sdw2001

GeorgeBMac said:

The idea of "regulating big tech" -- glomming all large tech companies together as some inherent evil, pretty much says it all:  The emphasis is on regulation rather than identifying a problem and looking for the best way to remedy that problem. 

Unconstrained capitalism can be bad.  Very bad.

Unconstrained regulation can be equally bad.

Here is the Chinese approach:
"The tech companies have been the economic stars of the last decade, driving an extraordinary process of dynamic change. The Chinese economy would not be where it is now without them. And there is a serious risk in seeking to regulate and tame them, that it curbs their creativity and relentless innovation. That is the danger. But there is an even greater risk in not acting: the creation at the heart of the economy of unbridled monopoly power which discriminates against small and medium-sized enterprises, which privatizes a huge expanse of data that should be at the service of society, and which, through anti-competitive practices, undermines the market and weakens the position of the consumer."

The two approaches makes on wonder which country is Capitalist and which is Communist.

The American approach:  "We need to regulate Big Tech"

The Chinese approach is a balanced approach to alleviate problems while causing minimal harm.  It lays out the problems that it sees and plans to remedy rather than rushing headlong into "regulating" something for the sake of regulation.

The Chinese approach is the CCP owning everything, no matter what the name on the door says.  You heaping praise on it shows your utter ignorance of their system.  

GeorgeBMac said:

sdw2001 said:

The entire article is written from a false premise.   

According to Harvard professor Allan Brandt, an expert on the history of the tobacco industry's tactics against regulatory measures, Facebook "took a big hit this week, but they are capable of taking many hits just as the tobacco industry was."

....  This is about government finding a way to regulate speech, ...

No, this is about finding a way regulate false and misleading speech that is being used to damage the country, its democracy and its people.

We need to defend ourselves against these attacks.

The government has no right to regulate false and misleading speech.  False and misleading speech is protected, just as most "hate speech" is.  And there you go again with framing people's social media opinions as an "attack on democracy."   I guess you think Jan 6th was worse than 9/11, too.  

GeorgeBMac said:

Bosa said:

When we have a current government under joe Biden  that bombs 7 little kids and tell people the kids were ISIS leaders, I would just say please leave google and Apple alone!

they are doing things right much better than you moron politicians

Yeh, 7 kids died.  Why are you not outraged at the 700,000 Americans his predecessor killed?

Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party.

His comment was off topic, partisan and somewhat gratuitous (though, accurate).  Yours is ridiculous and hypocritical.  First you claim that Orange Man "killed" 700,000 people. In the next sentence, you complain about partisan politics tearing down the enemy above all else.  

The entire article is written from a false premise.   

According to Harvard professor Allan Brandt, an expert on the history of the tobacco industry's tactics against regulatory measures, Facebook "took a big hit this week, but they are capable of taking many hits just as the tobacco industry was."

I'll say it again:  Facebook, Twitter et al WANT regulation.  One political party, most of the media and Big Tech are all the same monster.  They are saying the quiet part out loud now.."the problem isn't that Facebook takes down too many posts, it's that it leaves too many up."   

Look at YouTube's recent demonetization of all climate skeptic content.  Try to discuss anything other than how great vaccines and masks are at combatting coronavirus.  This is about government finding a way to regulate speech, something it needs Big Tech to do. And Blumenthal?  He's an absolute moron.  Search "Blumenthal Finsta" and see what you find.  

The answer is more speech, not less.  Make viewpoint discrimination illegal.  Prohibit these platforms from restricting speech that is not targeted harassment, inciting illegal activity, violations of the law, etc.  Protect children from Big Tech's obvious targeting of them.  

The problem with this "whistleblower" is she's nothing of the kind.  She's associated with partisan operatives and lawyers (not that she is one), and is pushing for more restrictions.  The political Left is determined to silence its opposition online, and this is one way to do it.  She goes before Congress, scares the crap out of them, goes on 60 mins, and makes clear that Facebook cannot be trusted to run its own platform.  Facebook, Twitter et al WANT regulation.  They want the government to regulate speech online.  That way, they don't have to worry about pretending to follow "community guidelines."  Think it's bad now with things like election interference and actual medical doctors/scientists being throttled/banned/shadow banned? Just wait until it's the law.  That is the goal here, not protecting children or ensuring freedom of speech consistent with law and order.  

Want to fix it?  Make targeting children illegal with stiff penalties.  Outlaw viewpoint discrimination and election interference (on the latter...you don't really think Facebook pushes "How to Vote" messages without regard to geography/political affiliation, do you?).