Read this, then get back to me:

https://reason.com/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%C2%A7-230-and-the-publisher-distributor-platform-distinction/

An interesting read. So section 230 doesn't specifically outline what would turn Facebook (for example) from a platform to a publisher or distributor but caselaw gives a rough guideline. It would be an interesting argument to hear one side make and the other side defend against.

To me the real difficulty is the potential repercussions for modifying section 203. What negative ripples might we see throughout the internet.

All the Tech Giants, FB, Twitter, and Google, comprise a monopoly in their business sector.  FB has the monopoly on FB-style posting.  Twitter with Tweets.  And Google with Videos (YT).

A monopoly is not defined by zero competition in the market, but with dominant control over the market.  Each of these companies dominate their respective niches in the social media market.

Why do you even need this explained for you?   

It isn't that anything needs explaining to me, it is that you are wrong.
Read this and then get back to me
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-compete-with-facebook-and-its-no-monopoly-11561676776

An interesting read. So section 230 doesn't specifically outline what would turn Facebook (for example) from a platform to a publisher or distributor but caselaw gives a rough guideline. It would be an interesting argument to hear one side make and the other side defend against.

To me the real difficulty is the potential repercussions for modifying section 203. What negative ripples might we see throughout the internet.




It isn't that anything needs explaining to me, it is that you are wrong.
Read this and then get back to me
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-compete-with-facebook-and-its-no-monopoly-11561676776

First of all, that's just an opinion piece.

Second, I posted a definition of "Natural Monopoly."  The opinion piece argues that FB does not prevent competition.  Irrelevant.  A Natural Monopoly os not one in which the monopoly company stifles competition, but one in which they enjoy such a massive share of the market due to, in FB's case, being first to market with a product no one was able to compete with for years, and now has their hooks into the data mining process that harvest  and sell that data to a very large number of clients.  Who are you going to want data from?  FB, who has the most users and the software developed for many years to harvest the data needed, or a new startup with a fraction of the number of users and interactions as FB?

Also, FB became bigger than competitors can ever hope to be because they were first.  They were able to raise the capital needed to grow, because there was nothing else like it, and investors jumped on the stock driving it up and attracting more investors.  Everyone wants to be the next FB, but it's difficult to find that unique, never before tried idea that becomes an overnight success.

A natural monopoly, as the name implies, becomes a monopoly over time due to market
conditions and without any unfair business practices that might stifle competition. Some
monopolies use tactics to gain an unfair advantage by using collusion, mergers, acquisitions,
and hostile takeovers. Collusion might involve two rival competitors conspiring together to
gain an unfair market advantage through coordinated price fixing or increases.

Instead, natural monopolies occur in two ways. First, is when a company takes advantage
of an industry's high barriers to entry to create a "moat", or protective wall, around its business
operations. The high barriers to entry are often due to the significant amount of capital or cash
needed to purchase fixed assets, which are physical assets a company needs to operate.
Manufacturing plants, specialized machinery, and equipment are all fixed assets that might
prevent a new company from entering an industry due to their high costs.

The second is where producing at a large scale is so much more efficient than small scale
production, that a single large producer is sufficient to satisfy all available market demand.
Because their costs are higher, small scale producers can simply never compete with the
larger, lower cost producer. In this case, the natural monopoly of the single large producer
is also the most economically efficient way to produce the good in question. This kind of
natural monopoly is not due to large scale fixed assets or investment, but, can be the result
of the simple first mover advantage, increasing returns to centralizing information and decision
making, or network effects.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp

Here's a very good overview on the Section 230 issues and the underlying facts that explain how it all works.

First of all, that's just an opinion piece.

Second, I posted a definition of "Natural Monopoly."  The opinion piece argues that FB does not prevent competition.  Irrelevant.  A Natural Monopoly os not one in which the monopoly company stifles competition, but one in which they enjoy such a massive share of the market due to, in FB's case, being first to market with a product no one was able to compete with for years, and now has their hooks into the data mining process that harvest  and sell that data to a very large number of clients.  Who are you going to want data from?  FB, who has the most users and the software developed for many years to harvest the data needed, or a new startup with a fraction of the number of users and interactions as FB?

Also, FB became bigger than competitors can ever hope to be because they were first.  They were able to raise the capital needed to grow, because there was nothing else like it, and investors jumped on the stock driving it up and attracting more investors.  Everyone wants to be the next FB, but it's difficult to find that unique, never before tried idea that becomes an overnight success.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp

You do know that Facebook wasn't the first. 

First of all, that's just an opinion piece.

Second, I posted a definition of "Natural Monopoly."  The opinion piece argues that FB does not prevent competition.  Irrelevant.  A Natural Monopoly os not one in which the monopoly company stifles competition, but one in which they enjoy such a massive share of the market due to, in FB's case, being first to market with a product no one was able to compete with for years, and now has their hooks into the data mining process that harvest  and sell that data to a very large number of clients.  Who are you going to want data from?  FB, who has the most users and the software developed for many years to harvest the data needed, or a new startup with a fraction of the number of users and interactions as FB?

Also, FB became bigger than competitors can ever hope to be because they were first.  They were able to raise the capital needed to grow, because there was nothing else like it, and investors jumped on the stock driving it up and attracting more investors.  Everyone wants to be the next FB, but it's difficult to find that unique, never before tried idea that becomes an overnight success.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp

It is an opinion piece supported by articulated arguments.

Data mining by FB doesn't make it a monopoly.

Facebook isn't a necessary service like say the telephone company or electricity company. You need electricity, you need phone service, you don't need Facebook.

Facebook does have the vast majority of social media users of its kind however they do not have control over the market as say a telephone company which owns all the phone lines. The next social media website can start up tomorrow  and work to attract customers all they want because Facebook doesn't own the internet, they don't own the browsers, they simply have lots and lots of users. Facebook has enough money to buy competitors but new ones can still spring up. FB is big and rich and gets all the ad revenue but they can't control other companies making a competing product and replacing them. Again, this is different than the case with Bell or Microsoft.

Facebook would have to take over a few more things such as become an ISP or control the browsers before it would get into monopoly territory.

You do know that Facebook wasn't the first.

You do know they were.  Sites like MySpace did not do the type of data mining and selling FB has perfected.

It was LITERALLY a completely new business model.

You do know they were.  Sites like MySpace did not do the type of data mining and selling FB has perfected.

It was LITERALLY a completely new business model.

I tried to research which company invented data mining and got no conclusive results do you have proof to backup your claim? 

Regardless if you do.  Social media invention is the topic, data mining doesn't matter.  How is data mining even relevant to the topic of bias and free speech.  It not even a platform.   Like eye said you have every right not to use the website.  You don't need it to live.  Its not closing down other business or buying them out.   Its just a success story of a capitalist company.

I tried to research which company invented data mining and got no conclusive results do you have proof to backup your claim? 

Regardless if you do.  Social media invention is the topic, data mining doesn't matter.  How is data mining even relevant to the topic of bias and free speech.  It not even a platform.   Like eye said you have every right not to use the website.  You don't need it to live.  Its not closing down other business or buying them out.   Its just a success story of a capitalist company.

Social Media is a means to an ends.  The product FB makes money on is individual data.  You honestly think they make money by offering a free social media platform for you to post your opinions?

Advertising brings in money, which also garners good revenue since FB has the most users.  FB could offer their Social Media software for free to the country, and they'd still make the same income. 

The issue is their business plan, not the technology being employed.

Tom never censored people, never sold my info, never tried to change my political views.  Just saying...

EEF,

We actually had this discussion recently about needing electricity from a company.  Long story short, if someone wanted to be environmentally friendly, they could cancel their HECO service.  If you own or rent, it doesn't matter, 1 can cancel it.

Tom never censored people, never sold my info, never tried to change my political views.  Just saying...

EEF,

We actually had this discussion recently about needing electricity from a company.  Long story short, if someone wanted to be environmentally friendly, they could cancel their HECO service.  If you own or rent, it doesn't matter, 1 can cancel it.

Look up what is happening with KIUC

Social Media is a means to an ends.  The product FB makes money on is individual data.  You honestly think they make money by offering a free social media platform for you to post your opinions?

Advertising brings in money, which also garners good revenue since FB has the most users.  FB could offer their Social Media software for free to the country, and they'd still make the same income. 

The issue is their business plan, not the technology being employed.

The whole thing you are arguing on is free speech not how they make money...If anything the more free speech the more money they make.  The more people argue and fight, the more they use the platform, the more ads they see and the more info facebook gets.  All they care about is users, not what they say.  The more bias they are the less users they have.  If we broken down 50/50 by opinions of the party lines,  Facebooks best more financially wise option is to keep both.  If they pick a side they lose 50% of their cash.

The whole thing you are arguing on is free speech not how they make money...If anything the more free speech the more money they make.  The more people argue and fight, the more they use the platform, the more ads they see and the more info facebook gets.  All they care about is users, not what they say.  The more bias they are the less users they have.  If we broken down 50/50 by opinions of the party lines,  Facebooks best more financially wise option is to keep both.  If they pick a side they lose 50% of their cash.

So why have “independent face checkers”?

So why have “independent face checkers”?

U mean bias people who look for any reason to sensor conservatives.

My friend posted on FB, the vid of biden saying many times he wants to get rid of fracking.  Even though last night he said that he never said that and for trump to post a video of him saying it. 

Fact checkers said the vid is missing context and thus false.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

So why have “independent face checkers”?

Because there's so much fake news out there.  On both sides.  Having someone independent say look this is the facts helps the users.

U mean bias people who look for any reason to sensor conservatives.

My friend posted on FB, the vid of biden saying many times he wants to get rid of fracking.  Even though last night he said that he never said that and for trump to post a video of him saying it. 

Fact checkers said the vid is missing context and thus false.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Was the video edited?  There's alot of deeply edited fakes out there.  Also peoples positions change.  Its life you can't dig into the past and proclaim its present opinion.  That's actually false news.

U mean bias people who look for any reason to sensor conservatives.

My friend posted on FB, the vid of biden saying many times he wants to get rid of fracking.  Even though last night he said that he never said that and for trump to post a video of him saying it. 

Fact checkers said the vid is missing context and thus false.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

No. Because those don’t exist. Right???

Can’t be true. Even if Biden said it on national TV. Or how snippets are edited. Look up recently released body cam footage from Brionna Taylor. Unless portions are edited out, they are listed as “missing context”. Wait, what?

But, of course, FB wouldn’t do such things like that.

Was the video edited?  There's alot of deeply edited fakes out there.  Also peoples positions change.  Its life you can't dig into the past and proclaim its present opinion.  That's actually false news.

Did Biden change his mind on fracking? I believe he clearly stated his position last night. Or is that in the past already? 

Did Biden change his mind on fracking? I believe he clearly stated his position last night. Or is that in the past already?

I didn't get to finish the debate so not sure what he said.  Last debate he said he didn't want to expand and not ban usage.  I would be all for banning fracking I think its a horrible thing. 

Was the video edited?  There's alot of deeply edited fakes out there.  Also peoples positions change.  Its life you can't dig into the past and proclaim its present opinion.  That's actually false news.

No. And it also showed the question asked to Biden about fracking. So "context" is not an issue.

I hope u dont trust these fact checkers. Even fact checking websites.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I didn't get to finish the debate so not sure what he said.  Last debate he said he didn't want to expand and not ban usage.  I would be all for banning fracking I think its a horrible thing.

I’m not asking for your opinion 🤦🏻‍♂️