Do you only read the articles about §230 or something? Because that’s pretty much the only time that Techdirt and most of the comment section tends to “side with Big Business” in any way unless it’s Big Business vs. other Big Business. Try reading some of the other material on this site, like the articles on right-to-repair laws, net neutrality, or telecom companies.
Have you read any of the articles about net neutrality, telecom/cable, trademarks, copyrights, patents, unfair contracts, record companies, film companies, publishers, open source, or the right to repair? They’re hardly siding with Big Business in those articles.
Did you forget that Alphabet (Google and YouTube), Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook are all American-based companies founded and run by American citizens? Sure, they also have locations in other countries, but their main HQs are in the US and so are all the biggest people in charge. Also, this has nothing to do with Wall Street.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Put up or shut up'
I, and I assume Crade, do not support the specific means through which Governor DeSantis claims he is trying to tell Silicon Valley (which is made up of Americans, BTW) that Americans are in charge rather than Big Business execs (who are also Americans). That doesn’t necessarily mean either of us are inherently against that message per se. It just means that we either disagree with the specific regulation proposed or think it’s unconstitutional and so passing it is a waste of time and defending it against the inevitable lawsuits is a big waste of taxpayer money. It might also/alternatively mean that we don’t believe that that’s DeSantis’s actual goal with the proposed legislation or that the message needs to be sent in the first place (that is, one might not agree that there is a problem with the tech companies in this particular area).
I, for one, believe it both asks for the impossible and is so blatantly unconstitutional that it is guaranteed to be overturned by the courts, so it’s both overly burdensome and a complete waste of time. I’m all for regulating businesses that go too far, and I really believe we should have some sort of privacy regulations in place for tech companies in particular and net neutrality and pricing regulations for telecom and ISP companies, but I won’t support just any regulation on businesses. It has to be clear, possible to follow, not so burdensome that it either locks in the biggest players as the only players or effectively eliminates the market altogether (unless the market is inherently unhealthy like cigarettes), not too burdensome on consumers, attempt to address and an actual problem that has actually been demonstrated to exist and has been shown to be actually worth solving, actually have a decent chance of getting closer to solving that problem than existing regulations, and some other criteria. DeSantis’s proposal simply does not cut it. Maybe some other proposal will. I simply don’t know. However, I don’t support wasting time and taxpayer money on passing and (possibly) defending regulations just to send a message. If the only purpose of this proposal is to send a message, then I can’t support it as a practical matter. That’s time and money better spent on actually solving problems. I also can’t support passing legislation that is clearly going to be overturned by the courts for much the same reason. I’m pro-Constitution and pro-federalism, which, last I checked, are key aspects of American government, so that would make me pro-America.
Also, I don’t think you know what Orwellian actually means.
The proposals we’re talking about have nothing to do with bankers or Wall Street CEOs. This is about Big Tech companies, not stocks or banking or lending. Supporting these proposals does not make one opposed to bankers or Wall Street CEOs, nor does denouncing them prove one is in favor of bankers or Wall Street CEOs.
Between this and the whole thing about which hedge fund managers had ancestors who would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention, I’m beginning to think you’ve completely lost the plot and have no idea what we’re talking about. You just hear “big companies” and “regulations” and just assume it’s about Wall Street and/or banks.
Dude, I’m as against hedge fund managers as you are. However:
Hedge fund manager =/= CEO. Being a hedge fund manager does not make one a CEO, nor does being a CEO make one a hedge fund manager. These are completely unrelated positions.
The Constitutional Convention wasn’t restricted to Americans because that wasn’t a thing back then. That term didn’t take on any real meaning like the modern usage until after the Constitution was ratified since, y’know, we didn’t have a cohesive country until then. More importantly, not just any “American” was allowed in the Constitutional Convention. They had to be property-owning white males who resided in one of the 13 former colonies (not one in any of the then-American-owned territories that would later become states, not in any of the other land that would later become part of a US state, and not in any of the current US territories that are not states). Lots of Americans today have no ancestors that wouldn’t have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention. There are also a number of people who are not Americans whose ancestors would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention (people do emigrate from the US, too, y’know). Therefore, not being allowed to the Constitutional Convention tells us nothing about whether or not they or their descendants were/are “Americans” by any definition. Even if we define “American” in such a way that anyone who either is a US citizen and resident now OR has an ancestor who would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention, you’re just denying the antecedent, which is a logical fallacy. (It’s also a formal fallacy, which means its use is always fallacious.)
You only told us about the ancestors (and not even which generation). That tells us nothing about whether or not any of those 18 richest hedge fund managers
a) are Americans, or
b) would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention.
The other seven, not to mention a bunch of the others who didn’t make it into the top 25, would still be “Americans” by your nonsensical definition, thus not proving that the statement, “CEOs are not Americans,” to be correct even ignoring the other points I raised.
Basically, there is absolutely 0 connective tissue between the statement, “CEOs are not Americans,” and your claim that, “The ancestors of 18 of the richest 25 hedge fund managers would not have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention.“ The latter does not support the former in any way, shape, or form. It’s actually a complete non sequitur.
It’s possible that all 25 of those hedge fund managers are Americans, none of them are Americans, or anything in between, without contradicting your claim; after all, whether or not one’s ancestors would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention tells us nothing about whether or not one is an American today. And no matter how many hedge fund managers are or aren’t Americans, even that would tell us nothing about CEOs being Americans or not, as CEOs aren’t necessarily hedge fund managers and hedge fund managers aren’t necessarily CEOs. And on top of all that, you implicitly concede that some of the top 25 richest hedge fund managers had ancestors who would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention, so even if we ignored the aforementioned false equivalencies, that still would mean at least some CEOs are Americans.
Therefore, you have not provided supporting evidence for the claim that CEOs are not Americans.
But seriously, why would one’s ancestor have to have been potentially allowed in the Constitutional Convention have anything to do with whether or not one is an American?
Big Business can tell Americans what to they can do while those Americans are on their property. Big Business cannot tell Americans what they can do while those Americans are not on their property. That’s not putting Big Business above Americans because, guess what, average citizens like you or I can do the exact same thing! If someone’s on my private property, I can tell people what they can or cannot do, and you can do the same with people on your private property.
Should there be regulations on Big Business? Absolutely. However, what those regulations are is a key point, and they must also remain within the bounds of the Constitution. One of the main reasons I’m against DeSantis on this has nothing to do with my personal position on the issue or the man himself and everything to do with not wanting politicians to waste time and taxpayer money on bills/laws/executive orders that are just going to be overturned by the courts for being blatantly unconstitutional. Again, that’s not being pro-Big Business or anti-American; that’s being pro-Constitution and pro-sensible spending.
So basically, even if I personally supported the law in principle, I cannot support its passage as a practical matter.
You’re also pushing a false dichotomy. There are those who want Big Business to be on equal or lesser footing than American individuals who don’t support every single regulation just because it happens to stick it to Big Business. Again, the details are important, and there’s a lot of nuance to be had on this topic.
No one’s given anyone the authority to decide who can speak or what they can say anywhere, merely who can say what on privately-owned platforms. You can say all the crap you want on publicly-owned property like a public street, but if you want to speak on my property, you have to follow my rules or I’ll have you kicked off.
Also, you can always set up your own infrastructure, and there are no laws that prevent you from asking for support to build your own website.
Literally everything you said is not reflective of reality or Stephen’s arguments.
I— Wha—? First you say that the Constitution doesn’t have power over the internet, then you say that internet companies have too much power, and then you say that Twitter, Patreon, etc. is allowed to have and enforce rules? Do you not see the blatant contradiction? What is your actual point here?
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re:
Do you only read the articles about §230 or something? Because that’s pretty much the only time that Techdirt and most of the comment section tends to “side with Big Business” in any way unless it’s Big Business vs. other Big Business. Try reading some of the other material on this site, like the articles on right-to-repair laws, net neutrality, or telecom companies.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re:
Have you read any of the articles about net neutrality, telecom/cable, trademarks, copyrights, patents, unfair contracts, record companies, film companies, publishers, open source, or the right to repair? They’re hardly siding with Big Business in those articles.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re:
Seriously, can you do anything else? This got dull a long time ago.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re:
You’re the only one who keeps bringing Wall Street into this.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consistent Rules
What drugs are you on? That had nothing to do with what Bloof actually said.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re:
Once again, this has nothing to do with Wall Street.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re:
Did you forget that Alphabet (Google and YouTube), Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook are all American-based companies founded and run by American citizens? Sure, they also have locations in other countries, but their main HQs are in the US and so are all the biggest people in charge. Also, this has nothing to do with Wall Street.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Put up or shut up'
I, and I assume Crade, do not support the specific means through which Governor DeSantis claims he is trying to tell Silicon Valley (which is made up of Americans, BTW) that Americans are in charge rather than Big Business execs (who are also Americans). That doesn’t necessarily mean either of us are inherently against that message per se. It just means that we either disagree with the specific regulation proposed or think it’s unconstitutional and so passing it is a waste of time and defending it against the inevitable lawsuits is a big waste of taxpayer money. It might also/alternatively mean that we don’t believe that that’s DeSantis’s actual goal with the proposed legislation or that the message needs to be sent in the first place (that is, one might not agree that there is a problem with the tech companies in this particular area).
I, for one, believe it both asks for the impossible and is so blatantly unconstitutional that it is guaranteed to be overturned by the courts, so it’s both overly burdensome and a complete waste of time. I’m all for regulating businesses that go too far, and I really believe we should have some sort of privacy regulations in place for tech companies in particular and net neutrality and pricing regulations for telecom and ISP companies, but I won’t support just any regulation on businesses. It has to be clear, possible to follow, not so burdensome that it either locks in the biggest players as the only players or effectively eliminates the market altogether (unless the market is inherently unhealthy like cigarettes), not too burdensome on consumers, attempt to address and an actual problem that has actually been demonstrated to exist and has been shown to be actually worth solving, actually have a decent chance of getting closer to solving that problem than existing regulations, and some other criteria. DeSantis’s proposal simply does not cut it. Maybe some other proposal will. I simply don’t know. However, I don’t support wasting time and taxpayer money on passing and (possibly) defending regulations just to send a message. If the only purpose of this proposal is to send a message, then I can’t support it as a practical matter. That’s time and money better spent on actually solving problems. I also can’t support passing legislation that is clearly going to be overturned by the courts for much the same reason. I’m pro-Constitution and pro-federalism, which, last I checked, are key aspects of American government, so that would make me pro-America.
Also, I don’t think you know what Orwellian actually means.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: 'Put up or shut up'
The proposals we’re talking about have nothing to do with bankers or Wall Street CEOs. This is about Big Tech companies, not stocks or banking or lending. Supporting these proposals does not make one opposed to bankers or Wall Street CEOs, nor does denouncing them prove one is in favor of bankers or Wall Street CEOs.
Between this and the whole thing about which hedge fund managers had ancestors who would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention, I’m beginning to think you’ve completely lost the plot and have no idea what we’re talking about. You just hear “big companies” and “regulations” and just assume it’s about Wall Street and/or banks.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re: Re: "CEOs are not Americans"?
Dude, I’m as against hedge fund managers as you are. However:
Hedge fund manager =/= CEO. Being a hedge fund manager does not make one a CEO, nor does being a CEO make one a hedge fund manager. These are completely unrelated positions.
The Constitutional Convention wasn’t restricted to Americans because that wasn’t a thing back then. That term didn’t take on any real meaning like the modern usage until after the Constitution was ratified since, y’know, we didn’t have a cohesive country until then. More importantly, not just any “American” was allowed in the Constitutional Convention. They had to be property-owning white males who resided in one of the 13 former colonies (not one in any of the then-American-owned territories that would later become states, not in any of the other land that would later become part of a US state, and not in any of the current US territories that are not states). Lots of Americans today have no ancestors that wouldn’t have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention. There are also a number of people who are not Americans whose ancestors would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention (people do emigrate from the US, too, y’know). Therefore, not being allowed to the Constitutional Convention tells us nothing about whether or not they or their descendants were/are “Americans” by any definition. Even if we define “American” in such a way that anyone who either is a US citizen and resident now OR has an ancestor who would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention, you’re just denying the antecedent, which is a logical fallacy. (It’s also a formal fallacy, which means its use is always fallacious.)
You only told us about the ancestors (and not even which generation). That tells us nothing about whether or not any of those 18 richest hedge fund managers
a) are Americans, or
b) would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention.
Basically, there is absolutely 0 connective tissue between the statement, “CEOs are not Americans,” and your claim that, “The ancestors of 18 of the richest 25 hedge fund managers would not have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention.“ The latter does not support the former in any way, shape, or form. It’s actually a complete non sequitur.
It’s possible that all 25 of those hedge fund managers are Americans, none of them are Americans, or anything in between, without contradicting your claim; after all, whether or not one’s ancestors would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention tells us nothing about whether or not one is an American today. And no matter how many hedge fund managers are or aren’t Americans, even that would tell us nothing about CEOs being Americans or not, as CEOs aren’t necessarily hedge fund managers and hedge fund managers aren’t necessarily CEOs. And on top of all that, you implicitly concede that some of the top 25 richest hedge fund managers had ancestors who would have been allowed in the Constitutional Convention, so even if we ignored the aforementioned false equivalencies, that still would mean at least some CEOs are Americans.
Therefore, you have not provided supporting evidence for the claim that CEOs are not Americans.
But seriously, why would one’s ancestor have to have been potentially allowed in the Constitutional Convention have anything to do with whether or not one is an American?
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Uhh, what?
Big Business can tell Americans what to they can do while those Americans are on their property. Big Business cannot tell Americans what they can do while those Americans are not on their property. That’s not putting Big Business above Americans because, guess what, average citizens like you or I can do the exact same thing! If someone’s on my private property, I can tell people what they can or cannot do, and you can do the same with people on your private property.
Should there be regulations on Big Business? Absolutely. However, what those regulations are is a key point, and they must also remain within the bounds of the Constitution. One of the main reasons I’m against DeSantis on this has nothing to do with my personal position on the issue or the man himself and everything to do with not wanting politicians to waste time and taxpayer money on bills/laws/executive orders that are just going to be overturned by the courts for being blatantly unconstitutional. Again, that’s not being pro-Big Business or anti-American; that’s being pro-Constitution and pro-sensible spending.
So basically, even if I personally supported the law in principle, I cannot support its passage as a practical matter.
You’re also pushing a false dichotomy. There are those who want Big Business to be on equal or lesser footing than American individuals who don’t support every single regulation just because it happens to stick it to Big Business. Again, the details are important, and there’s a lot of nuance to be had on this topic.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, the Constitution does not let them do this.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re:
I know lots of blue collar people who understand better than you.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You see this as Silicon Valley vs. America, we see this as freedom vs government overreach and asking for the impossible.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do realize these laws don’t just affect Big Tech, right?
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re:
Dude, we have a Constitution. These elected officials are dumb for trying to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws.
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Re: Re:
No one’s given anyone the authority to decide who can speak or what they can say anywhere, merely who can say what on privately-owned platforms. You can say all the crap you want on publicly-owned property like a public street, but if you want to speak on my property, you have to follow my rules or I’ll have you kicked off.
Also, you can always set up your own infrastructure, and there are no laws that prevent you from asking for support to build your own website.
Literally everything you said is not reflective of reality or Stephen’s arguments.
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Re: Chicken-little garbage
I— Wha—? First you say that the Constitution doesn’t have power over the internet, then you say that internet companies have too much power, and then you say that Twitter, Patreon, etc. is allowed to have and enforce rules? Do you not see the blatant contradiction? What is your actual point here?
On the post: Texas Dept. Of Public Safety Issues Amber Alert For Victim Of Horror Doll Chucky
Can I just say how I love the fact that the creator of Chucky thought it important to mention that “the kid is non-binary”?
On the post: Professional Assholes Equate Consequences With 'Cancel Culture' To Obscure That They're Finally Being Held Accountable
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not sure that it is.
Next >>