Google can blanket ban entire accounts across the entire Google ecosystem, based on content on Youtube, resulting in loss of all services.
So on one hand people in the government claim; that social media is so dangerous that we cant allow free enterprise, that misinformation is so important that there need to be federal officers and former federal officers embedded within the social media companies to monitor dangerous posts right? Isn’t that the entire premise of the CISA program itself that “social media” was under the prevue of federal cyber security response. Yet on the other hand you want to reject the possibility that the same industry of national importance, such as was the case when the railroads were providing the key means of transportation and were also private companies, that those companies are cannot be deemed to be “common carriers” such that they have to serve all customers without distinction?
Google was literally found guilty of antitrust, and under antitrust laws, companies can be forced to do business with people they don’t want to, and can be prohibited from their “free association” rights under the first amendment. The fact is that google: controls my telephone number controls my passwords controls my wireless phone service controls my emails controls my domain names controls my wallet (google pay) controls my medical records (google health) If google didn’t want to be a “common carrier” then they shouldn’t have vertically integrated their services into every aspect of the economy.
So on one hand people in the government claim; that social media is so dangerous that we cant allow free enterprise, that misinformation is so important that there need to be federal officers and former federal officers embedded within the social media companies to monitor dangerous posts right? Isn’t that the entire premise of the CISA program itself that “social media” was under the prevue of federal cyber security response. Yet on the other hand you want to reject the possibility that the same industry of national importance, such as was the case when the railroads were providing the key means of transportation and were also private companies, that those companies are cannot be deemed to be “common carriers” such that they have to serve all customers without distinction?
Google was literally found guilty of antitrust, and under antitrust laws, companies can be forced to do business with people they don't want to, and can be prohibited from their "free association" rights under the first amendment. The fact is that google: controls my telephone number controls my passwords controls my wireless phone service controls my emails controls my domain names controls my wallet (google pay) controls my medical records (google health) If google didn't want to be a "common carrier" then they shouldn't have vertically integrated their services into every aspect of the economy.
So on one hand people in the government claim; that social media is so dangerous that we cant allow free enterprise, that misinformation is so important that there need to be federal officers and former federal officers embedded within the social media companies to monitor dangerous posts right? Isn't that the entire premise of the CISA program itself that "social media" was under the prevue of federal cyber security response. Yet on the other hand you want to reject the possibility that the same industry of national importance, such as was the case when the railroads were providing the key means of transportation and were also private companies, that those companies are cannot be deemed to be "common carriers" such that they have to serve all customers without distinction? Google lost a lawsuit alleging that it was engaging in anti-competitive practices, and their first amendment freedom of association and contract was in fact constrained, similarly the legislature of Texas wants to create a common carrier burden on the social media companies that limit their ability of association and contract. After all Google is literally in the money transmission business, in the public telecom business, advertising business, and so many vertical businesses that this anticompetitive condition was created in the first place.
How can the government deem social media such a national security concern, that they have to try to stop tik tok because of Chinese "national security" concerns, and also embed government officials in all of the major tech companies for censorship? Because they're common carriers Google even loans and transmits people's money, how much more "common carrier" can you get than a literal licensed money transmitter?
False Equivalency, he knows that Pre-Elon Twitter wouldn't have ever fixed the problem or even talked about and been transparent to the public about it.
that AI golf course designers are going to take their job.
It's almost like the people who benefit the most, are the powerful people who don't like getting caught lying, because they want to conflate the "right to be forgotten" (censorship) with "privacy".
Google controls: my passwords my telephone number my cellphone service my email service my domain names Is google a "information content provider" or a "common carrier"? Also google was just found guilty of antitrust, does anti-trust law also include "discrimination" prohibitions?
the New York Times absolutely could not sell him a subscription without violating U.S. law.So all you need to do to bypass the first amendment, is make laws regulating "services", because the first amendment doesn't protect services?
It can’t be that bad, most of the business world seems to get it right, most of the time. There are dozens of automated tools to do the bulk of the work.That doesn't change the nature of the constitution, the fact that there are "automated tools", doesn't change the fact that the government can't burden speech.
and accepting money from them in exchange for some form of service (which is very much against the law)Okay, and what is twitters "service" if not speech, you're literally arguing that its illegal for the New York Times to sell a news subscription to Vladmir Putin, because its a "service". Leftists and their mental gymnastics.
you keep deadnaming your own child, and not respecting their transition, so why should you be extended that courtesy?I dont know about you, but my parents chose my name at birth, and got to control that name until I turned 18. Moreover there is no such thing as a "transition" its called genital mutilation, and it was wrong when the abrahamics did it, and its wrong when the trans allies do it.
Hint: Information, as in data, isn’t speech.this is hilarious that you want to lecture me on 1st amendment law, from such an absurd statement.
He claims that he supports free speech, as long as its not the free speech of a "sanctioned entity". The freedom of speech includes the freedom to listen, and I should be the one who gets to choose if I want to listen to Vladmir Putin on twitter, rather than the government.
Show me what abortion laws proposed do not make exceptions for rape , incest, and health of the mother... I'll wait.
The reason why we live in a patriarchal society, is precisely because of sexual dimorphism, and those societies are currently replacing our own, because they actually produce children. Abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, its all just another way of saying "genetic dead end", and "cultural suicide".
Google offers their own cellphone service, "google fi wireless", so in this instance, google would be T-mobile