..... and James B. brings up my other point - what to do about the stock market.
News of an impeding merger is generally good for the investors - news of an impending breakup is generally bad. But the straight-up problem is this - how does the government order that the stock for the new company be re-organized to return the two previous companies to where they were at, pre-merger? IOW, how does the government prevent investors from losing money - they may have had a vote in approving the merger, but for the gov't to order them to lose money, or to take money from them, that beggars the imagination.
Thorny problems, I'm sure you'll agree. My proposition above about leaving the new company intact, simply fining the bejeezus out of the offending executives, that should leave the investors with little to worry about, long term.
Your main problem there is easy to spot - how do you restore umpty-squat thousands of worker positions? First, those that deserve to be returned to their jobs are already working somewhere else - what are they supposed to do?
Second, even in just two or three years of probation, the field changes fast, almost to a new level of operating procedure, thanks to technological advances if nothing else. Those people that need to be brought back? They're going to need retraining, most of them, so that's will affect both the cost and the time needed to get the restoration fully implemented. Better would be the silo option mentioned by kallethen, but even then, problems great and small will still keep things a'hoppin, you can be sure of that.
My solution would be that a 5 year probation period be required, and that if any conditions are contravened, then all of the principles of the "deal" lose all of their earnings, whether such be cash, stock options, benefits, any and all such emoluments. The same would go for any regulator(s) who approved the deal, their earnings would be docked a proportionate amount (compared to the above-mentioned executives).
The best way to enforce that would be to put those "earnings" into a trust account - the trust beneficiary could receive the interest earned, but would not be able to touch the principle. That way, when a person is properly dunned for disobeying a condition, we don't suddenly hear "Sorry, but I spent all the money, there's nothing left to give back". Seems draconian, but it would work to keep merged companies (alia "the new company") on the straight and narrow.
BTW, Koby, I need to be fair with you - this is the first post by you that I honestly can't label as a troll effort. Nice going, and keep it up - you'll grab that brass ring yet! :)
If "the internet" had retained common carrier status (and I'm sure you meant the ISPs of the internet, not the 'net itself), then they'd be treated as utilities.
Utilities are, by and large, meant to serve the public, no? Well, they can still disconnect, or in some other way, stop serving any one individual customer, if and when they can show that their TOS wasn't followed. Oh, you ask, where is this TOS to be found?
Easy - it's called "pay for what you used". If you don't pay for the water, gas, electricity, garbage collection, what-have-you, then you have disobeyed the TOS, and it's good-bye for you. And the state-actor regulators will go along with this, every time. (Though usually, there are mediating steps to be taken by both sides before things reach a total disconnection, but that varies according to local rules, etc.)
But in contrast, I'm speaking (just above) of a controlled monopoly, one granted and overseen by a government. The internet most definitely is not a monopoly, nor is it controlled by any government. (Though not for lack of trying!! Look up "The Cluetrain Manifesto". (And for a real laugh, look up "The Gluetrain Manifesto" on Mr. Peabody's WayBack Machine.)) And wouldn't you know it, ISPs are subject to government control to some degree, because they are businesses with licences to conduct operations that empower the internet, from the servers to the clients, and all else inbetween.
That's the problem we're facing - the internet can't be regulated, but individual parts (companies) can be regulated, for whatever purpose that should (repeat: SHOULD) be for the public benefit. And FWIW, if the internet is not regulatable, then it follows that one cannot be "run off" of it - there's always some place else to go, with the services of some other company to assist that move.
Others have said it better, but I'll try to summarize: It's all a matter of degree - if you wanted an audience of 88 Megapersons (on Twitter) instead of only one person (yourself), then you should not have disobeyed the TOS. Actions have consequences. 'Nuff said.
There is a certain psychology going on here, and it's damnably hard to spot. The problem with 230 is not that it deflects liability from the platform (and supposedly back onto the original speaker), it's that people of all stripes are seeing for the first time that there a helluva lot of idiots/stupid people/assholes out there. Our main reaction to that exposure is "where the fcsk did we get so many wrong-thinkers?! These can't be my fellow Americans, and they certainly are not qualified to call themselves my peers." Thus, the real reason to repeal/modify 230 is to shield ourselves from this affront to our good senses, and put our heads back in the sand where we can live peacefully in a land of la-la, and where no one gets upset at all of the assholery going on around them.
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson:
History, in general, does not tell us what makes a good internet, only a bad one.
That doesn't preclude a good internet from arising, but to do so, Mike is right - we need to allow for experimentation. That experiment won't be finished very soon. After all, the USA is still at it, and we've been trying various options for 245 years.
Sigh, another E-101 failure. (See my above comment.)
Sparky, it's gonna be a bad day for you when it finally sinks in that Government is the money. If it were any other way, each and every one of us as individuals would be "in charge" and fighting over that "in charge-ness" with weapons of doom, trust me on that one.
No, for your purposes (and simplified beyond the pale!), gov't is indeed the source from which money springs. But the method of how that works is far deeper than a few paragraphs on TD is going to be able to illuminate for you. Best you go back to college, and this time listen to the professors that you paid for.
Politicians dictating retail prices is a really bad idea under any circumstances.
Would you be happier if the gov't said that a certain percentage of some criterion was the requirement, instead of a certain dollar amount? Somehow I doubt you'd be happy with anything that smacks of.... I dunno - communism? facism? socialism? what??
For many of us, it's painfully clear that on your report card, it says "Basic Economics 101 - Failed (Did Not Attend). You need to learn that gov't, in myriad forms, is preventing the "1 percenters", or the mega corporations if you prefer, from running over all of the rest of us, and effectively returning us to a feudal state of affairs. But since you refused to attend classes where this kind of thing is taught by professionals who are eminently qualified, I'm certainly not gonna waste my time on trying to get you understand even the most fundamental concepts of how an economy works - I've already lost enough hair, TYVM.
Math newbies. You want to go for the factorial: n! = n + (n-1)!
21437^2 = 459,544,969
21437! = 19,613,364,732,524,698,964,556 and change (My calculator first choked and just said "Overflow". I had to put the decimal point two places to the left to get a meaningful number.)
Somebody's gonna empty Amazon's whole warehouse of Maalox, that's a given!
I could see a constitutional issue if every avenue to get on the internet was blocked AND the effective result was banishment from the Internet due to a blacklist.
Nope, you can't see any such issue. The reason is very simple - the blathering about free speech is a red herring. As others here continually note, there is no such thing in the Constitution as a guarantee that others must hear your drivel, or that private property owners must let you besmirch their name by virtue of your trespassing on their private property. But even that, correct as it is, is not the real story.
No, the real underlying issue is that the 5th clause of 1A is "the right of the people to peacefully assemble", which the courts have (since Day 1) considered to mean that people can associate with whomever they might wish, and conversely, that they can't be forced to associate with anyone whom they might disfavor. That means that a private person (or a private corporation) can simply say Get off my lawn!, and there's not a bleeping thing that the trespasser can do about it. And I shouldn't have to add, neither can the government, at any level, do anything about, ex post facto or otherwise. This exactly explains why Mike and others tell us that S.230 is not the whipping boy that #45 wants to paint it - choosing whether to "associate with people of like mind" comes under the rubric of 1A, period.
The answer in words of one syllable is "Yes". Yes there is a sound, even if no one is present to hear it. Simple science. More to the point, the sound will be the exact same whether there is only one person present, or 10,000,000 people present - the sound won't change in quality one iota.
At this very moment in time, all that you get for being on a "big boy" platform is a larger chance of being discovered, and brought to the attention of 'internet randos". Your own blog on Wordpress has a smaller chance, but not necessarily one that equals Zero. Your own blog in a random server with nothing but a domain name that you invented, that's still not a Zero chance of being discovered, but admittedly smaller than you might like. And almost certainly, you know of at least one person who will visit after you invite him or her. Word of mouth may be slower than the well known platforms, but soon enough, you'll gather a crowd, and then you can blather to your heart's content, knowing that you've got an audience that will mostly agree with you.
The only other thing you get for being on Fb or Twitter is bragging rights - "Of course I'm perfect for this job! Just take a look at my resume, I've got 25 followers and re-tweeters!" I hate to break it to you Sparky, but you're still gonna need $2.50 to buy a cup of coffee at the local Denny's.
Well, this certainly put my brain into a race condition. Part of me wants to say "You mean the adult's room", and the other part of me wants to say "do you really think that any social media is useful for anyone older than two or three, maturity-wise?" I mean, you can probably tell how I feel about social media platforms in general, but your juxtaposition was so ripe for this comparison, I couldn't pass up on the opportunity.
On the post: The Dish 'Fix' For The T-Mobile Merger Is Looking More And More Like A Ridiculous Mess
Re: Re: Subject To Review
..... and James B. brings up my other point - what to do about the stock market.
News of an impeding merger is generally good for the investors - news of an impending breakup is generally bad. But the straight-up problem is this - how does the government order that the stock for the new company be re-organized to return the two previous companies to where they were at, pre-merger? IOW, how does the government prevent investors from losing money - they may have had a vote in approving the merger, but for the gov't to order them to lose money, or to take money from them, that beggars the imagination.
Thorny problems, I'm sure you'll agree. My proposition above about leaving the new company intact, simply fining the bejeezus out of the offending executives, that should leave the investors with little to worry about, long term.
On the post: The Dish 'Fix' For The T-Mobile Merger Is Looking More And More Like A Ridiculous Mess
Re: Subject To Review
Your main problem there is easy to spot - how do you restore umpty-squat thousands of worker positions? First, those that deserve to be returned to their jobs are already working somewhere else - what are they supposed to do?
Second, even in just two or three years of probation, the field changes fast, almost to a new level of operating procedure, thanks to technological advances if nothing else. Those people that need to be brought back? They're going to need retraining, most of them, so that's will affect both the cost and the time needed to get the restoration fully implemented. Better would be the silo option mentioned by kallethen, but even then, problems great and small will still keep things a'hoppin, you can be sure of that.
My solution would be that a 5 year probation period be required, and that if any conditions are contravened, then all of the principles of the "deal" lose all of their earnings, whether such be cash, stock options, benefits, any and all such emoluments. The same would go for any regulator(s) who approved the deal, their earnings would be docked a proportionate amount (compared to the above-mentioned executives).
The best way to enforce that would be to put those "earnings" into a trust account - the trust beneficiary could receive the interest earned, but would not be able to touch the principle. That way, when a person is properly dunned for disobeying a condition, we don't suddenly hear "Sorry, but I spent all the money, there's nothing left to give back". Seems draconian, but it would work to keep merged companies (alia "the new company") on the straight and narrow.
BTW, Koby, I need to be fair with you - this is the first post by you that I honestly can't label as a troll effort. Nice going, and keep it up - you'll grab that brass ring yet! :)
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: Re: I have One Simple Question for you.
How sad you have to say that. And be correct as well. Sigh.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re: Re: Re:
SDM,
If "the internet" had retained common carrier status (and I'm sure you meant the ISPs of the internet, not the 'net itself), then they'd be treated as utilities.
Utilities are, by and large, meant to serve the public, no? Well, they can still disconnect, or in some other way, stop serving any one individual customer, if and when they can show that their TOS wasn't followed. Oh, you ask, where is this TOS to be found?
Easy - it's called "pay for what you used". If you don't pay for the water, gas, electricity, garbage collection, what-have-you, then you have disobeyed the TOS, and it's good-bye for you. And the state-actor regulators will go along with this, every time. (Though usually, there are mediating steps to be taken by both sides before things reach a total disconnection, but that varies according to local rules, etc.)
But in contrast, I'm speaking (just above) of a controlled monopoly, one granted and overseen by a government. The internet most definitely is not a monopoly, nor is it controlled by any government. (Though not for lack of trying!! Look up "The Cluetrain Manifesto". (And for a real laugh, look up "The Gluetrain Manifesto" on Mr. Peabody's WayBack Machine.)) And wouldn't you know it, ISPs are subject to government control to some degree, because they are businesses with licences to conduct operations that empower the internet, from the servers to the clients, and all else inbetween.
That's the problem we're facing - the internet can't be regulated, but individual parts (companies) can be regulated, for whatever purpose that should (repeat: SHOULD) be for the public benefit. And FWIW, if the internet is not regulatable, then it follows that one cannot be "run off" of it - there's always some place else to go, with the services of some other company to assist that move.
Others have said it better, but I'll try to summarize: It's all a matter of degree - if you wanted an audience of 88 Megapersons (on Twitter) instead of only one person (yourself), then you should not have disobeyed the TOS. Actions have consequences. 'Nuff said.
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: Argument not over views favorable to GOOGLE, Facebook, T
So point out for us just exactly where, when, and to whom any such promises were made, if you please.
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: Re:
Does that mean he was screwed, blued, and it remains only for him to be tattooed?
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: O RLY?
Evelyn Wood is probably looking for him right now, wanting to give him back his money, for obvious reasons. ;)
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
There is a certain psychology going on here, and it's damnably hard to spot. The problem with 230 is not that it deflects liability from the platform (and supposedly back onto the original speaker), it's that people of all stripes are seeing for the first time that there a helluva lot of idiots/stupid people/assholes out there. Our main reaction to that exposure is "where the fcsk did we get so many wrong-thinkers?! These can't be my fellow Americans, and they certainly are not qualified to call themselves my peers." Thus, the real reason to repeal/modify 230 is to shield ourselves from this affront to our good senses, and put our heads back in the sand where we can live peacefully in a land of la-la, and where no one gets upset at all of the assholery going on around them.
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson:
That doesn't preclude a good internet from arising, but to do so, Mike is right - we need to allow for experimentation. That experiment won't be finished very soon. After all, the USA is still at it, and we've been trying various options for 245 years.
On the post: Big Telecom Sues New York State For Trying To Bring Cheap Broadband To Poor People
Re: Re: Re:
Sigh, another E-101 failure. (See my above comment.)
Sparky, it's gonna be a bad day for you when it finally sinks in that Government is the money. If it were any other way, each and every one of us as individuals would be "in charge" and fighting over that "in charge-ness" with weapons of doom, trust me on that one.
No, for your purposes (and simplified beyond the pale!), gov't is indeed the source from which money springs. But the method of how that works is far deeper than a few paragraphs on TD is going to be able to illuminate for you. Best you go back to college, and this time listen to the professors that you paid for.
On the post: Big Telecom Sues New York State For Trying To Bring Cheap Broadband To Poor People
Re: competition
Would you be happier if the gov't said that a certain percentage of some criterion was the requirement, instead of a certain dollar amount? Somehow I doubt you'd be happy with anything that smacks of.... I dunno - communism? facism? socialism? what??
For many of us, it's painfully clear that on your report card, it says "Basic Economics 101 - Failed (Did Not Attend). You need to learn that gov't, in myriad forms, is preventing the "1 percenters", or the mega corporations if you prefer, from running over all of the rest of us, and effectively returning us to a feudal state of affairs. But since you refused to attend classes where this kind of thing is taught by professionals who are eminently qualified, I'm certainly not gonna waste my time on trying to get you understand even the most fundamental concepts of how an economy works - I've already lost enough hair, TYVM.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Favorite Lawyer On The Hook For Over $20k In Sanctions
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AAARGH!
I proof read with my eyes closed, obviously. The formula should read:
n! = n X (n-1)!
On the post: Devin Nunes' Favorite Lawyer On The Hook For Over $20k In Sanctions
Re: Re: Re:
Math newbies. You want to go for the factorial: n! = n + (n-1)!
21437^2 = 459,544,969
21437! = 19,613,364,732,524,698,964,556 and change (My calculator first choked and just said "Overflow". I had to put the decimal point two places to the left to get a meaningful number.)
Somebody's gonna empty Amazon's whole warehouse of Maalox, that's a given!
On the post: The Oversight Board's Decision On Facebook's Trump Ban Is Just Not That Important
Re: 3 Insurrections
How about "3 insurrections, and we get to insurrect you! No questions asked, no quarter given."
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re:
Nope, you can't see any such issue. The reason is very simple - the blathering about free speech is a red herring. As others here continually note, there is no such thing in the Constitution as a guarantee that others must hear your drivel, or that private property owners must let you besmirch their name by virtue of your trespassing on their private property. But even that, correct as it is, is not the real story.
No, the real underlying issue is that the 5th clause of 1A is "the right of the people to peacefully assemble", which the courts have (since Day 1) considered to mean that people can associate with whomever they might wish, and conversely, that they can't be forced to associate with anyone whom they might disfavor. That means that a private person (or a private corporation) can simply say Get off my lawn!, and there's not a bleeping thing that the trespasser can do about it. And I shouldn't have to add, neither can the government, at any level, do anything about, ex post facto or otherwise. This exactly explains why Mike and others tell us that S.230 is not the whipping boy that #45 wants to paint it - choosing whether to "associate with people of like mind" comes under the rubric of 1A, period.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Even a single day will be pushing it
He moved up the timetable, thus it's an uptick.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re:
The answer in words of one syllable is "Yes". Yes there is a sound, even if no one is present to hear it. Simple science. More to the point, the sound will be the exact same whether there is only one person present, or 10,000,000 people present - the sound won't change in quality one iota.
At this very moment in time, all that you get for being on a "big boy" platform is a larger chance of being discovered, and brought to the attention of 'internet randos". Your own blog on Wordpress has a smaller chance, but not necessarily one that equals Zero. Your own blog in a random server with nothing but a domain name that you invented, that's still not a Zero chance of being discovered, but admittedly smaller than you might like. And almost certainly, you know of at least one person who will visit after you invite him or her. Word of mouth may be slower than the well known platforms, but soon enough, you'll gather a crowd, and then you can blather to your heart's content, knowing that you've got an audience that will mostly agree with you.
The only other thing you get for being on Fb or Twitter is bragging rights - "Of course I'm perfect for this job! Just take a look at my resume, I've got 25 followers and re-tweeters!" I hate to break it to you Sparky, but you're still gonna need $2.50 to buy a cup of coffee at the local Denny's.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: 'Pay attention to me!' screamed the man-child
Well, this certainly put my brain into a race condition. Part of me wants to say "You mean the adult's room", and the other part of me wants to say "do you really think that any social media is useful for anyone older than two or three, maturity-wise?" I mean, you can probably tell how I feel about social media platforms in general, but your juxtaposition was so ripe for this comparison, I couldn't pass up on the opportunity.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re: Even a single day will be pushing it
Back on March 24th, you were willing to give it as much as a whole week, now it's only one day - why the uptick in time? ;)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210323/07195146472/if-trump-ever-actually-creates-social-netw ork-his-own-you-can-bet-it-will-rely-section-230.shtml#c151, first comment.
On the post: Lawsuit: Cops Trashed An Attorney's Home In Retaliation For Successfully Defending A Suspect Against Murder Charges
Re:
^^^ .... and their freedom to move about at will for a goodly length of time.
I can't help but wonder about that old lawyer joke, and how it needs to be updated for modern times:
On the post: The Washington Post Thought It Might Be Nice To Provide Free Book Marketing To Insurrectionist Josh Hawley
Kinda snuggles right up next to what I said in https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210430/00075246706/hollywood-lobbyists-so-afraid-any-public-bene fit-intellectual-property-that-theyre-trying-to-block-covid-vaccine-sharing.shtml#c65
Too bad for me that I didn't think to mention the profit motive just then. Nice finishing touch Karl, thanks.
Next >>