Breakup of Google, Facebook & Twitter is THE most important issue facing our Republic
11-10-2018, 05:23 PM
I live in China. As such, I don't watch YouTube, use Google or have a Twitter account. I have a Facebook page but only check it once a year. I use WeChat regularly, Youku occasionally but avoid QQ like the plague. So who has it worse: American citizens and their corporate media masters, or the Chinese with their heavy government regulations?
The first and biggest problem in (North) America is that nobody really gives a shit. Voter turnout was the highest for a midterm election in half a century and yet, not even half of eligible voters bothered. Of people using social media there might be 10% on each end of the political spectrum that realize what is going on. The flaming leftists are loving it because the corporate weenies are aiding their agenda while those on the right have to basically suck it up and make contingency plans for an exit when they are demonetized, suspended, and eventually deplatformed. However, the 80% in the middle are just sheeple who want their cat videos and the latest update on what colour of toenail polish Taylor Swift is wearing these days.
The second problem is about how you can "break up" something like Twitter. You can separate certain markets, like Microsoft got hit with (operating systems, browsers and general software). You can break up cross-media ownership (TV, cable, film, publishing). You can even break up vertical integration in terms or production and distribution. But the whole point of Twitter is to have everyone connected to everyone rather than having half a dozen apps to connect with different people that you follow or engage with.
The issue isn't really about monopoly or oligopoly in economic terms. The issue is a clutch of people using that market power to manipulate the flow of information for political ends while lying about it to the public and saying how they support free speech (which as private companies, they don't have to) and claiming to be politically neutral, which is both a marketing ploy and an attempt to keep (Republican) lawmakers and regulators off their backs.
If they were to come out and be the least bit honest about taking a partisan stance, there is nothing to be done precisely due to the First Amendment which would protect them from the government messing with their shit. On the other hand, lies and deception are not protected.
In another thread, I framed this as a consumer fraud issue. If Twitter came out as being unabashed leftists who admitted to censoring right wing opinions and personalities, they would lose a lot of customers. Monsanto is getting hit with billions in law suits over RoundUp. The argument - which at least one jury has bought into - is that Monsanto knew it was carcinogenic but hid their research. If you are selling a product that is toxic the minimum obligation is to warn people about what they are dealing with.
I am no constitutional scholar but I have deep reservations about whether and how these companies can be regulated into being politically neutral as long as they are being above board about their partisanship.
Congress (which at this point means the Senate) should have further investigations to get the people involved to admit what they are doing or face perjury charges.
The first and biggest problem in (North) America is that nobody really gives a shit. Voter turnout was the highest for a midterm election in half a century and yet, not even half of eligible voters bothered. Of people using social media there might be 10% on each end of the political spectrum that realize what is going on. The flaming leftists are loving it because the corporate weenies are aiding their agenda while those on the right have to basically suck it up and make contingency plans for an exit when they are demonetized, suspended, and eventually deplatformed. However, the 80% in the middle are just sheeple who want their cat videos and the latest update on what colour of toenail polish Taylor Swift is wearing these days.
The second problem is about how you can "break up" something like Twitter. You can separate certain markets, like Microsoft got hit with (operating systems, browsers and general software). You can break up cross-media ownership (TV, cable, film, publishing). You can even break up vertical integration in terms or production and distribution. But the whole point of Twitter is to have everyone connected to everyone rather than having half a dozen apps to connect with different people that you follow or engage with.
The issue isn't really about monopoly or oligopoly in economic terms. The issue is a clutch of people using that market power to manipulate the flow of information for political ends while lying about it to the public and saying how they support free speech (which as private companies, they don't have to) and claiming to be politically neutral, which is both a marketing ploy and an attempt to keep (Republican) lawmakers and regulators off their backs.
If they were to come out and be the least bit honest about taking a partisan stance, there is nothing to be done precisely due to the First Amendment which would protect them from the government messing with their shit. On the other hand, lies and deception are not protected.
In another thread, I framed this as a consumer fraud issue. If Twitter came out as being unabashed leftists who admitted to censoring right wing opinions and personalities, they would lose a lot of customers. Monsanto is getting hit with billions in law suits over RoundUp. The argument - which at least one jury has bought into - is that Monsanto knew it was carcinogenic but hid their research. If you are selling a product that is toxic the minimum obligation is to warn people about what they are dealing with.
I am no constitutional scholar but I have deep reservations about whether and how these companies can be regulated into being politically neutral as long as they are being above board about their partisanship.
Congress (which at this point means the Senate) should have further investigations to get the people involved to admit what they are doing or face perjury charges.