Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 204 of 219 FirstFirst ... 104 154 194 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 214 ... LastLast
Results 2,031 to 2,040 of 2186
  1. #2031
    Expert

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    Since the founding of their private business? Kinda goes with the territory. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand why its their right to do so.
    And at some point, they become a public utility and or monopoly at must be reined in...

    We are at that point...

  2. #2032
    Grandmaster Kutnupe14's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ingomike View Post
    And at some point, they become a public utility and or monopoly at must be reined in...

    We are at that point...
    That is essentially punish success. Further, forcing a private entity to adhere to rules originally intended for government, is nationalization (by default), and certainly socialist. As long as a business works within it's private mandate, and does not erect barriers to competition (and being the preferred forum doesn't apply), then it should be left along.
    I Have the Worst Crew Ever

  3. #2033
    Master nonobaddog's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ingomike View Post
    And they can only do this because of the internet exemption law. The law needs a simple revision, if the company engages in any kind of editorial judgment, they lose the exemption. They have it both ways right now and I do not understand why conservatives that complain about this do not just fight to change the law.

    It should be very simple, all traffic that is legal flows on the network, illegal can be knocked down, we the citizens give an exemption for any responsibility for the content of that traffic, i.e. FB not responsible for a defamatory post.

    If the network decides what can and cannot be the on their network, they are responsible for what is on their network, i.e. FB responsible for a defamatory post...

    This! Agree.
    #35887

  4. #2034
    YoRHa GPIA7R's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, I'm not saying they can't do it. I know they can do whatever they want. I'm saying they shouldn't have decided to do it, as it seems ethically wrong.
    106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're wearing sunglasses.

  5. #2035
    Expert

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    That is essentially punish success. Further, forcing a private entity to adhere to rules originally intended for government, is nationalization (by default), and certainly socialist. As long as a business works within it's private mandate, and does not erect barriers to competition (and being the preferred forum doesn't apply), then it should be left along.
    They have erected barriers to competition and I see little difference between the Standard Oil and Bell breakups and where we are now. The biggest difference is SO and Bell did not have a direct instantaneous communication with the people, way better than the politicians that would need to use the very channels they seek to break up to reach the citizens. That sentence sums up that they are too powerful and need to be split up into multiple channels, not one.

    Things that should have never been allowed, not a complete list just a couple off the top of my head.

    Google buys Waze, takes the best mapping competitor out of the market, instead of competing with their own Google maps.

    FB buys Instagram rather than compete with their own product, a product that in the right hands might have evolved into a total FB competitor.

    When we only had three TV networks were you against the regulation of them? We are at that point...

  6. #2036
    Grandmaster Kutnupe14's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ingomike View Post
    They have erected barriers to competition and I see little difference between the Standard Oil and Bell breakups and where we are now. The biggest difference is SO and Bell did not have a direct instantaneous communication with the people, way better than the politicians that would need to use the very channels they seek to break up to reach the citizens. That sentence sums up that they are too powerful and need to be split up into multiple channels, not one.

    Things that should have never been allowed, not a complete list just a couple off the top of my head.

    Google buys Waze, takes the best mapping competitor out of the market, instead of competing with their own Google maps.

    FB buys Instagram rather than compete with their own product, a product that in the right hands might have evolved into a total FB competitor.

    When we only had three TV networks were you against the regulation of them? We are at that point...
    Buying competitors isn't erecting a barrier. In most cases the less known entity is seeking to become part of the larger one. Example? In the early days of Netflix, the owners tried to sell to Blockbuster.... Blockbuster laughed them off. Obviously an EPIC mistake.
    I Have the Worst Crew Ever

  7. #2037
    Master nonobaddog's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Some people do not understand monopolies.
    #35887

  8. #2038
    Grandmaster actaeon277's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    YouTube claims they can't be sued for content, because they are only a "provider", not a "publisher". They can't be responsible because they can't censor everything.
    Seem to me, they're censoring.
    So, then it follows, they can be legally responsible for content.
    "Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem."

    “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” -Plato

    "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs." Benson Everett Legg - Woolard v. Sheridan

    If you're a noob, develop thick skin, and read the FAQs


  9. #2039
    Expert

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    Buying competitors isn't erecting a barrier. In most cases the less known entity is seeking to become part of the larger one. Example? In the early days of Netflix, the owners tried to sell to Blockbuster.... Blockbuster laughed them off. Obviously an EPIC mistake.
    Neither BN or NF are or were near monopoly status.

    Buying out competition is a barrier, to the market. A barrier to the consumer looking for options. Building a better mousetrap is part of the market, buying a competing mousetrap maker to reduce competition is anti-market...

  10. #2040
    Grandmaster Alpo's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    My o My. Conservatives arguing for restriction of free-market capitalism.

    I all too often ran out of talent well before the exit of the turn. (© Señor Mouse)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge