One way our 2A rights are eroded is through the elimination of our 1A rights. Can we sue the tech giants (Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) the way the antis sue our Firearms manufacturers? Anti-Trust laws maybe??
One way our 2A rights are eroded is through the elimination of our 1A rights. Can we sue the tech giants (Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) the way the antis sue our Firearms manufacturers? Anti-Trust laws maybe??
The solution to this problem is the marketplace of ideas, and the marketplace for services meant to express and convey them. We (the constitutionalist, conservative types) dropped the ball for years, and allowed leftists to all but take over the entirety of the communications industry, and allowed nearly all of the R&D and hatching-out of dot-com style businesses to happen in Silicon Valley. The local culture shaped the big tech companies that grew up there.
Very delicate territory. Because it's that same 1A that allows a private company to set up a web site and say what they will, or provide (or deny) access to those who they will. If you're OK with Norton having the ban hammer, then you have to be OK with Facebook having one, too.
The 1A was never meant to control editorial policies held by private people or organizations. It's meant to curtail the GOVERNMENT'S ability to squelch speech and assembly.
The solution to this problem is the marketplace of ideas, and the marketplace for services meant to express and convey them. We (the constitutionalist, conservative types) dropped the ball for years, and allowed leftists to all but take over the entirety of the communications industry, and allowed nearly all of the R&D and hatching-out of dot-com style businesses to happen in Silicon Valley. The local culture shaped the big tech companies that grew up there.
It's going to take venture capital from the other side of the spectrum (and now, against a hard wind blowing from the left) to establish some balance in media, entertainment, communication, finance, education, and governance. There are some signs of that starting to coalesce, but we have literally decades of barely giving a damn about any of that to make up for. It's precarious, to say the least. But there are some signs of hope. The left's frantic thrashing around with their Cancel Culture bludgeon shows that they know their corner on those generationally defined markets is starting to weaken.
I would like to make one slight distinction.. What "private" truely means.
As far as I know MDS is owned by Norton or someone and it is truely privately owned. Amazon and the like are owned by stockholders, the are not publicly owned but owned by a portion of the public. What if I buy stock in Amazon? Now I own a piece of Amazon. I would hold the right to speak up in a meeting. I think I should hold the right to use the services I own a piece of. We all know this is not how it plays out, but I think you are at least getting the point I am trying to make.
I would say lots of people make up a whole, instead of suing, buy and take over.
Very delicate territory. Because it's that same 1A that allows a private company to set up a web site and say what they will, or provide (or deny) access to those who they will. If you're OK with Norton having the ban hammer, then you have to be OK with Facebook having one, too.
The 1A was never meant to control editorial policies held by private people or organizations. It's meant to curtail the GOVERNMENT'S ability to squelch speech and assembly.
The solution to this problem is the marketplace of ideas, and the marketplace for services meant to express and convey them. We (the constitutionalist, conservative types) dropped the ball for years, and allowed leftists to all but take over the entirety of the communications industry, and allowed nearly all of the R&D and hatching-out of dot-com style businesses to happen in Silicon Valley. The local culture shaped the big tech companies that grew up there.
It's going to take venture capital from the other side of the spectrum (and now, against a hard wind blowing from the left) to establish some balance in media, entertainment, communication, finance, education, and governance. There are some signs of that starting to coalesce, but we have literally decades of barely giving a damn about any of that to make up for. It's precarious, to say the least. But there are some signs of hope. The left's frantic thrashing around with their Cancel Culture bludgeon shows that they know their corner on those generationally defined markets is starting to weaken.
It is not so simple as the marketplace of ideas is the solution. Many of these corporations are larger than many governments. They have become so large that they effectively operate like governments.
If you don't like Twitter, you are suggesting that we start Parler. What happened to them? Are we supposed to recreate the whole economy?
It is not so simple as the marketplace of ideas is the solution. Many of these corporations are larger than many governments. They have become so large that they effectively operate like governments.
If you don't like Twitter, you are suggesting that we start Parler. What happened to them? Are we supposed to recreate the whole economy?
I didn't say it was going to be easy. Parler, though, IS back online, and in an environment less vulnerable to petty leftist oligarchial tyrrany. Sure a concerted effort could still wreck them, but they've managed to put it back together and it's off and running as before, only now with more users than ever.
We don't have to reinvent the whole economy. But if places like AWS start losing half of their business out of concern that AWS's policies leave too much room for capricious politicking in their day to day service providing, they'll change. Or, another company will absolutely take that business and run with it. That's not reinventing the economy, it's USING the economy exactly in the way it's supposed to work.
I think you are highlighting my point.
When Apple was conceived IBM’s business was larger than most 3rd world countries. Same could be said if Sears and Roebuck in the late 18th century. In a free market economy the little company with big ideas can and often does overtake the established older business. Remember when AOL purchased Time-Warner.
These mega businesses will stagnate and fall out of favor at some point in time, UNLESS they become government sanctioned entities, like business in Russia or China. As long as that doesn’t happen there is hope.
We do not live in a pure free market economy. There are lots of regulations that can make certain industries very difficult for small businesses to break into.
Running a web site and publishing a simple client app is definitely not one of them.
That is not exactly true. Serving a single page to a single person is trivial. Migrating a scalable website that has millions of people across the world, not so much. There is a reason why Amazon has such a large market share. It is not easy, which is why it took about a month and likely does not have the same functionality as the original website. Scalability is what makes replicating what these large businesses do extremely difficult.