Unfortunately that pretty much ensures that free-speech itself will become totally deligitimized. The entire ideal would have no legitimacy left, it would have no value to the citizenry, and nothing like that survives very long in this world.
This is why the state is necessary to correct the perverse market incentives, which produced a small unaccountable cadre of conglomerates determining what speech is acceptable for all of society. Otherwise there will be no free-peach in a very short amount of time, because it would be almost masochistic to defend it.
Any business model in which the customers are not the users of the product, loses the respect and legitimacy we attribute to direct trading of goods and services. Most especially when said customers are acting in a coordinated politically motivated manner, and/or are responding to market pressures that are the result of unaccountable political motivations.
The outcomes determine if correction is required, and the outcomes have risen to this point in this specific example.
Our nation lavishly funded all the research and development for their entire business model, and all of the big tech companies got unearned assistance from the state security apparatus.
So your version of the "free-market", is an idealistic fraud, it doesn't exist. In addition the market has one purpose, to serve the collective interests of our nation, if it is not doing that because of perverse incentives, then we are obliged to correct them by means of the state. It doesn't serve the interests of the citizenry to have the state micromanaging businesses, because it negativally impacts said abilities of businesses to serve the citizenry, and it risks abuse of unaccountable power.
So yes, we are entitled to correct market incentives, if the outcomes undermine our nation, destabilizes society in ways that only the state could correct. We are not entitled to the fruits of another person's labor, which is why we do not just steal money from companies and force them to serve the world's most powerful political interests like progressives.
Actually they do have a social responsibility, to provide goods and services in exchange for money. If they don't do that, by making money not providing goods and services, for example, then the state must step in to correct perverse incentives.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Techzilla.
Re:
Unfortunately that pretty much ensures that free-speech itself will become totally deligitimized. The entire ideal would have no legitimacy left, it would have no value to the citizenry, and nothing like that survives very long in this world.
This is why the state is necessary to correct the perverse market incentives, which produced a small unaccountable cadre of conglomerates determining what speech is acceptable for all of society. Otherwise there will be no free-peach in a very short amount of time, because it would be almost masochistic to defend it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any business model in which the customers are not the users of the product, loses the respect and legitimacy we attribute to direct trading of goods and services. Most especially when said customers are acting in a coordinated politically motivated manner, and/or are responding to market pressures that are the result of unaccountable political motivations.
The outcomes determine if correction is required, and the outcomes have risen to this point in this specific example.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In addition,
Our nation lavishly funded all the research and development for their entire business model, and all of the big tech companies got unearned assistance from the state security apparatus.
So your version of the "free-market", is an idealistic fraud, it doesn't exist. In addition the market has one purpose, to serve the collective interests of our nation, if it is not doing that because of perverse incentives, then we are obliged to correct them by means of the state. It doesn't serve the interests of the citizenry to have the state micromanaging businesses, because it negativally impacts said abilities of businesses to serve the citizenry, and it risks abuse of unaccountable power.
So yes, we are entitled to correct market incentives, if the outcomes undermine our nation, destabilizes society in ways that only the state could correct. We are not entitled to the fruits of another person's labor, which is why we do not just steal money from companies and force them to serve the world's most powerful political interests like progressives.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually they do have a social responsibility, to provide goods and services in exchange for money. If they don't do that, by making money not providing goods and services, for example, then the state must step in to correct perverse incentives.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Techzilla.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt