payment platforms, etc. will cut them off financially and destroy their platforms.

There are only alternatives that most people don't see. If too many see, they are crushed quickly.

Look at Infowars.

PayPal bans Alex Jones, saying Infowars 'promoted hate or discriminatory intolerance’
www.washingtonpost.com...

A Quiet War Rages Over Who Can Make Money Online

www.wired.com...

The harassers are taking advantage of user reporting tools made available by companies like PayPal, Venmo, and CirclePay, in an attempt to force their targets offline and freeze their finances. The tactic has far-reaching implications beyond adult entertainment. Foreign governments and other groups have abused the policies to silence opponents on platforms like Twitter and Facebook for years. Attacking through the payment processors is a new wrinkle on that approach.

Financial Services and Hate Speech

www.aier.org...


www.eff.org...

The actions of a small number of payment intermediaries— like payment processors, banks, and credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard—can heavily influence what kind of speech can exist online. Yet these institutions are ill-suited to consider and balance the consequences their decisions may have. Business incentives that may drive these institutions to shutter or limit accounts don’t align with the concerns of a society trying to promote diverse perspectives in an online world.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Rob808
Well since those are private companies they have every right to do what TF they want. So if ya don’t like like it then be done with it. Simple as that.

They can do WTF they want as long as it's legal. The problem is that many private companies violate the law with impunity. Totally. They bribe, er, I mean "lobby" the whores that make up our esteemed congress, and thumb their noses at "the law".

It's not even debateable anymore. The law don't mean sh!t in this country if you got the right friends, and lotsa money.

a reply to: Rob808

“...the actions of these companies are not in the best interests of their users, or the governments in which they reside and pay taxes.”

No- the governments (and I’m referring specifically to the US government) is right in bed with these companies. Our intelligence agencies have been partnering with these companies since their beginnings, and furthermore these companies partner with our corrupt officials and get tax loopholes created for them.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Exactly.

What OS does your phone run on? there's no alternatives. It's ok though we should all feel safe, Zuckerberg said they'll need a warrant to access your data.

The issues were always bigger than a bit personal data. But I'M the crazy one for taping up my webcam in the 2000's!!!

*Puts foil hat back on...

a reply to: Rob808

As mentioned prior,
they fall under the designation
of Public Utilities.

Therefore should be regulated/treated as such.
SAVVY?
S&F

With what, 1% of the remaining market? Is that fair to call them a competitor or even an alternative?

a reply to: MRinder

But they are being defended as private companies (which have an effective monopoly). I’m uhh ..SAVVY with them being considered a service, but many are on the private company defense train...

a reply to: Wildmanimal

Is this really legal? Is it too different than your cell company or email company censoring your private messages? It’s ok to censor public messages?



a reply to: ColeYounger

You’re probably right

a reply to: KansasGirl

One big problem is they are "in kind" contributing to political campaigns and probably breaking legal limits and foreign donation laws 😃

There's nothing saying you can't start your own. The challenge is getting people to accept it.
Also, what we see here in the US doesn't necessarily reflect a global snapshot.

Take cell phones for example. While it might seem we only have a choice between maybe 3 or 4 makes (Apple, Samsung, LG, Google), that's not the case.

The free flow of information is too vital, IMHO, to be left in the hands of private entities, without some form of accountability to the public. It's very intriguing to observe this issue instigate political flip-flopping: those that are full-on bullish about putting anything and everything into the hands of the government, often backtrack and defend the right of social media companies to censor content and commentary on the grounds of "private enterprise".

Why do you imagine the DC press corps hold so much disdain for Trump? You think it's solely due to his impulsive verbal blurt reflex and abrasive personality? Couldn't possibly be for his proclivity to broadcast his thoughts and disseminate information directly to the world via Twitter, unfiltered, without passing through the MSM middlemen. When you think about, with technology making our leaders more accessible than ever before, it should make you question the need for battalions of "journalists" surrounding our politicians, whose only purpose seems to be /shaping/ public opinion, e.g. let's make Trump's press conferences analogous to a waterboarding session, but toss Biden a bucket of softball questions without any unscripted follow-ups.

It's already been shown, both from Project Vertias operations and regular stories in the MSM, that Big Tech suffers from a raging left-leaning bias. I work in a Big Tech Co myself, and I've seen firsthand that stances on politics and social issues that stray too far afield from corporate-approved, liberal dogmatic GroupThink will land one in a precarious situation, both socially and professionally. Generally, anybody with centrist-right views keeps their lips zipped WRT to politics, whereas left leaning views are not only accepted but celebrated and often become de facto corporate policy. This is evident in terms of what is programmed by way of sanctioned speaking events, official media releases from the company, choice in charitable efforts, on and on.


There needs to be some mechanism to check the tendency for tech companies, who have essentially usurped the power of the press from printed and broadcast media, to lean towards the political bent of the board members, C-level leadership and upper level management, which is invariably to the left. I really don't know if anti-trust suits are the best way to approach this though. There needs to be someone akin to an ombudsman, a TRULY politically neutral entity, that can identify bias in the companies that have won (fairly through capitalism I might add) the competition for digitizing "news" and public sentiment. They need maybe a little extra "bite" to slap the wrists of tech companies that do things like simply nuke their user comment boards because they run counter to the blatant subjective opinions passed as news stories (ahem Yahoo!)

a reply to: KansasGirl

Yup, theyve been connected since day 1.

I dont call it the "corporate-political" system for nothing. Many call it "the left," but it isnt really that.

Its a system that has massive power structures to (ab)use in whatever scenario desired. Use corporate means when the government routes would be restricted, and use government & political courses when the corporate avenues are restricted.

Its a very, very serious problem and I hope folks figure it out. We can see the consequences of all this with information control alone (media, social media, etc), but thats only one aspect for concern.

originally posted by: TXRabbit
There's nothing saying you can't start your own. The challenge is getting people to accept it.
Also, what we see here in the US doesn't necessarily reflect a global snapshot.

Take cell phones for example. While it might seem we only have a choice between maybe 3 or 4 makes (Apple, Samsung, LG, Google), that's not the case.

Yet they all run the same operating systems or rely heavily on software provided by companies this thread is about.

From what I gather and hear it is not a coding issue. I'll go out on a limb and swim way out of my depth here and say the issue is somewhere around the private sector monopolies line and government backed companies.

Maybe PRISM wasn't scary enough for the general public... There's no real alternative to these mega corporations.

a reply to: Rob808

They are "private" companies riding on the
back of a Public Utility.
The solution is so simple and hidden in plain
sight, that no one has noticed.
Extremely profitable and lobbied to the max.
No offence to you with my
SAVVY?