Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 142

Thread: Mailchimp Shuts Down GreenMedInfo’s Newsletter for “Anti-Vaccine” Content

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If he doesn't then he doesn't have editorial control, if he does sometimes then we are talking about the times he does.
    So wait, are you saying:

    (a) platform owner is liable for any content posted if he ever does any moderating (whether he review that particular content or not)

    or (b) platform owner is liable only for content which he came actually across in the course of moderating?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So wait, are you saying:

    (a) platform owner is liable for any content posted if he ever does any moderating (whether he review that particular content or not)

    or (b) platform owner is liable only for content which he came actually across in the course of moderating?
    A IF THE MODERATING IS SUBJECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO ENFORCING SPECIFIC PUBLISHED RULES.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    A IF THE MODERATING IS SUBJECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO ENFORCING SPECIFIC PUBLISHED RULES.
    Got it - if a platform owner ever does any moderating (on a subjective basis), he is liable for any content posted on the platform.

    Now, to see how insane that is, let's apply the same logic to other fields, beyond publishing.

    Suppose I own a car rental company.

    I don't do much to vet my customers, but I do occasionally refuse to serve one who I dislike for purely subjective reasons.

    If one of my customers commits a crime with one of my rental cars, I should be liable, because I use subjective criteria to decide who to rent to?

    ...how does that make any sense?

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Got it - if a platform owner ever does any moderating (on a subjective basis), he is liable for any content posted on the platform.

    Now, to see how insane that is, let's apply the same logic to other fields, beyond publishing.

    Suppose I own a car rental company.

    I don't do much to vet my customers, but I do occasionally refuse to serve one who I dislike for purely subjective reasons.

    If one of my customers commits a crime with one of my rental cars, I should be liable, because I use subjective criteria to decide who to rent to?

    ...how does that make any sense?
    Not the same thing.

    You don't have the ability to undo the crime committed with the car you rented to them.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Not the same thing.

    You don't have the ability to undo the crime committed with the car you rented to them.
    If you're saying that a platform owner should be required to remove illegal content once discovered, I agree, as does the existing law. But you're going much further than that, aren't you? You're saying that the platform owner should be liable simply because the illegal content was posted, or because he failed to take it down within some time of it being posted though he was unaware of it.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you're saying that a platform owner should be required to remove illegal content once discovered, I agree, as does the existing law. But you're going much further than that, aren't you? You're saying that the platform owner should be liable simply because the illegal content was posted, or because he failed to take it down within some time of it being posted though he was unaware of it.
    I never said that.

    Publishers are given a reasonable amount of time to remove illegal content after being made aware of it, the big tech companies are refusing to do so or to do so in a timely manner in the case of leftists and trying to claim immunity even though they have taken editorial control.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I never said that.

    Publishers are given a reasonable amount of time to remove illegal content after being made aware of it, the big tech companies are refusing to do so or to do so in a timely manner in the case of leftists and trying to claim immunity even though they have taken editorial control.
    If that's all your saying (they must remove illegal content within a reasonable time of discovery), I agree and, AFAIK, that's already the law.

    ...this would be the equivalent of holding the rental company liable for renting to a known maniac.

    If it's not being enforced, then enforce it (assuming the underlying crime ought to be a crime).

    ...which brings us to the other half of my original question, just what underlying crimes are you concerned about?
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-22-2019 at 10:41 PM.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If that's all your saying (they must remove illegal content within a reasonable time of discovery), I agree and, AFAIK, that's already the law.

    If it's not being enforced, then enforce it (assuming the underlying crime ought to be a crime).

    ...which brings us to the other half of my original question, just what underlying crimes are you concerned about?
    Calls for violence and slander/libel.

    There may be others but I can't think of them right now.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Calls for violence and slander/libel.

    There may be others but I can't think of them right now.
    Alright, so have the laws requiring them to take down such content enforced.

    Now, why is it that you want some additional regulation of social media platforms, and what does any of this have to do with censorship?

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Alright, so have the laws requiring them to take down such content enforced.

    Now, why is it that you want some additional regulation of social media platforms, and what does any of this have to do with censorship?
    Nurse! Please make sure this patient is comfortable.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Alright, so have the laws requiring them to take down such content enforced.

    Now, why is it that you want some additional regulation of social media platforms, and what does any of this have to do with censorship?
    Please point to where I called for new regulations.
    I have called for them to lose their immunity when they behave as a publisher and I have called for them to be sued or prosecuted for false advertising and breach of contract but I haven't called for regulations.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Please point to where I called for new regulations.

    I have called for them to lose their immunity when they behave as a publisher and I have called for them to be sued or prosecuted for false advertising and breach of contract but I haven't called for regulations.
    There are a lot of people roaming around making the same "teh evil corporations are gonna enslave us" claims that you've been making and calling for the feds to enforce some kind of "neutrality" regime on social media, break them up with anti-trust laws, or otherwise steal their property. If you're not in favor of such things, that's good.

    As for liability for illegal content, I think we agree that they ought to be liable for failing to remove illegal content once discovered. As for breach of contract, however, there almost certainly hasn't been any, given the nature of the TOS. If you can find a platform that doesn't have something to the effect of "we can kick you off the platform for any reason," I'll be surprised. I recall going through at least one actual TOS in another thread (maybe paypal?) and finding just that.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-23-2019 at 12:52 AM.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Freedom of speech is about preventing the state from prosecuting you for speech.

    It is not about you having the right to use other people's (i.e. Mailchimp's) property without their permission.



    No, your customers have the right to receive whatever they are entitled to receive under their contracts with you or anyone else.

    Neither they nor you have the right to foist any contract on an unwilling third party (i.e. Mailchimp).



    You misspelled "exercise of property rights."



    That remains to be seen; if it is, they'll lose business to other companies, or change their policy, or go out of business.

    Either way, problem solved: no need for any government involvement.

    ...not that you proposed any, but that's where all of this is heading.



    Hear Hear
    Funny but I didn't see anyone say "Hey! Write your congresscritter and demand he/she do something about MailChimp!" For free market principles to work people have to share their bad experiences about companies. So now everyone reading this knows their'es a problem with Mailchimp. Cool. Don't use MailChimp. Got it. No need for a "property rights" debate among people who aren't even arguing against your position.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    they are in no way a public utility. they are much more like a private mailbox/shipping store in a strip mall. and their terms of use on their site makes it plain that they censor and limit who can use their service and for what content.
    Go bake a cake.


    They have the right then to only ship for Whites, or only ship for lgbt's , but at their whim ?

    Or refuse lgbt etc....?


    lmao, they are a public service, wtf , over ......?

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Funny but I didn't see anyone say "Hey! Write your congresscritter and demand he/she do something about MailChimp!" For free market principles to work people have to share their bad experiences about companies. So now everyone reading this knows their'es a problem with Mailchimp. Cool. Don't use MailChimp. Got it. No need for a "property rights" debate among people who aren't even arguing against your position.
    There ya go....

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Funny but I didn't see anyone say "Hey! Write your congresscritter and demand he/she do something about MailChimp!" For free market principles to work people have to share their bad experiences about companies. So now everyone reading this knows their'es a problem with Mailchimp. Cool. Don't use MailChimp. Got it. No need for a "property rights" debate among people who aren't even arguing against your position.
    There were several people stating that Mailchimp should be regulated as a public utility.

    Quote Originally Posted by parocks View Post
    Yeah, de facto public utilities.

    We really need some sort of law. I guess I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I just understand that if we added this law, the country would go from, not at all free market to still not at all free market.

    A few ideas about proposed laws.

    1) If you start out as a normal non censoring company, then you become a near monopoly, you can't start censoring.

    2) If you aren't explicitly political, no censorship.

    4) Censorship is more acceptable when you're talking about a political website, or, an ideological website.

    5) The phenomenon called "triggered" or "triggering" or anything like that, is a mental illness. We don't shape the world in order to make crazy people happy and comfortable. We treat crazy people so that they can function in the existing world with sane people.

    6) Any websites that involve important, standard communications = like facebook, twitter, mailchimp, youtube = no censorship.

    I'd like to see the Sherman Anti-Trust Act just rip everything apart, which would be separate from this law.

  20. #77
    Mailchimp (formerly capitalized as MailChimp until 2018) is a marketing automation platform and an email marketing service. The platform is a trading name of its operator, Rocket Science Group, an American company founded in 2001 by Ben Chestnut and Mark Armstrong with Dan Kurzius joining at a later date. Mailchimp began as a paid service and added a freemium option in 2009. Within a year its user base had grown from 85,000 to 450,000. By June 2014, it was sending over 10 billion emails per month on behalf of its users. In 2017, the company was gaining 14,000 new customers every day. The company is still owned by its cofounders and has never accepted venture capital funds.

    In 2016, Mailchimp was ranked No. 7 on the Forbes Cloud 100 list. In February 2017, the company was named one of Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies of 2017. In August 2017, It was reported that, Mailchimp would be opening offices in Brooklyn and in Oakland, California.

    On February 2019, Mailchimp acqui-hired the team behind LemonStand, a smaller competitor. Later in 2019 the company announced its annual revenue would reach $700 million. Mailchimp is going to become a full marketing platform aimed at smaller organizations.
    Ben Chestnut (born 1973/1974) is an American billionaire Internet entrepreneur. He is the CEO and co-founder (with Dan Kurzius) of MailChimp, an email marketing company.

    May or may not be Mark Armstrong (a tech guy from college): https://www.crunchbase.com/person/ma...ction-overview

    Dan Kurzius (born 1971/1972) is an American billionaire businessman, the co-founder and chief customer officer of Mailchimp.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mailchimp#cite_note-7

    https://www.inc.com/magazine/201802/...year-2017.html

    Alternative to Mailchimp (Ahhh I love the smell of competition in the morning!): https://sendgrid.com/marketing/mailc...hoC4lwQAvD_BwE
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    they are in no way a public utility. they are much more like a private mailbox/shipping store in a strip mall. and their terms of use on their site makes it plain that they censor and limit who can use their service and for what content.
    That is all fine and dandy, well that is until you realize they have overtaken the market, becoming a monopoly, such is the case for many existing conglomerations that control the lion's share of varied markets.

    ...And then such a system as this becomes fully implemented and integrated throughout society and your service starts being declined by the very limited selection of consumer choices due to your personal habits and political affiliations or because of your family and friends, etc: https://www.businessinsider.com/chin...plained-2018-4
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    That is all fine and dandy, well that is until you realize they have overtaken the market, becoming a monopoly, such is the case for many existing conglomerations that control the lion's share of varied markets.

    ...And then such a system as this becomes fully implemented and integrated throughout society and your service starts being declined by the very limited selection of consumer choices due to your personal habits and political affiliations or because of your family and friends, etc: https://www.businessinsider.com/chin...plained-2018-4
    They host a freaking SMTP server; yeah its a bit of a hassle but anybody can do the basics of what they do.

  23. #80
    Why haven't the offended chimps sued them for that offensive co name ?
    Do something Danke



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    They host a freaking SMTP server; yeah its a bit of a hassle but anybody can do the basics of what they do.
    I mean businesses in general, Walmart, CVS, Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Blue Shield, PG&E, AT&T, Direct TV, W3C, ICANN, etc.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by parocks View Post
    The government has made it illegal to just go and kill the bad guys. The government is working with the bad guys. They're on the same team.
    If the government is working with the bad guys, why do you think that more government involvement in the market is going to make things better?

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    I mean businesses in general, Walmart, CVS, Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Blue Shield, PG&E, AT&T, Direct TV, W3C, ICANN, etc.
    Nationalize everything in the name of freedom and liberty!

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Nationalize everything in the name of freedom and liberty!
    Just don't let them $#@! with the 1A.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Funny but I didn't see anyone say "Hey! Write your congresscritter and demand he/she do something about MailChimp!" For free market principles to work people have to share their bad experiences about companies. So now everyone reading this knows their'es a problem with Mailchimp. Cool. Don't use MailChimp. Got it. No need for a "property rights" debate among people who aren't even arguing against your position.
    For months people here have been calling for the feds to force tech companies to be "neutral" and/or break them up with anti-trust laws.

    Did you read all of the posts in this thread? Here's one of several examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by parocks View Post
    Yeah, de facto public utilities.

    We really need some sort of law. I guess I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I just understand that if we added this law, the country would go from, not at all free market to still not at all free market.

    A few ideas about proposed laws.

    1) If you start out as a normal non censoring company, then you become a near monopoly, you can't start censoring.

    2) If you aren't explicitly political, no censorship.

    4) Censorship is more acceptable when you're talking about a political website, or, an ideological website.

    5) The phenomenon called "triggered" or "triggering" or anything like that, is a mental illness. We don't shape the world in order to make crazy people happy and comfortable. We treat crazy people so that they can function in the existing world with sane people.

    6) Any websites that involve important, standard communications = like facebook, twitter, mailchimp, youtube = no censorship.

    I'd like to see the Sherman Anti-Trust Act just rip everything apart, which would be separate from this law.
    And this has been a major national talking point among GOPers (watch any episode of Tucker Carlson, for example).

    So, no, I'm not jousting at windmills, even if I was mistaken about SS being among those calling for these interventions.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-23-2019 at 02:49 PM.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    For months people here have been calling for the feds to force tech companies to be "neutral" and/or break them up with anti-trust laws.

    And this has been a major national talking point among GOPers (watch any episode of Tucker Carlson, for example).

    So, no, I'm not jousting at windmills, even if I was mistaken about SS being among those calling for these interventions.
    Moving goalposts again, Nostradamus?

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by parocks View Post
    Yeah, de facto public utilities.

    We really need some sort of law. I guess I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I just understand that if we added this law, the country would go from, not at all free market to still not at all free market.

    A few ideas about proposed laws.

    1) If you start out as a normal non censoring company, then you become a near monopoly, you can't start censoring.

    2) If you aren't explicitly political, no censorship.

    4) Censorship is more acceptable when you're talking about a political website, or, an ideological website.

    5) The phenomenon called "triggered" or "triggering" or anything like that, is a mental illness. We don't shape the world in order to make crazy people happy and comfortable. We treat crazy people so that they can function in the existing world with sane people.

    6) Any websites that involve important, standard communications = like facebook, twitter, mailchimp, youtube = no censorship.

    I'd like to see the Sherman Anti-Trust Act just rip everything apart, which would be separate from this law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    That is correct, they may be privately held but they are de facto public utilities.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    At the very least they are now a publisher and not a platform.
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    For months people here have been calling for the feds to force tech companies to be "neutral" and/or break them up with anti-trust laws.

    Did you read all of the posts in this thread? Here's one of several examples.



    And this has been a major national talking point among GOPers (watch any episode of Tucker Carlson, for example).

    So, no, I'm not jousting at windmills, even if I was mistaken about SS being among those calling for these interventions.
    Okay. I stand corrected. Yes some people are calling for government interference in....an email service? Ummmm.....okay.

    MailChimp isn't close to being a monopoly and it's impossible for a service like MailChimp to acquire monopoly status! This is not like Facebook or Twitter where the only way you can contact people you are only connected through Facebook or Twitter is on Facebook or Twitter. I know I am being redundant, but it's to make a point. There are a lot of open source alternatives to MailChimp.

    Here. For those too lazy to DuckDuckGo it. (No need to keep feeding into the phony Google "monopoly".)

    https://www.bettertechtips.com/linux...s-open-source/

    Nobody on your email list is going to care if you switch from MailChimp to some other service. They won't even notice unless you tell them. Now if MailChimp held on to your data that would be a problem. But if they turn over your email list so that you can upload it to another service or (gasp!) host the service yourself? No problem. You cannot be "deplatformed" by a company like MailChimp. If you lost your Gmail account, on the other hand, that could be a problem, but then again as long as you were allowed to take your data (your contact list and email archive), that shouldn't be a problem either. Tech companies should be able to hold onto your data. I know that put crap in their phony adherence contracts that allow them to get away with that crap but that is where government should step in. Your data is your "intellectual property." If I rent a hotel room from you and you, for whatever reason, decide to kick me out and contractually that's allowed then fine, I'll leave. But if you say "Yeah...but you can't take your clothes or laptop with you because they are on our property and they belong to us now due to a clause on page 50 of the hotel leasing agreement that we didn't highlight and we know that nobody ever reads because the whole thing is too damn long to read." Well in that case we have a problem.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Okay. I stand corrected. Yes some people are calling for government interference in....an email service? Ummmm.....okay.

    MailChimp isn't close to being a monopoly and it's impossible for a service like MailChimp to acquire monopoly status! This is not like Facebook or Twitter where the only way you can contact people you are only connected through Facebook or Twitter is on Facebook or Twitter. I know I am being redundant, but it's to make a point. There are a lot of open source alternatives to MailChimp.

    Here. For those too lazy to DuckDuckGo it. (No need to keep feeding into the phony Google "monopoly".)

    https://www.bettertechtips.com/linux...s-open-source/

    Nobody on your email list is going to care if you switch from MailChimp to some other service. They won't even notice unless you tell them. Now if MailChimp held on to your data that would be a problem. But if they turn over your email list so that you can upload it to another service or (gasp!) host the service yourself? No problem. You cannot be "deplatformed" by a company like MailChimp. If you lost your Gmail account, on the other hand, that could be a problem, but then again as long as you were allowed to take your data (your contact list and email archive), that shouldn't be a problem either.
    Well said

    Tech companies should be able to hold onto your data. I know that put crap in their phony adherence contracts that allow them to get away with that crap but that is where government should step in. Your data is your "intellectual property." If I rent a hotel room from you and you, for whatever reason, decide to kick me out and contractually that's allowed then fine, I'll leave. But if you say "Yeah...but you can't take your clothes or laptop with you because they are on our property and they belong to us now due to a clause on page 50 of the hotel leasing agreement that we didn't highlight and we know that nobody ever reads because the whole thing is too damn long to read." Well in that case we have a problem.
    Is it?

    Suppose I walk up to you on the street and say: "Hi, I'm r3v, my consumer preferences are such and such."

    You go sell this information to an advertising company, without my permission.

    I fail to see how you violated my property rights (intellectual or otherwise).



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    What a pointless argument.

    Once the banks start seizing your assets and closing your accounts for holding views contrary to the current junta, this will look like child's play.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11

  35. #90
    Some general points on political discrimination by private enterprises:

    1. It can be effective with state-sponsored monopolies, but then the solution is simple: remove state-sponsorship (i.e. not a market problem).

    2. In a market, this can only be effective with natural monopolies, which are rare (neither social media nor banking, @Anti Federalist, qualify).

    3. If you think it's a problem that people have unequal influence over politics, that problem is much broader than politically biased social media, banks, grocery stores, payment processors, etc. How about...every single media venue? How about...the fact that people have unequal amounts of income with which to finance different candidates, parties, PACs, Think Tanks, schools, churches, and every other kind of organization that influences politics? To achieve a truly "level-playing field" would require a monstrous regulatory regime to regulate all of these civil organizations and their donors (or outright communism to make for equal incomes).

    4. The underlying assumption of this "neutrality" movement, that the people only vote the wrong way because of biased media, etc, is false.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-23-2018, 05:44 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-21-2015, 01:11 AM
  3. Anti-Pinball Law Shuts Down N.Y. Arcade
    By jmdrake in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 10:58 PM

Posting Permissions

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