{Politics so we don't have to change the subject.

On 10/25/2020 10:29 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 7:52:17 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2020 3:46 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:15:32 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:07:00 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:01:55 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:59:17 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google?

The protection against libel that the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter and others of the same complexion is in fact a license.

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people, whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment.

Of course it is. Why are you throwing around straw men with such gay abandon? No one, least of all Bill Barr, is arguing that Google must carry messages favourable to the government. The argument, when made, will be different. If the People-in-Government give Google et al a privilege/license to broadcast messages free of the libel liability that adheres like an anchor to the publishers of journals, books and broadcasts, these media cannot then claim they are private institutions with a publisher's right to edit or exclude any messages. They can't have it both ways, hiding behind the government's skirts when they libel someone, and claiming publisher's rights when the government has already given them the benefit of protecting them from the disabilities of publishers, which, I repeat, is an incalculable financial advantage.

All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

The Fairness Doctrine, if enforced, would just move the same editorial control into the hands of a different set of the same sort of people. The BBC in Britain, which has a monopoly government grant in that they are the only broadcasters who benefit by the television licence fee, are an excellent example of the failure of fairness doctrines. By way of example, the BBC let their totally one-sided policy on global warming be decided by pressure groups. It did their credibility an immense amount of harm.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior.

So what? Google should also be punished for interference in free speech, and the quickest way, and most consistent with American mores, is to open them up to prosecution for the many libels they commit every day. Hallelujah! Amen! If you can't hold two ideas in your head at once, try reading every second paragraph of my posts.

The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

So you admit that Google is gaming the system, benefitting from being declared "not a publisher, not liable to libel," but at the same time enforcing an editorial policy of being against one party and it's leader, who just happens to be in government? Duh.

The simplest solution, of course, is to withdraw the government's oligopoly license to Google, Facebook and Twitter, and let then try to stand on their own feet -- and face all the libel suits their stupid double standards will attract. Now listen to the screams of outrage of the Donkey Party Faithful (the Daffies), who think they have a right to benefit from the present double standard.

What oligopoly license?

Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them immunity from defamation claims for what others post and broadcast through their channels.

They're not licensed at all,

Of course they are, if they're subsidised by Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.

and they are standing on their own two feet,

Rubbish. They get a special and very profitable benefit from the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230. I would have no problem whatsoever making a convincing case that without Section 230 they'd have fewer posters and therefore less income from selling the purchasing habits of posters to advertisers.

except to the extent they're propped up by shareholders, which is an entirely different scam.

that's a minor problem. Be a good citizen, do something about it, for instance: Buy a few shares, go to the shareholder meeting, demand to speak, vote down the management and board. If you do this right, you'll get plenty of press coverage, and the firm will be embarrassed into doing what you want.

Are you calling for more government regulation? Overt regulation of speech?

Of course I'm not calling for more government regulation. Tom has the right idea: get the government out of the social media altogether by withdrawing government favouritism to Big Tech by withdrawing the subsidy of Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 altogether.

Can we all pick words and phrases we don't like? I want to ban "kicking curs." It's too alliterative and demeaning to dogs.

Of course you can, if you don't mind, come the Revolution, facing a firing squad as an enemy of society for your attack on the common language. We remember what Paul Johnson said: "The enemies of society will always target the language first."

The Republicans could always repeal the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230, to punish Google by stripping them of defamation protection, but it won't accomplish their goals.

I'm not concerned about Republican goals. I am, however, vitally interested in preserving free speech. See, liberty is indivisible, and without free speech there is anyway no liberty.

Google will just pull the plug on their alt-right homeboys.

So what? Follow the steps. Currently Google, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they foreclose entry to the market. Teddy Roosevelt was right: pure size is a constraint on the market. With Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition. Therefore the alt.right and the alt.everything will be able to start up their own channels. There will be no need for government regulation and control, because the market will provide it free of charge.

That statute is the only reason why Alex Jones has access to the internet. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rules-n1109096

Again, so what, even if you're right, which you're not? Read my immediately previous analysis to grasp why Alex Jones, whoever he may be, will find a more congenial home without the shadow of Google etc squashing everything into a one-sized-fits-all homogenous, glutinous mess of political correctness. I find it very strange that the very people who claim to own "diversity" are so intent on turning everything into a homogenous, glutinous mess -- except the BLM, whose policy appears to be apartheid, which is strict social and economic separation by skin colour with one colour dominant.

Without immunity, no platform with assets would host half of the alt-right nut-cases. And if you don't know Alex Jones, educate yourself. He is your people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones https://www.infowars.com/

I know as much about Alex Jones as is necessary, which is that he was an obscure demagogue easy to pass by until Big Tech took it on themselves to make him famous by presuming that their prissy-mouthed opinions are worth more than his and therefore they should shut him up because they and the other herd mentalities associated with the Donkey Party are incapable of debating him.

To avoid suit, the platforms would have to behave like the TV networks of yore and censor.

So let them. Soon they'll be censoring the Donkey Party's pinko-commie-fellow-travellers. They won't be in business long now the mob has had a taste of freedom. They'll go back to letting the left, and possibly the right, say what they will, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. It will be Christmas 24/365 for even the most incompetent ambulance chaser in the land. You should be promoting this outcome, Jay; even as we speak the little cancellers of your own herd are running to the Bar Council to denounce you as against bigger, BIGGER incomes for lawyers.

I wouldn't care because I'm tired of the lies and half-truths from all sides. All liars should be called out regardless of political stripe. Liberal lies are not better than conservative lies.

That's a fraudulent equivalence argument. Liberals of my stripe, what you in your leftie-word-grabbing style call conservatives, don't have to lie. We have reason and morality and precedent on our side. Also, we're better organisers and more efficient managers, so we know how to make our revolutions stick, one proven step at a time. All it takes is a concentration span longer than 30 second, which your bunch of instant-gratifiers clearly don't have.

-- Jay Beattie.
NO revolutions

Like I said yesterday, this ennui so close to an election is a sign that in your maturity you've started to wonder why the violent, lying, inarticulate clowns on you side are so eminently sneerable. You should join the good people while they'll still have you.

Andre Jute
Quite a few successful revolutions

Nothing about this enhances Mr Beattie's career or earnings
as he does insurance defense.

Similarly my ex, who retired from defending northern
California pot growers in the 9th Circuit, earns a nice
living lecturing attorneys on Federal drug evidence rules
and techniques. She's the last person you'd hire for traffic
court or a lease negotiation.
But what are all of these hard leftists going to say when it turns out to be more profitable for hard right businessmen to take over these platforms and use their own rules against them. Once this occurs the left has lost so big that they will never recover. And the Congress is about to make people like Facebook and Twitter more than extremely uncomfortable because they have effectively run campaigns for Biden. This is illegal campaign contributions and is likely to become extremely troublesome financially.



Never say never.

Issues and philosophy aside, the irresistible temptation for
overreach undoes every successful wave in politics.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:48:58 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
"With Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition."
SHOULD OF COURSE READ:
"WithOUT Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition."

On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 12:07:00 AM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:01:55 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:59:17 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl..com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google?

The protection against libel that the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter and others of the same complexion is in fact a license.

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people, whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment.

Of course it is. Why are you throwing around straw men with such gay abandon? No one, least of all Bill Barr, is arguing that Google must carry messages favourable to the government. The argument, when made, will be different. If the People-in-Government give Google et al a privilege/license to broadcast messages free of the libel liability that adheres like an anchor to the publishers of journals, books and broadcasts, these media cannot then claim they are private institutions with a publisher's right to edit or exclude any messages. They can't have it both ways, hiding behind the government's skirts when they libel someone, and claiming publisher's rights when the government has already given them the benefit of protecting them from the disabilities of publishers, which, I repeat, is an incalculable financial advantage.

All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

The Fairness Doctrine, if enforced, would just move the same editorial control into the hands of a different set of the same sort of people. The BBC in Britain, which has a monopoly government grant in that they are the only broadcasters who benefit by the television licence fee, are an excellent example of the failure of fairness doctrines. By way of example, the BBC let their totally one-sided policy on global warming be decided by pressure groups. It did their credibility an immense amount of harm.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior.

So what? Google should also be punished for interference in free speech, and the quickest way, and most consistent with American mores, is to open them up to prosecution for the many libels they commit every day. Hallelujah! Amen! If you can't hold two ideas in your head at once, try reading every second paragraph of my posts.

The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

So you admit that Google is gaming the system, benefitting from being declared "not a publisher, not liable to libel," but at the same time enforcing an editorial policy of being against one party and it's leader, who just happens to be in government? Duh.

The simplest solution, of course, is to withdraw the government's oligopoly license to Google, Facebook and Twitter, and let then try to stand on their own feet -- and face all the libel suits their stupid double standards will attract. Now listen to the screams of outrage of the Donkey Party Faithful (the Daffies), who think they have a right to benefit from the present double standard.

What oligopoly license?
Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them immunity from defamation claims for what others post and broadcast through their channels.
They're not licensed at all,
Of course they are, if they're subsidised by Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.
and they are standing on their own two feet,
Rubbish. They get a special and very profitable benefit from the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230. I would have no problem whatsoever making a convincing case that without Section 230 they'd have fewer posters and therefore less income from selling the purchasing habits of posters to advertisers.
except to the extent they're propped up by shareholders, which is an entirely different scam.
that's a minor problem. Be a good citizen, do something about it, for instance: Buy a few shares, go to the shareholder meeting, demand to speak, vote down the management and board. If you do this right, you'll get plenty of press coverage, and the firm will be embarrassed into doing what you want.

On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 9:11:58 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2020 10:29 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 7:52:17 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2020 3:46 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:15:32 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:07:00 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:01:55 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:59:17 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google?

The protection against libel that the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter and others of the same complexion is in fact a license.

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people, whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment.

Of course it is. Why are you throwing around straw men with such gay abandon? No one, least of all Bill Barr, is arguing that Google must carry messages favourable to the government. The argument, when made, will be different. If the People-in-Government give Google et al a privilege/license to broadcast messages free of the libel liability that adheres like an anchor to the publishers of journals, books and broadcasts, these media cannot then claim they are private institutions with a publisher's right to edit or exclude any messages. They can't have it both ways, hiding behind the government's skirts when they libel someone, and claiming publisher's rights when the government has already given them the benefit of protecting them from the disabilities of publishers, which, I repeat, is an incalculable financial advantage.

All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

The Fairness Doctrine, if enforced, would just move the same editorial control into the hands of a different set of the same sort of people. The BBC in Britain, which has a monopoly government grant in that they are the only broadcasters who benefit by the television licence fee, are an excellent example of the failure of fairness doctrines. By way of example, the BBC let their totally one-sided policy on global warming be decided by pressure groups. It did their credibility an immense amount of harm.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior.

So what? Google should also be punished for interference in free speech, and the quickest way, and most consistent with American mores, is to open them up to prosecution for the many libels they commit every day. Hallelujah! Amen! If you can't hold two ideas in your head at once, try reading every second paragraph of my posts.

The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

So you admit that Google is gaming the system, benefitting from being declared "not a publisher, not liable to libel," but at the same time enforcing an editorial policy of being against one party and it's leader, who just happens to be in government? Duh.

The simplest solution, of course, is to withdraw the government's oligopoly license to Google, Facebook and Twitter, and let then try to stand on their own feet -- and face all the libel suits their stupid double standards will attract. Now listen to the screams of outrage of the Donkey Party Faithful (the Daffies), who think they have a right to benefit from the present double standard.

What oligopoly license?

Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them immunity from defamation claims for what others post and broadcast through their channels.

They're not licensed at all,

Of course they are, if they're subsidised by Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.

and they are standing on their own two feet,

Rubbish. They get a special and very profitable benefit from the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230. I would have no problem whatsoever making a convincing case that without Section 230 they'd have fewer posters and therefore less income from selling the purchasing habits of posters to advertisers.

except to the extent they're propped up by shareholders, which is an entirely different scam.

that's a minor problem. Be a good citizen, do something about it, for instance: Buy a few shares, go to the shareholder meeting, demand to speak, vote down the management and board. If you do this right, you'll get plenty of press coverage, and the firm will be embarrassed into doing what you want.

Are you calling for more government regulation? Overt regulation of speech?

Of course I'm not calling for more government regulation. Tom has the right idea: get the government out of the social media altogether by withdrawing government favouritism to Big Tech by withdrawing the subsidy of Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 altogether.

Can we all pick words and phrases we don't like? I want to ban "kicking curs." It's too alliterative and demeaning to dogs.

Of course you can, if you don't mind, come the Revolution, facing a firing squad as an enemy of society for your attack on the common language.. We remember what Paul Johnson said: "The enemies of society will always target the language first."

The Republicans could always repeal the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230, to punish Google by stripping them of defamation protection, but it won't accomplish their goals.

I'm not concerned about Republican goals. I am, however, vitally interested in preserving free speech. See, liberty is indivisible, and without free speech there is anyway no liberty.

Google will just pull the plug on their alt-right homeboys.

So what? Follow the steps. Currently Google, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they foreclose entry to the market. Teddy Roosevelt was right: pure size is a constraint on the market. With Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition. Therefore the alt.right and the alt.everything will be able to start up their own channels. There will be no need for government regulation and control, because the market will provide it free of charge.

That statute is the only reason why Alex Jones has access to the internet. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rules-n1109096

Again, so what, even if you're right, which you're not? Read my immediately previous analysis to grasp why Alex Jones, whoever he may be, will find a more congenial home without the shadow of Google etc squashing everything into a one-sized-fits-all homogenous, glutinous mess of political correctness. I find it very strange that the very people who claim to own "diversity" are so intent on turning everything into a homogenous, glutinous mess -- except the BLM, whose policy appears to be apartheid, which is strict social and economic separation by skin colour with one colour dominant.

Without immunity, no platform with assets would host half of the alt-right nut-cases. And if you don't know Alex Jones, educate yourself. He is your people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones https://www.infowars..com/

I know as much about Alex Jones as is necessary, which is that he was an obscure demagogue easy to pass by until Big Tech took it on themselves to make him famous by presuming that their prissy-mouthed opinions are worth more than his and therefore they should shut him up because they and the other herd mentalities associated with the Donkey Party are incapable of debating him.

To avoid suit, the platforms would have to behave like the TV networks of yore and censor.

So let them. Soon they'll be censoring the Donkey Party's pinko-commie-fellow-travellers. They won't be in business long now the mob has had a taste of freedom. They'll go back to letting the left, and possibly the right, say what they will, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. It will be Christmas 24/365 for even the most incompetent ambulance chaser in the land. You should be promoting this outcome, Jay; even as we speak the little cancellers of your own herd are running to the Bar Council to denounce you as against bigger, BIGGER incomes for lawyers.

I wouldn't care because I'm tired of the lies and half-truths from all sides. All liars should be called out regardless of political stripe. Liberal lies are not better than conservative lies.

That's a fraudulent equivalence argument. Liberals of my stripe, what you in your leftie-word-grabbing style call conservatives, don't have to lie. We have reason and morality and precedent on our side. Also, we're better organisers and more efficient managers, so we know how to make our revolutions stick, one proven step at a time. All it takes is a concentration span longer than 30 second, which your bunch of instant-gratifiers clearly don't have.

-- Jay Beattie.
NO revolutions

Like I said yesterday, this ennui so close to an election is a sign that in your maturity you've started to wonder why the violent, lying, inarticulate clowns on you side are so eminently sneerable. You should join the good people while they'll still have you.

Andre Jute
Quite a few successful revolutions

Nothing about this enhances Mr Beattie's career or earnings
as he does insurance defense.

Similarly my ex, who retired from defending northern
California pot growers in the 9th Circuit, earns a nice
living lecturing attorneys on Federal drug evidence rules
and techniques. She's the last person you'd hire for traffic
court or a lease negotiation.
But what are all of these hard leftists going to say when it turns out to be more profitable for hard right businessmen to take over these platforms and use their own rules against them. Once this occurs the left has lost so big that they will never recover. And the Congress is about to make people like Facebook and Twitter more than extremely uncomfortable because they have effectively run campaigns for Biden. This is illegal campaign contributions and is likely to become extremely troublesome financially.



Never say never.

Issues and philosophy aside, the irresistible temptation for
overreach undoes every successful wave in politics.

Tom needs to read Citizens United, a case pursued by a conservative PAC and hailed by Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Google can do all the political advertising it wants. It could have an opening page that says "Welcome to Google, F*** Donald Trump." It can run is own Biden ads 24/7. And Fox News can run is own Trump Ads 24/7 and sling Hunter mud until it runs out. The driver is advertising revenue and what happens if you ****-off your advertisers and their customers.



-- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 9:53:07 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 9:11:58 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2020 10:29 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 7:52:17 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2020 3:46 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:15:32 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:07:00 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:01:55 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:59:17 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google?

The protection against libel that the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter and others of the same complexion is in fact a license.

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people, whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment.

Of course it is. Why are you throwing around straw men with such gay abandon? No one, least of all Bill Barr, is arguing that Google must carry messages favourable to the government. The argument, when made, will be different. If the People-in-Government give Google et al a privilege/license to broadcast messages free of the libel liability that adheres like an anchor to the publishers of journals, books and broadcasts, these media cannot then claim they are private institutions with a publisher's right to edit or exclude any messages. They can't have it both ways, hiding behind the government's skirts when they libel someone, and claiming publisher's rights when the government has already given them the benefit of protecting them from the disabilities of publishers, which, I repeat, is an incalculable financial advantage.

All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

The Fairness Doctrine, if enforced, would just move the same editorial control into the hands of a different set of the same sort of people. The BBC in Britain, which has a monopoly government grant in that they are the only broadcasters who benefit by the television licence fee, are an excellent example of the failure of fairness doctrines. By way of example, the BBC let their totally one-sided policy on global warming be decided by pressure groups. It did their credibility an immense amount of harm.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior.

So what? Google should also be punished for interference in free speech, and the quickest way, and most consistent with American mores, is to open them up to prosecution for the many libels they commit every day. Hallelujah! Amen! If you can't hold two ideas in your head at once, try reading every second paragraph of my posts.

The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

So you admit that Google is gaming the system, benefitting from being declared "not a publisher, not liable to libel," but at the same time enforcing an editorial policy of being against one party and it's leader, who just happens to be in government? Duh.

The simplest solution, of course, is to withdraw the government's oligopoly license to Google, Facebook and Twitter, and let then try to stand on their own feet -- and face all the libel suits their stupid double standards will attract. Now listen to the screams of outrage of the Donkey Party Faithful (the Daffies), who think they have a right to benefit from the present double standard.

What oligopoly license?

Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them immunity from defamation claims for what others post and broadcast through their channels.

They're not licensed at all,

Of course they are, if they're subsidised by Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.

and they are standing on their own two feet,

Rubbish. They get a special and very profitable benefit from the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230. I would have no problem whatsoever making a convincing case that without Section 230 they'd have fewer posters and therefore less income from selling the purchasing habits of posters to advertisers.

except to the extent they're propped up by shareholders, which is an entirely different scam.

that's a minor problem. Be a good citizen, do something about it, for instance: Buy a few shares, go to the shareholder meeting, demand to speak, vote down the management and board. If you do this right, you'll get plenty of press coverage, and the firm will be embarrassed into doing what you want.

Are you calling for more government regulation? Overt regulation of speech?

Of course I'm not calling for more government regulation. Tom has the right idea: get the government out of the social media altogether by withdrawing government favouritism to Big Tech by withdrawing the subsidy of Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 altogether.

Can we all pick words and phrases we don't like? I want to ban "kicking curs." It's too alliterative and demeaning to dogs.

Of course you can, if you don't mind, come the Revolution, facing a firing squad as an enemy of society for your attack on the common language. We remember what Paul Johnson said: "The enemies of society will always target the language first."

The Republicans could always repeal the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230, to punish Google by stripping them of defamation protection, but it won't accomplish their goals.

I'm not concerned about Republican goals. I am, however, vitally interested in preserving free speech. See, liberty is indivisible, and without free speech there is anyway no liberty.

Google will just pull the plug on their alt-right homeboys.

So what? Follow the steps. Currently Google, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they foreclose entry to the market. Teddy Roosevelt was right: pure size is a constraint on the market. With Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition. Therefore the alt.right and the alt.everything will be able to start up their own channels. There will be no need for government regulation and control, because the market will provide it free of charge.

That statute is the only reason why Alex Jones has access to the internet. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rules-n1109096

Again, so what, even if you're right, which you're not? Read my immediately previous analysis to grasp why Alex Jones, whoever he may be, will find a more congenial home without the shadow of Google etc squashing everything into a one-sized-fits-all homogenous, glutinous mess of political correctness. I find it very strange that the very people who claim to own "diversity" are so intent on turning everything into a homogenous, glutinous mess -- except the BLM, whose policy appears to be apartheid, which is strict social and economic separation by skin colour with one colour dominant.

Without immunity, no platform with assets would host half of the alt-right nut-cases. And if you don't know Alex Jones, educate yourself. He is your people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones https://www.infowars.com/

I know as much about Alex Jones as is necessary, which is that he was an obscure demagogue easy to pass by until Big Tech took it on themselves to make him famous by presuming that their prissy-mouthed opinions are worth more than his and therefore they should shut him up because they and the other herd mentalities associated with the Donkey Party are incapable of debating him.

To avoid suit, the platforms would have to behave like the TV networks of yore and censor.

So let them. Soon they'll be censoring the Donkey Party's pinko-commie-fellow-travellers. They won't be in business long now the mob has had a taste of freedom. They'll go back to letting the left, and possibly the right, say what they will, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. It will be Christmas 24/365 for even the most incompetent ambulance chaser in the land. You should be promoting this outcome, Jay; even as we speak the little cancellers of your own herd are running to the Bar Council to denounce you as against bigger, BIGGER incomes for lawyers.

I wouldn't care because I'm tired of the lies and half-truths from all sides. All liars should be called out regardless of political stripe. Liberal lies are not better than conservative lies.

That's a fraudulent equivalence argument. Liberals of my stripe, what you in your leftie-word-grabbing style call conservatives, don't have to lie. We have reason and morality and precedent on our side. Also, we're better organisers and more efficient managers, so we know how to make our revolutions stick, one proven step at a time. All it takes is a concentration span longer than 30 second, which your bunch of instant-gratifiers clearly don't have.

-- Jay Beattie.
NO revolutions

Like I said yesterday, this ennui so close to an election is a sign that in your maturity you've started to wonder why the violent, lying, inarticulate clowns on you side are so eminently sneerable. You should join the good people while they'll still have you.

Andre Jute
Quite a few successful revolutions

Nothing about this enhances Mr Beattie's career or earnings
as he does insurance defense.

Similarly my ex, who retired from defending northern
California pot growers in the 9th Circuit, earns a nice
living lecturing attorneys on Federal drug evidence rules
and techniques. She's the last person you'd hire for traffic
court or a lease negotiation.
But what are all of these hard leftists going to say when it turns out to be more profitable for hard right businessmen to take over these platforms and use their own rules against them. Once this occurs the left has lost so big that they will never recover. And the Congress is about to make people like Facebook and Twitter more than extremely uncomfortable because they have effectively run campaigns for Biden. This is illegal campaign contributions and is likely to become extremely troublesome financially.



Never say never.

Issues and philosophy aside, the irresistible temptation for
overreach undoes every successful wave in politics.
Tom needs to read Citizens United, a case pursued by a conservative PAC and hailed by Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Google can do all the political advertising it wants. It could have an opening page that says "Welcome to Google, F*** Donald Trump." It can run is own Biden ads 24/7. And Fox News can run is own Trump Ads 24/7 and sling Hunter mud until it runs out. The driver is advertising revenue and what happens if you ****-off your advertisers and their customers.
Do you really believe that the far leftist that own the social media are going to continue on the path once it is not longer profitable? Then what are you going to say when the shoes are on the other feet?

On 10/25/2020 1:02 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 9:53:07 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 9:11:58 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2020 10:29 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 7:52:17 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2020 3:46 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:15:32 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:07:00 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:01:55 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:59:17 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google?

The protection against libel that the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter and others of the same complexion is in fact a license.

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people, whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment.

Of course it is. Why are you throwing around straw men with such gay abandon? No one, least of all Bill Barr, is arguing that Google must carry messages favourable to the government. The argument, when made, will be different. If the People-in-Government give Google et al a privilege/license to broadcast messages free of the libel liability that adheres like an anchor to the publishers of journals, books and broadcasts, these media cannot then claim they are private institutions with a publisher's right to edit or exclude any messages. They can't have it both ways, hiding behind the government's skirts when they libel someone, and claiming publisher's rights when the government has already given them the benefit of protecting them from the disabilities of publishers, which, I repeat, is an incalculable financial advantage.

All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

The Fairness Doctrine, if enforced, would just move the same editorial control into the hands of a different set of the same sort of people. The BBC in Britain, which has a monopoly government grant in that they are the only broadcasters who benefit by the television licence fee, are an excellent example of the failure of fairness doctrines. By way of example, the BBC let their totally one-sided policy on global warming be decided by pressure groups. It did their credibility an immense amount of harm.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior.

So what? Google should also be punished for interference in free speech, and the quickest way, and most consistent with American mores, is to open them up to prosecution for the many libels they commit every day. Hallelujah! Amen! If you can't hold two ideas in your head at once, try reading every second paragraph of my posts.

The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

So you admit that Google is gaming the system, benefitting from being declared "not a publisher, not liable to libel," but at the same time enforcing an editorial policy of being against one party and it's leader, who just happens to be in government? Duh.

The simplest solution, of course, is to withdraw the government's oligopoly license to Google, Facebook and Twitter, and let then try to stand on their own feet -- and face all the libel suits their stupid double standards will attract. Now listen to the screams of outrage of the Donkey Party Faithful (the Daffies), who think they have a right to benefit from the present double standard.

What oligopoly license?

Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them immunity from defamation claims for what others post and broadcast through their channels.

They're not licensed at all,

Of course they are, if they're subsidised by Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.

and they are standing on their own two feet,

Rubbish. They get a special and very profitable benefit from the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230. I would have no problem whatsoever making a convincing case that without Section 230 they'd have fewer posters and therefore less income from selling the purchasing habits of posters to advertisers.

except to the extent they're propped up by shareholders, which is an entirely different scam.

that's a minor problem. Be a good citizen, do something about it, for instance: Buy a few shares, go to the shareholder meeting, demand to speak, vote down the management and board. If you do this right, you'll get plenty of press coverage, and the firm will be embarrassed into doing what you want.

Are you calling for more government regulation? Overt regulation of speech?

Of course I'm not calling for more government regulation. Tom has the right idea: get the government out of the social media altogether by withdrawing government favouritism to Big Tech by withdrawing the subsidy of Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 altogether.

Can we all pick words and phrases we don't like? I want to ban "kicking curs." It's too alliterative and demeaning to dogs.

Of course you can, if you don't mind, come the Revolution, facing a firing squad as an enemy of society for your attack on the common language. We remember what Paul Johnson said: "The enemies of society will always target the language first."

The Republicans could always repeal the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230, to punish Google by stripping them of defamation protection, but it won't accomplish their goals.

I'm not concerned about Republican goals. I am, however, vitally interested in preserving free speech. See, liberty is indivisible, and without free speech there is anyway no liberty.

Google will just pull the plug on their alt-right homeboys.

So what? Follow the steps. Currently Google, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they foreclose entry to the market. Teddy Roosevelt was right: pure size is a constraint on the market. With Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition. Therefore the alt.right and the alt.everything will be able to start up their own channels. There will be no need for government regulation and control, because the market will provide it free of charge.

That statute is the only reason why Alex Jones has access to the internet. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rules-n1109096

Again, so what, even if you're right, which you're not? Read my immediately previous analysis to grasp why Alex Jones, whoever he may be, will find a more congenial home without the shadow of Google etc squashing everything into a one-sized-fits-all homogenous, glutinous mess of political correctness. I find it very strange that the very people who claim to own "diversity" are so intent on turning everything into a homogenous, glutinous mess -- except the BLM, whose policy appears to be apartheid, which is strict social and economic separation by skin colour with one colour dominant.

Without immunity, no platform with assets would host half of the alt-right nut-cases. And if you don't know Alex Jones, educate yourself. He is your people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones https://www.infowars.com/

I know as much about Alex Jones as is necessary, which is that he was an obscure demagogue easy to pass by until Big Tech took it on themselves to make him famous by presuming that their prissy-mouthed opinions are worth more than his and therefore they should shut him up because they and the other herd mentalities associated with the Donkey Party are incapable of debating him.

To avoid suit, the platforms would have to behave like the TV networks of yore and censor.

So let them. Soon they'll be censoring the Donkey Party's pinko-commie-fellow-travellers. They won't be in business long now the mob has had a taste of freedom. They'll go back to letting the left, and possibly the right, say what they will, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. It will be Christmas 24/365 for even the most incompetent ambulance chaser in the land. You should be promoting this outcome, Jay; even as we speak the little cancellers of your own herd are running to the Bar Council to denounce you as against bigger, BIGGER incomes for lawyers.

I wouldn't care because I'm tired of the lies and half-truths from all sides. All liars should be called out regardless of political stripe. Liberal lies are not better than conservative lies.

That's a fraudulent equivalence argument. Liberals of my stripe, what you in your leftie-word-grabbing style call conservatives, don't have to lie. We have reason and morality and precedent on our side. Also, we're better organisers and more efficient managers, so we know how to make our revolutions stick, one proven step at a time. All it takes is a concentration span longer than 30 second, which your bunch of instant-gratifiers clearly don't have.

-- Jay Beattie.
NO revolutions

Like I said yesterday, this ennui so close to an election is a sign that in your maturity you've started to wonder why the violent, lying, inarticulate clowns on you side are so eminently sneerable. You should join the good people while they'll still have you.

Andre Jute
Quite a few successful revolutions

Nothing about this enhances Mr Beattie's career or earnings
as he does insurance defense.

Similarly my ex, who retired from defending northern
California pot growers in the 9th Circuit, earns a nice
living lecturing attorneys on Federal drug evidence rules
and techniques. She's the last person you'd hire for traffic
court or a lease negotiation.
But what are all of these hard leftists going to say when it turns out to be more profitable for hard right businessmen to take over these platforms and use their own rules against them. Once this occurs the left has lost so big that they will never recover. And the Congress is about to make people like Facebook and Twitter more than extremely uncomfortable because they have effectively run campaigns for Biden. This is illegal campaign contributions and is likely to become extremely troublesome financially.



Never say never.

Issues and philosophy aside, the irresistible temptation for
overreach undoes every successful wave in politics.
Tom needs to read Citizens United, a case pursued by a conservative PAC and hailed by Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Google can do all the political advertising it wants. It could have an opening page that says "Welcome to Google, F*** Donald Trump." It can run is own Biden ads 24/7. And Fox News can run is own Trump Ads 24/7 and sling Hunter mud until it runs out. The driver is advertising revenue and what happens if you ****-off your advertisers and their customers.
Do you really believe that the far leftist that own the social media are going to continue on the path once it is not longer profitable? Then what are you going to say when the shoes are on the other feet?



NYT has been under water for years. They don't even own
their building any more and a chunk is owned by Carlos Slim
fer chrissakes.
Mr Bozos white-knighted WaPo from its dance toward
bankruptcy court.

What ever made you think profitability might interfere with
advancing ideology of The Party?

The tech entities are profitable because, while enjoying
'free' access, YOU are the product and they know how to sell
it, over and over.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 2:52:17 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2020 3:46 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:15:32 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:07:00 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:01:55 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:59:17 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory.. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google?

The protection against libel that the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter and others of the same complexion is in fact a license.

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people, whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment.

Of course it is. Why are you throwing around straw men with such gay abandon? No one, least of all Bill Barr, is arguing that Google must carry messages favourable to the government. The argument, when made, will be different. If the People-in-Government give Google et al a privilege/license to broadcast messages free of the libel liability that adheres like an anchor to the publishers of journals, books and broadcasts, these media cannot then claim they are private institutions with a publisher's right to edit or exclude any messages. They can't have it both ways, hiding behind the government's skirts when they libel someone, and claiming publisher's rights when the government has already given them the benefit of protecting them from the disabilities of publishers, which, I repeat, is an incalculable financial advantage.

All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

The Fairness Doctrine, if enforced, would just move the same editorial control into the hands of a different set of the same sort of people. The BBC in Britain, which has a monopoly government grant in that they are the only broadcasters who benefit by the television licence fee, are an excellent example of the failure of fairness doctrines. By way of example, the BBC let their totally one-sided policy on global warming be decided by pressure groups. It did their credibility an immense amount of harm.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior.

So what? Google should also be punished for interference in free speech, and the quickest way, and most consistent with American mores, is to open them up to prosecution for the many libels they commit every day. Hallelujah! Amen! If you can't hold two ideas in your head at once, try reading every second paragraph of my posts.

The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

So you admit that Google is gaming the system, benefitting from being declared "not a publisher, not liable to libel," but at the same time enforcing an editorial policy of being against one party and it's leader, who just happens to be in government? Duh.

The simplest solution, of course, is to withdraw the government's oligopoly license to Google, Facebook and Twitter, and let then try to stand on their own feet -- and face all the libel suits their stupid double standards will attract. Now listen to the screams of outrage of the Donkey Party Faithful (the Daffies), who think they have a right to benefit from the present double standard.

What oligopoly license?

Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them immunity from defamation claims for what others post and broadcast through their channels.

They're not licensed at all,

Of course they are, if they're subsidised by Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.

and they are standing on their own two feet,

Rubbish. They get a special and very profitable benefit from the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230. I would have no problem whatsoever making a convincing case that without Section 230 they'd have fewer posters and therefore less income from selling the purchasing habits of posters to advertisers.

except to the extent they're propped up by shareholders, which is an entirely different scam.

that's a minor problem. Be a good citizen, do something about it, for instance: Buy a few shares, go to the shareholder meeting, demand to speak, vote down the management and board. If you do this right, you'll get plenty of press coverage, and the firm will be embarrassed into doing what you want.

Are you calling for more government regulation? Overt regulation of speech?

Of course I'm not calling for more government regulation. Tom has the right idea: get the government out of the social media altogether by withdrawing government favouritism to Big Tech by withdrawing the subsidy of Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 altogether.

Can we all pick words and phrases we don't like? I want to ban "kicking curs." It's too alliterative and demeaning to dogs.

Of course you can, if you don't mind, come the Revolution, facing a firing squad as an enemy of society for your attack on the common language. We remember what Paul Johnson said: "The enemies of society will always target the language first."

The Republicans could always repeal the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230, to punish Google by stripping them of defamation protection, but it won't accomplish their goals.

I'm not concerned about Republican goals. I am, however, vitally interested in preserving free speech. See, liberty is indivisible, and without free speech there is anyway no liberty.

Google will just pull the plug on their alt-right homeboys.

So what? Follow the steps. Currently Google, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they foreclose entry to the market. Teddy Roosevelt was right: pure size is a constraint on the market. With Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition. Therefore the alt.right and the alt.everything will be able to start up their own channels. There will be no need for government regulation and control, because the market will provide it free of charge.

That statute is the only reason why Alex Jones has access to the internet. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rules-n1109096

Again, so what, even if you're right, which you're not? Read my immediately previous analysis to grasp why Alex Jones, whoever he may be, will find a more congenial home without the shadow of Google etc squashing everything into a one-sized-fits-all homogenous, glutinous mess of political correctness. I find it very strange that the very people who claim to own "diversity" are so intent on turning everything into a homogenous, glutinous mess -- except the BLM, whose policy appears to be apartheid, which is strict social and economic separation by skin colour with one colour dominant.

Without immunity, no platform with assets would host half of the alt-right nut-cases. And if you don't know Alex Jones, educate yourself. He is your people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones https://www.infowars.com/

I know as much about Alex Jones as is necessary, which is that he was an obscure demagogue easy to pass by until Big Tech took it on themselves to make him famous by presuming that their prissy-mouthed opinions are worth more than his and therefore they should shut him up because they and the other herd mentalities associated with the Donkey Party are incapable of debating him.

To avoid suit, the platforms would have to behave like the TV networks of yore and censor.

So let them. Soon they'll be censoring the Donkey Party's pinko-commie-fellow-travellers. They won't be in business long now the mob has had a taste of freedom. They'll go back to letting the left, and possibly the right, say what they will, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. It will be Christmas 24/365 for even the most incompetent ambulance chaser in the land. You should be promoting this outcome, Jay; even as we speak the little cancellers of your own herd are running to the Bar Council to denounce you as against bigger, BIGGER incomes for lawyers.

I wouldn't care because I'm tired of the lies and half-truths from all sides. All liars should be called out regardless of political stripe. Liberal lies are not better than conservative lies.

That's a fraudulent equivalence argument. Liberals of my stripe, what you in your leftie-word-grabbing style call conservatives, don't have to lie.. We have reason and morality and precedent on our side. Also, we're better organisers and more efficient managers, so we know how to make our revolutions stick, one proven step at a time. All it takes is a concentration span longer than 30 second, which your bunch of instant-gratifiers clearly don't have.

-- Jay Beattie.
NO revolutions

Like I said yesterday, this ennui so close to an election is a sign that in your maturity you've started to wonder why the violent, lying, inarticulate clowns on you side are so eminently sneerable. You should join the good people while they'll still have you.

Andre Jute
Quite a few successful revolutions

Nothing about this enhances Mr Beattie's career or earnings
as he does insurance defense.

True, and all the more reason the other lawyers should want to trade on his respectability.

Similarly my ex, who retired from defending northern
California pot growers in the 9th Circuit, earns a nice
living lecturing attorneys on Federal drug evidence rules
and techniques. She's the last person you'd hire for traffic
court or a lease negotiation.

How do you let a woman who knows so many pot growers get away?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andre Jute
Hypotheticals are free

On 10/25/2020 5:33 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 2:52:17 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2020 3:46 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:15:32 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:07:00 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:01:55 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:59:17 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google?

The protection against libel that the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter and others of the same complexion is in fact a license.

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people, whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment.

Of course it is. Why are you throwing around straw men with such gay abandon? No one, least of all Bill Barr, is arguing that Google must carry messages favourable to the government. The argument, when made, will be different. If the People-in-Government give Google et al a privilege/license to broadcast messages free of the libel liability that adheres like an anchor to the publishers of journals, books and broadcasts, these media cannot then claim they are private institutions with a publisher's right to edit or exclude any messages. They can't have it both ways, hiding behind the government's skirts when they libel someone, and claiming publisher's rights when the government has already given them the benefit of protecting them from the disabilities of publishers, which, I repeat, is an incalculable financial advantage.

All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

The Fairness Doctrine, if enforced, would just move the same editorial control into the hands of a different set of the same sort of people. The BBC in Britain, which has a monopoly government grant in that they are the only broadcasters who benefit by the television licence fee, are an excellent example of the failure of fairness doctrines. By way of example, the BBC let their totally one-sided policy on global warming be decided by pressure groups. It did their credibility an immense amount of harm.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior.

So what? Google should also be punished for interference in free speech, and the quickest way, and most consistent with American mores, is to open them up to prosecution for the many libels they commit every day. Hallelujah! Amen! If you can't hold two ideas in your head at once, try reading every second paragraph of my posts.

The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

So you admit that Google is gaming the system, benefitting from being declared "not a publisher, not liable to libel," but at the same time enforcing an editorial policy of being against one party and it's leader, who just happens to be in government? Duh.

The simplest solution, of course, is to withdraw the government's oligopoly license to Google, Facebook and Twitter, and let then try to stand on their own feet -- and face all the libel suits their stupid double standards will attract. Now listen to the screams of outrage of the Donkey Party Faithful (the Daffies), who think they have a right to benefit from the present double standard.

What oligopoly license?

Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them immunity from defamation claims for what others post and broadcast through their channels.

They're not licensed at all,

Of course they are, if they're subsidised by Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.

and they are standing on their own two feet,

Rubbish. They get a special and very profitable benefit from the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230. I would have no problem whatsoever making a convincing case that without Section 230 they'd have fewer posters and therefore less income from selling the purchasing habits of posters to advertisers.

except to the extent they're propped up by shareholders, which is an entirely different scam.

that's a minor problem. Be a good citizen, do something about it, for instance: Buy a few shares, go to the shareholder meeting, demand to speak, vote down the management and board. If you do this right, you'll get plenty of press coverage, and the firm will be embarrassed into doing what you want.

Are you calling for more government regulation? Overt regulation of speech?

Of course I'm not calling for more government regulation. Tom has the right idea: get the government out of the social media altogether by withdrawing government favouritism to Big Tech by withdrawing the subsidy of Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 altogether.

Can we all pick words and phrases we don't like? I want to ban "kicking curs." It's too alliterative and demeaning to dogs.

Of course you can, if you don't mind, come the Revolution, facing a firing squad as an enemy of society for your attack on the common language. We remember what Paul Johnson said: "The enemies of society will always target the language first."

The Republicans could always repeal the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230, to punish Google by stripping them of defamation protection, but it won't accomplish their goals.

I'm not concerned about Republican goals. I am, however, vitally interested in preserving free speech. See, liberty is indivisible, and without free speech there is anyway no liberty.

Google will just pull the plug on their alt-right homeboys.

So what? Follow the steps. Currently Google, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they foreclose entry to the market. Teddy Roosevelt was right: pure size is a constraint on the market. With Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition. Therefore the alt.right and the alt.everything will be able to start up their own channels. There will be no need for government regulation and control, because the market will provide it free of charge.

That statute is the only reason why Alex Jones has access to the internet. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rules-n1109096

Again, so what, even if you're right, which you're not? Read my immediately previous analysis to grasp why Alex Jones, whoever he may be, will find a more congenial home without the shadow of Google etc squashing everything into a one-sized-fits-all homogenous, glutinous mess of political correctness. I find it very strange that the very people who claim to own "diversity" are so intent on turning everything into a homogenous, glutinous mess -- except the BLM, whose policy appears to be apartheid, which is strict social and economic separation by skin colour with one colour dominant.

Without immunity, no platform with assets would host half of the alt-right nut-cases. And if you don't know Alex Jones, educate yourself. He is your people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones https://www.infowars.com/

I know as much about Alex Jones as is necessary, which is that he was an obscure demagogue easy to pass by until Big Tech took it on themselves to make him famous by presuming that their prissy-mouthed opinions are worth more than his and therefore they should shut him up because they and the other herd mentalities associated with the Donkey Party are incapable of debating him.

To avoid suit, the platforms would have to behave like the TV networks of yore and censor.

So let them. Soon they'll be censoring the Donkey Party's pinko-commie-fellow-travellers. They won't be in business long now the mob has had a taste of freedom. They'll go back to letting the left, and possibly the right, say what they will, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. It will be Christmas 24/365 for even the most incompetent ambulance chaser in the land. You should be promoting this outcome, Jay; even as we speak the little cancellers of your own herd are running to the Bar Council to denounce you as against bigger, BIGGER incomes for lawyers.

I wouldn't care because I'm tired of the lies and half-truths from all sides. All liars should be called out regardless of political stripe. Liberal lies are not better than conservative lies.

That's a fraudulent equivalence argument. Liberals of my stripe, what you in your leftie-word-grabbing style call conservatives, don't have to lie. We have reason and morality and precedent on our side. Also, we're better organisers and more efficient managers, so we know how to make our revolutions stick, one proven step at a time. All it takes is a concentration span longer than 30 second, which your bunch of instant-gratifiers clearly don't have.

-- Jay Beattie.
NO revolutions

Like I said yesterday, this ennui so close to an election is a sign that in your maturity you've started to wonder why the violent, lying, inarticulate clowns on you side are so eminently sneerable. You should join the good people while they'll still have you.

Andre Jute
Quite a few successful revolutions

Nothing about this enhances Mr Beattie's career or earnings
as he does insurance defense.

True, and all the more reason the other lawyers should want to trade on his respectability.

Similarly my ex, who retired from defending northern
California pot growers in the 9th Circuit, earns a nice
living lecturing attorneys on Federal drug evidence rules
and techniques. She's the last person you'd hire for traffic
court or a lease negotiation.

How do you let a woman who knows so many pot growers get away?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andre Jute
Hypotheticals are free


I don't smoke it so I don't care either way. meh.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 08:29:15 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


But what are all of these hard leftists going to say when it turns out
to be more profitable for hard right businessmen to take over

That happened decades ago.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 09:13:06 -0700, jbeattie wrote:



Wakey wakey Andre, punishing Google by removing section 230 protections
will end the conspiracy mill that is the business of alt-right. No more
Qanon. No more Twitter nonsense from the president. No more Usenet after
someone sues Google or Eternal Spring or some other provider for your
spew. You will be quarantined.

Interestingly, some of the oldest spam squasher techniques are making a
come back. Apparently, ARIN has been alerted to the fact that two
'concerns' who provide hosting and internet connections for a significant
number of the radical-right (Qanon/8chan/8kon/??) are no longer meeting
their legislated requirements for existence and the expectation is that
ARIN should recover the significant number of IP4v addresses.

On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 4:13:10 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:48:58 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
"With Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition."
SHOULD OF COURSE READ:
"WithOUT Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition."

On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 12:07:00 AM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:01:55 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:59:17 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...70ea166e8..jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google?

The protection against libel that the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter and others of the same complexion is in fact a license.

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people, whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment.

Of course it is. Why are you throwing around straw men with such gay abandon? No one, least of all Bill Barr, is arguing that Google must carry messages favourable to the government. The argument, when made, will be different. If the People-in-Government give Google et al a privilege/license to broadcast messages free of the libel liability that adheres like an anchor to the publishers of journals, books and broadcasts, these media cannot then claim they are private institutions with a publisher's right to edit or exclude any messages. They can't have it both ways, hiding behind the government's skirts when they libel someone, and claiming publisher's rights when the government has already given them the benefit of protecting them from the disabilities of publishers, which, I repeat, is an incalculable financial advantage.

All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

The Fairness Doctrine, if enforced, would just move the same editorial control into the hands of a different set of the same sort of people. The BBC in Britain, which has a monopoly government grant in that they are the only broadcasters who benefit by the television licence fee, are an excellent example of the failure of fairness doctrines. By way of example, the BBC let their totally one-sided policy on global warming be decided by pressure groups. It did their credibility an immense amount of harm.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior.

So what? Google should also be punished for interference in free speech, and the quickest way, and most consistent with American mores, is to open them up to prosecution for the many libels they commit every day. Hallelujah! Amen! If you can't hold two ideas in your head at once, try reading every second paragraph of my posts.

The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

So you admit that Google is gaming the system, benefitting from being declared "not a publisher, not liable to libel," but at the same time enforcing an editorial policy of being against one party and it's leader, who just happens to be in government? Duh.

The simplest solution, of course, is to withdraw the government's oligopoly license to Google, Facebook and Twitter, and let then try to stand on their own feet -- and face all the libel suits their stupid double standards will attract. Now listen to the screams of outrage of the Donkey Party Faithful (the Daffies), who think they have a right to benefit from the present double standard.

What oligopoly license?
Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them immunity from defamation claims for what others post and broadcast through their channels.
They're not licensed at all,
Of course they are, if they're subsidised by Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.
and they are standing on their own two feet,
Rubbish. They get a special and very profitable benefit from the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230. I would have no problem whatsoever making a convincing case that without Section 230 they'd have fewer posters and therefore less income from selling the purchasing habits of posters to advertisers.
except to the extent they're propped up by shareholders, which is an entirely different scam.
that's a minor problem. Be a good citizen, do something about it, for instance: Buy a few shares, go to the shareholder meeting, demand to speak, vote down the management and board. If you do this right, you'll get plenty of press coverage, and the firm will be embarrassed into doing what you want.
Are you calling for more government regulation? Overt regulation of speech?
Of course I'm not calling for more government regulation. Tom has the right idea: get the government out of the social media altogether by withdrawing government favouritism to Big Tech by withdrawing the subsidy of Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 altogether.
Can we all pick words and phrases we don't like? I want to ban "kicking curs." It's too alliterative and demeaning to dogs.
Of course you can, if you don't mind, come the Revolution, facing a firing squad as an enemy of society for your attack on the common language. We remember what Paul Johnson said: "The enemies of society will always target the language first."
The Republicans could always repeal the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230, to punish Google by stripping them of defamation protection, but it won't accomplish their goals.
I'm not concerned about Republican goals. I am, however, vitally interested in preserving free speech. See, liberty is indivisible, and without free speech there is anyway no liberty.
Google will just pull the plug on their alt-right homeboys.
So what? Follow the steps. Currently Google, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they foreclose entry to the market. Teddy Roosevelt was right: pure size is a constraint on the market. With Section 230, and a great many other groups they won't be able to afford, they will also have fewer hot bods to sell to advertisers, and less money to spend on choking off competition. Therefore the alt.right and the alt.everything will be able to start up their own channels. There will be no need for government regulation and control, because the market will provide it free of charge.
That statute is the only reason why Alex Jones has access to the internet. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rules-n1109096
Again, so what, even if you're right, which you're not? Read my immediately previous analysis to grasp why Alex Jones, whoever he may be, will find a more congenial home without the shadow of Google etc squashing everything into a one-sized-fits-all homogenous, glutinous mess of political correctness. I find it very strange that the very people who claim to own "diversity" are so intent on turning everything into a homogenous, glutinous mess -- except the BLM, whose policy appears to be apartheid, which is strict social and economic separation by skin colour with one colour dominant.

-- Jay Beattie.

Wakey wakey, Jay, the clock's running out on these Donkey Party wreckers you have carelessly enabled.
Wakey wakey Andre, punishing Google by removing section 230 protections will end the conspiracy mill that is the business of alt-right.

And that's your answer to my closely reasoned case against Big Tech, to try and associate me with the alt.right, whatever it may be? Typical of the modern Left to run away when they meet someone with brains to seek recourse in mindless condemnation by false association.

No more Qanon.

More crows of a feather bull****. I'm disappointed in you, Counsellor.

No more Twitter nonsense from the president.

I rather enjoy Mr Trump's refreshingly honest tweets. His enemies didn't think FDR should have access to the radio, either.

No more Usenet after someone sues Google or Eternal Spring or some other provider for your spew.

Nah. They'll have to cite me as a co-defendent. Work it out from there. Anyway, I never say anything defamatory unless it is necessary in the public interest to say it.

You will be quarantined.

Wishful thinking. Anyway, it's been tried more than once, and failed every time.

-- Jay Beattie.

Andre Jute
Sober. Judicious. Moral.