Debt Rattle August 8 2018
- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vincent van Gogh The red tree house 1890 • Tesla Shares Soar After Elon Musk Floats Plan To Take Company Private (G.) • Securities Lawyers Shoc
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle August 8 2018]As someone elsewhere pointed out, the social media is privately owned and can do whatever they damn well please. Not a 1st amendment issue.
With social media, it was always going to end this way.
I bailed 10 years ago after a few months.
Jones lost his gravy train; why doesn’t he do what Ilargi has done, is doing?
But then again followers are easy; dedicated, contributing, members are a whole other trip…V Arnold, I get you this fantastic Van Gogh, and not a word?
As for Google and Facebook, they presently control 95% or so of the digital advertizing market. Anyone wants to go get them, that’s where it should be done. Private or not, that’s a monopoly.
They will be split up at some point, but then they’re less useful for politics and intelligence as a control tool. So it will take a while. But the legal system, the judges, will be called upon at some point to hold them against the daylight of the law.
Agree and so do most on my side of politics. Private companies.
BUT! Not so clear.
1. They have user agreements they are using to ban people. Okay, cool. However, their weasel-worded legal agreements still say they are a neutral platform. They are presently being sued for breach of contract, which is oddly appropriate. They could of course just say, “It’s my house and I ban everyone who disagrees with me” but that wouldn’t have created the appropriate illusion. Also,
2. If you have only 40% of the population, because you’ve banned/shadow banned/antagonized the rest of your potential audience, then perhaps your stock is 40% overpriced? Or worse, since you’re past saturation and have no growth premium? In fact, a bunch of your accounts are false, since they exist but are abandoned by your actions. Maybe you can ask only 40% lower price for ads?
3. Sherman anti-trust laws are well into effect here. Not that they’ve been enforced for 100 years except against the little guy in favor of the big conglomerates (See interlocking Board of Directors in every top company), but they should be enforced as a contract with have with permission of being a monopoly. Facebook, Twitter, Google, de facto utilities, totally regulated…unless you break them into 100 pieces, which is a pleasant option. Then their stock prices again will reflect their non-monopoly, utility pricing.
4. They’re not actually private. Nothing of importance is. With Amazon taking $250m from the CIA — coincidentally the exact price of buying the WaPo and thereafter publishing nothing but CIA talking points — it’s pretty clear there is universal entanglement of Government and Social Media interests. Since a school that takes even $1 can no longer pray before an off-site football game, why are companies held to a different standard? If Amazon, Facebook, Google, take $1 in government money, they too must obey Queensbury Rules and enforce non-partisan free speech, etc, as a government agent. Goose. Gander.
So much for being “privately owned.” They’re not. What is it Smith says, the RoI of government is 10-100x actual business investment? No one in America makes money without buying a Senator. They can’t, because their competition will, and drive them out of business. Looking at you, Musk and Bezos, Zuck who took over for the U.S. Army’s “LifeLog” project.
What was that quote by Benny somebody-or-other? “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Not independent. Wish that they were.
That said, What are they thinking??? You’re trying to use your enemy’s platform to defeat them? You think they’re just going to sit around and let you do that? OF COURSE they’re going to shut you down, legally, illegally, they don’t care. They’re going to use it to track every rebel and dissident, and you’re going to help your people get on their lists. Why on EARTH would you make your major presence on their platform? Anyone? I’m talking to the readers and viewers too. Crikey.
Raúl Ilargi Meijer
V Arnold, I get you this fantastic Van Gogh, and not a word?Sorry. It is fantastic; I saw that immediately and then the shiny got me.
This has been a tumultuous day for my online presence.
But damn, that van Gogh explodes in a rainbow of colors not often associated with their place in the objects present.
The tree especially, of course, but the wall and everything else as well…
Thanks, I’ve landed and can retire in peace…Dr D
Not entirely satisfied either with that private company stuff.
But, the myriad members are no different than the Usian proletariate; followers all.
No thoughts outside of the hive.
And those of who are not (followers) find our own nitches in the world at large…The Atlantic Council doesn’t find the truth, it makes its own.
This is what most think tanks do; the intensive research is designed to support a foregone conclusion. AKA anti-Logos propaganda.
All the Presidents’ lies.
Show me a politician who doesn’t lie frequently and convincingly and said politician will not be successful. Ethics is not the strong suit of successful politicians.
But the legal system, the judges, will be called upon at some point to hold them against the daylight of the law.
This is an optimistic, utopian view of the legal system.
“Zuckerberg wants to outsource many of the most sensitive political decisions, leaving fact-checking to media groups and geopolitics to think tanks. The more he succeeds, the fewer complications for Facebook’s expansion, the smaller its payroll, and the more plausible its positioning as a neutral platform.”
Handing the reins to the corporate media and governments doesn’t make FB a “neutral platform,” it makes it a TOOL for the self-same corporate media and governments. I seriously doubt Rand Paul or Tulsi Gabbard will be the members of the USG affecting FB’s content-removal decisions. Hiding behind bromides that “this is not First Amendment, but private company rights” is, as Caitlin Johnstone put it (whose piece you published yesterday Raul), simply a failure to recognize, or refusal to admit, the fusion between corporate and governmental power.
Here’s Alex Jones. you form your own opinion. That’s the most important thing in this, that you do that.
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1OyJAQAyYEwJb
I’m not taking sides, but I don’t like that so many people already have.
Some time ago, I tried out advertising on Google’s Adwords. I got massive bills and the software on my website – my own software – told me that there were fewer than 10% of the visitors that Google claimed. I am sure I am not alone.
I have AdBlock on my browsers so I don’t see any adverts – not even on Facebook. I never click on any “Suggested Groups”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.