PragerU

[PocketZeven]

Your ship is coming in. Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Facebook and Google, replacing them with government regulated statutory monopolies. This is primarily motivated by 'concern' over what Facebook and Google allowed to happen in 2016.

Is there a source for this bold claim?

edit: breaking up a company does not mean replacing them with government regulated monopolies... Where on earth did you receive this misleading information?

 

[Dotini]

Is there a source for this bold claim?

edit: breaking up a company does not mean replacing them with government regulated monopolies... Where on earth did you receive this misleading information?

Ever since March of this year, Warren's campaign and every major news outlet in the US has reported extensively on Warren's plan to investigate, break-up and regulate high tech giants such as Facebook, Google and Amazon. She is doing this on the basis of existing antitrust (monopoly) legislation. The situation is currently that of monopoly. But monopolies are not necessarily bad and in fact can be good, even highly desirable. This means that Facebook and Google will not be actually dissolved or broken in bits or receive competition from small companies or brick and mortar. No. They will be regulated. They will stay on as valuable and useful monopolies, but will become statutory, legal monopolies. "Platform utilities", as
Warren says. The bottom line is that Facebook and Google, by platforming liars, fakers and propagandists like Russia, Steve Bannon, Breitbart and Trump, enabled and allowed the wrong person, a dangerous loose cannon, to be elected President in 2016. That cannot be allowed to happen again.
https://www.investopedia.com/how-will-elizabeth-warren-break-up-big-tech-4772263
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/legalmonopoly.asp

 

[PocketZeven]

Ever since March of this year, Warren's campaign and every major news outlet in the US has reported extensively on Warren's plan to investigate, break-up and regulate high tech giants such as Facebook, Google and Amazon. She is doing this on the basis of existing antitrust (monopoly) legislation. The situation is currently that of monopoly. But monopolies are not necessarily bad and in fact can be good, even highly desirable. This means that Facebook and Google will not be actually dissolved or broken in bits or receive competition from small companies or brick and mortar. No. They will be regulated. They will stay on as valuable and useful monopolies, but will become statutory, legal monopolies. "Platform utilities", as
Warren says. The bottom line is that Facebook and Google, by platforming liars, fakers and propagandists like Russia, Steve Bannon, Breitbart and Trump, enabled and allowed the wrong person, a dangerous loose cannon, to be elected President in 2016. That cannot be allowed to happen again.
https://www.investopedia.com/how-will-elizabeth-warren-break-up-big-tech-4772263
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/legalmonopoly.asp

The sources you posted do not mention warren stating above. Is it a quote from another source?

 

[Dotini]

The sources you posted do not mention warren stating above. Is it a quote from another source?

As I recall, those are the main sources I used. There was another one I forget but it was similar to this:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has been a critic of the power of big tech, wrote in a series of tweets on Monday that “Facebook has incredible power to affect elections and our national debate. Mark Zuckerberg is telling employees that he views a Warren administration as an ‘existential’ threat to Facebook. The public deserves to know how Facebook intends to use their influence in this election,” adding, “Facebook already helped elect Donald Trump once because they were asleep at the wheel while Russia attacked our democracy — allowing fake, foreign accounts to run ad campaigns to influence our elections.”
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/facebook-trump-biden-ukraine-ad-removal-154944386.html

Also this:

If we agree that firms like Facebook are natural monopolies, we should then begin to consider utility regulations that can effectively hold them accountable to the public. In the past, the United States has given such designations to both private and public monopolies (including for instance electric utilities) that have variously resulted in the creation of new regulatory agencies to treat monopolistic overreach. In the case of consumer internet firms, such regulations could entail: stricter standards concerning user privacy and data processing; clear and consistent investigations into over any proposed merger, acquisition, or growth of business into parallel industries, especially in cases where excess concentration or market bottlenecking could result; complete transparency into the ways that the industry’s algorithms disseminate ads and content, particularly to marginalized classes of the population; taxes or stipulations to uplift public interests such as independent journalism and digital literacy; and minimum required investments into technologies that can detect and proactively act against obvious instances of hate speech and disinformation, among others.
https://hbr.org/2019/05/dont-break-up-facebook-treat-it-like-a-utility

And this:

In a New York Times op-ed headlined "Free Speech Is Killing Us," Marantz writes that "noxious speech is causing tangible harm." Citing the ideologically motivated killings in Charlottesville and El Paso, he warns that something must be done to prevent extremist speech from continuing to inspire violence.

Here are some of his ideas:

I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment, or even for banning speech I find offensive on private platforms. What I'm arguing against is paralysis. We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks. And we can take steps to mitigate those risks.


The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder. If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.
https://reason.com/2019/10/04/ucr-violence-speech-new-york-times/

And this:

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to The Guardian, Google is financing climate skeptic organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in direct contradiction to their stated public position on climate change.

Revealed: Google made large contributions to climate change deniers

Stephanie Kirchgaessnerin Washington
Fri 11 Oct 2019 17.00 AEDT

Firm’s public calls for climate action contrast with backing for conservative thinktanks
The obscure law that explains why Google backs climate deniers

Google has made “substantial” contributions to some of the most notorious climate deniers in Washington despite its insistence that it supports political action on the climate crisis.

…

The list includes the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative policy group that was instrumental in convincing the Trump administration to abandon the Paris agreement and has criticised the White House for not dismantling more environmental rules.

…

Google has defended its contributions, saying that its “collaboration” with organisations such as CEI “does not mean we endorse the organisations’ entire agenda”.

It donates to such groups, people close to the company say, to try to influence conservative lawmakers, and – most importantly – to help finance the deregulatory agenda the groups espouse.

A spokesperson for Google said it sponsored organisations from across the political spectrum that advocate for “strong technology policies”.

“We’re hardly alone among companies that contribute to organisations while strongly disagreeing with them on climate policy,” the spokesperson said. Amazon has, like Google, also sponsored a CEI gala, according to a programme for the event reported in the New York Times.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/11/google-contributions-climate-change-deniers
The Guardian published another story on the same day which suggests Google is worried about maintaining their Section 230 legal immunity, the law which protects Google and other large internet providers from being sued if a user publishes something defamatory on a Google website.

Why are Google and friends so worried about their legal position, that they would fund right wing libertarian climate skeptics?

In my opinion tech giants have good reasons to worry. Leading Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have been talking up plans to hammer big tech companies with anti-trust laws.

Elizabeth Warren is not the only left wing figure attacking tech companies. The recent New York Times article which compared allowing free speech to allowing carbon pollution also blamed big tech companies for allowing the rise of populists. The NYT suggested “remedy” was the creation of a government funded rival to Facebook, and implementation of legal changes to increase private tech giant’s exposure to legal liability for content published using their services, to give the new government social media organization an overwhelming competitive advantage.

At first glance this overt Democrat hostility towards tech giants whose CEOs went above and beyond to support Hillary Clinton might seem inexplicable.

But there seems to be a widespread belief that tech giants did not do enough to stop Russiaallegedly meddling in the 2016 election. The revelation that Google is supporting groups which are broadly opposed to the Democrat agenda will do nothing to heal this rift.

It is not just the left who have been turning up the heat on Google. Conservatives and climate skeptics have criticised Google for their alleged efforts to play favourites, promoting the very people who have now turned on them.

Google have very few friends right now, a mess of their own making. One of the few organizations which is standing up for Google’s right to exist is the right wing libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/13/the-guardian-google-is-financing-climate-deniers/

 

[Rallywagon]

The sources you posted do not mention warren stating above. Is it a quote from another source?

First, by passing legislation that requires large tech platforms to be designated as “Platform Utilities” and broken apart from any participant on that platform.

Source: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c

 

[PocketZeven]

As I recall, those are the main sources I used. There was another one I forget but it was similar to this:


Also this:


And this:



And this:

As far as I know Warren is against monopolies. You claimed she wants government regulated monopolies. Which, to my ears, sounds like rightwing media spinning.

The actual sources and quotes you posted are not from Warren. Therefore your post was very misleading.

 

[Dotini]

As far as I know Warren is against monopolies. You claimed she wants government regulated monopolies. Which, to my ears, sounds like rightwing media spinning.

The actual sources and quotes you posted are not from Warren. Therefore your post was very misleading.

Well, you are a hard man to make happy, and I'm sorry I was unable to do it even though I tried my best.

 

[PocketZeven]

Well, you are a hard man to make happy, and I'm sorry I was unable to do it even though I tried my best.

I am not unhappy. You just made a bold inaccurate claim. That warren wants to break up Tech companies and replace them with government regulated monopolies.

edit:
People box social democracy with Communism too often.

 

[Dotini]

I am not unhappy. You just made a bold inaccurate claim. That warren wants to break up Tech companies and replace them with government regulated monopolies.

edit:
People box social democracy with Communism too often.

I will reiterate that claim: Warren wants to regulate tech monopolies. They are already monopolies. They have caused harm and need more regulation. The regulation will not come from within, but from without - from government. Therefore, Warren wants government regulated monopolies. And parts of them will be split off.

 

[PocketZeven]

I will reiterate that claim: Warren wants to regulate tech monopolies. They are already monopolies. They have caused harm and need more regulation. The regulation will not come from within, but from without - from government. Therefore, Warren wants government regulated monopolies. And parts of them will be split off.

Also incorrect. Warren wants to split up these supposed monopolies. Claiming she wants government regulated monopolies is still very misleading and still inaccurate. She wants more competition. Which Everybody should agree with.

Rallywagon posted a source with the accurate proposition:
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c

 

[Dotini]

Also incorrect. Warren wants to split up these supposed monopolies. Claiming she wants government regulated monopolies is still very misleading and still inaccurate. She wants more competition. Which Everybody should agree with.

Rallywagon posted a source with the accurate proposition:
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c

If you seriously feel I'm deliberately misleading and inaccurate, you can report me.

 

[PocketZeven]

If you seriously feel I'm deliberately misleading and inaccurate, you can report me.

Dude, I dont think you are doing it on purpose and I very much respect your opinion. I have no reason to report you. Perhaps my comments seem very harsh, but I didnt mean it that way.

I just hope you now realise you were mislead concerning Warren. I really think you listened or read something from a righwing "news" source like Fox, PragerU or breitbart and assumed they were telling facts.

 

[Dotini]

Dude, I dont think you are doing it on purpose and I very much respect your opinion. I have no reason to report you. Perhaps my comments seem very harsh, but I didnt mean it that way.

I just hope you now realise you were mislead concerning Warren. I really think you listened or read something from a righwing "news" source like Fox, PragerU or breitbart and assumed they were telling facts.

Maybe you could try googling Fox, PU etc for 'Warren wants government regulated monopolies'. I tried yesterday but couldn't find it. My ideas are my own. I try to go the third way of social liberalism and economic conservatism.

 

[PocketZeven]

Maybe you could try googling Fox, PU etc for 'Warren wants government regulated monopolies'. I tried yesterday but couldn't find it. My ideas are my own. I try to go the third way of social liberalism and economic conservatism.

You at least got the false information from somewhere? It seemed so out of the blue. I hope your views on Warren has somewhat changed.

 

[Dotini]

You at least got the false information from somewhere? It seemed so out of the blue. I hope your views on Warren has somewhat changed.

My main view on Warren is that she is the leading candidate in the Democratic field, and by an increasing margin.

 

[PocketZeven]

My main view on Warren is that she is the leading candidate in the Democratic field, and by an increasing margin.

Yes ok, but previously you thought she wants government regulated Tech monopolies. Which sounds far left communist, which was inaccurate potrayal. If she actually said that, I would have been advocating not to vote for her.

However she did not say she wants government regulated monopolies, but actually wants to stand up for the 99%. A message that should not be defined by partisan politics.

edit: To go back on topic, I would say it is a good example how something like PragerU misleads conservatives by twisting the truth and making extremely misleading conclusions.

 

[Rallywagon]

Yes ok, but previously you thought she wants government regulated Tech monopolies. Which sounds far left communist, which was inaccurate potrayal. If she actually said that, I would have been advocating not to vote for her.

However she did not say she wants government regulated monopolies, but actually wants to stand up for the 99%. A message that should not be defined by partisan politics.

edit: To go back on topic, I would say it is a good example how something like PragerU misleads conservatives by twisting the truth and making extremely misleading conclusions.

Yeah, I also kinda agree with you that the "gov backed monopoly" bit is probably a bit of hyperbole. I think people want to misconstrue the term "platform utility" as to mean a physical utility not unlike power companies. But, that's not what I wa spicking up. It sure doesnt sound like Warren wants the gov to make it so only facebook gets to be the only social media platform, but rather, that they can only be the platform. They cant be the advertiser and the product manufacturer and the marketplace as well. Or Amazon can be the marketplace, but they cant be the manufacturer or seller within their own platform. And also Amazon cant use its money and influence to buy up or squash competitors unethically.
To me, it does in fact sound much more positive for the ethos of a more free and competitive market amd economy. Especially for the small business that has to try and use these marketplaces and advertising platforms.

 

[GranTurNismo]

PragerU at it again justifying their racist “some cultures are better than others” ideology with “facts and data”. Their Instagram account is a gold mine for stuff like this.

 

[Carbonox]

Some cultures are better than others, no matter how much you hate to hear that for your own ideological reasons.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Some cultures are better than others, no matter how much you hate to hear that for your own ideological reasons.

Would you care to explain that?

The statement “some cultures are better than others” at its heart is very vague and not much can be inferred by it. I could very well agree with your explanation, or it could be racist or stereotypical.

The right has sort of adopted the phrase, and they mean it as “White cultures are generally more advanced and wealthy than nonwhite ones, therefore we should prioritize white immigrants over POC ones”. I believe Paul Joseph Watson has a video that perfectly explains this sentiment.

 

[Carbonox]

Would you care to explain that?

The statement “some cultures are better than others” at its heart is very vague and not much can be inferred by it. I could very well agree with your explanation, or it could be racist or stereotypical.

The right has sort of adopted the phrase, and they mean it as “White cultures are generally more advanced and wealthy than nonwhite ones, therefore we should prioritize white immigrants over POC ones”. I believe Paul Joseph Watson has a video that perfectly explains this sentiment.

For one, there was a practice called sati in parts of India that involved burning widows alive on funeral pyres along with their husbands - I really doubt I need to elaborate further on why that barbarianism was right to be purged by colonists.

As luck would have it, my research indicates that it was born out of good old honor culture, a blight on any society wishing to move forward. Some of the things people do to protect their arbitrary honor or masculinity are mindblowingly insane, and yet that's exactly what the surrounding communities expect out of them. In the above example, cultural superstition declared that surviving widows brought bad luck.

In addition, while any CCP-instigated cultural change might be considered arbitrary in comparison to age-old cultures that took a much longer time to form, the Chinese sure are currently trying their darndest to sow distrust with the endless dishonesty that goes on within their borders, all occurring under the ruling class' blessing. The fault doesn't exactly belong to the civilian population, not solely at least, but in the long run the cheating, party-worshipping culture is bound to create much crappier people than the Western system.

 

[mustafur]

PragerU at it again justifying their racist “some cultures are better than others” ideology with “facts and data”. Their Instagram account is a gold mine for stuff like this.

View attachment 875678

Forget their claims and look at the source, it's pragerU nothing they say can be claimed as truth or close to it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

When their source is Center of Immigration studies but can't actually provide the actual report you know where this is going.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Yep. It's just propaganda at its finest.

 

[TenEightyOne]

For one, there was a practice called sati in parts of India that involved burning widows alive on funeral pyres along with their husbands - I really doubt I need to elaborate further on why that barbarianism was right to be purged by colonists.

Suttee was elective and was never widespread - cultural teachings by the time of those fantastic colonists (who killed millions more Indians in the 19th and 20th century than suttee ever did) taught against the act.

in the twentieth century there were 650 known cases (30 after 1943) amongst 400,000,000 people while Churchill's starvation of the "colony" killed around 3,000,000. Another thumping win for colonialism, I'm fairly snorting with pride.

 

[UKMikey]

Suttee was elective and was never widespread - cultural teachings by the time of those fantastic colonists (who killed millions more Indians in the 19th and 20th century than suttee ever did) taught against the act.

in the twentieth century there were 650 known cases (30 after 1943) amongst 400,000,000 people while Churchill's starvation of the "colony" killed around 3,000,000. Another thumping win for colonialism, I'm fairly snorting with pride.

Also, as far as any relevance to this thread is concerned... according to the map above, those :censored:hole-born, barbarian, crappier Indian immigrants claimed less benefits than those from anywhere else in the world so maybe PragerU's suggesting they should be the first to be let through the wall?

Looks like those like Watson with an ideological preference for white immigrants are going to have to try harder if they're going to justify admitting Europeans rather than them.

 

[Imari]

Some cultures are better than others, no matter how much you hate to hear that for your own ideological reasons.

I'd think you'd find it hard to reason that some cultures are objectively superior to others, but I wouldn't argue with the idea that I'd certainly prefer living in some cultures than others.

PragerU at it again justifying their racist “some cultures are better than others” ideology with “facts and data”. Their Instagram account is a gold mine for stuff like this.

View attachment 875678

That image is so weird. 30% of US born immigrants to the US are on welfare? How are they immigrants if they were born in the US? I smell lies, damned lies and statistics going on with that data.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

That image is so weird. 30% of US born immigrants to the US are on welfare? How are they immigrants if they were born in the US? I smell lies, damned lies and statistics going on with that data.

Maybe they're in other countries? But the "chart" is not explained, so no use in staring at it any longer.

 

[UKMikey]

That image is so weird. 30% of US born immigrants to the US are on welfare? How are they immigrants if they were born in the US? I smell lies, damned lies and statistics going on with that data.

Maybe they're in other countries? But the "chart" is not explained, so no use in staring at it any longer.

I guess they count second generation immigrants born to immigrant parents in the US as "living in an immigrant household". More code for "darkies", perhaps.

 

[Carbonox]

Suttee was elective and was never widespread - cultural teachings by the time of those fantastic colonists (who killed millions more Indians in the 19th and 20th century than suttee ever did) taught against the act.

in the twentieth century there were 650 known cases (30 after 1943) amongst 400,000,000 people while Churchill's starvation of the "colony" killed around 3,000,000. Another thumping win for colonialism, I'm fairly snorting with pride.

I'm sorry if the post gave you the impression that I was swooning over colonialism, however the actual point was that the practice was so vile that colonists were actually in the right for once when abolishing it.

As a side note, it was only officially outlawed as late as 1988, as a response to some crappy backwoods communities still continuing the tradition.

 

[TenEightyOne]

some crappy backwoods communities still continuing the tradition.

The problem with you painting ritual suicide in parts of India as an illustration that their culture is objectively worse (to pinch @Imari's words on the topic) is that ritual suicide occurs in all sorts of places. The deaths in a single US mass suicide (religiously driven) in 1997 suggest that we can find the phenomenon anywhere and that it doesn't really shine a wider light on culture outside the smallest groups. Some of those US suicides had been voluntarily castrated too. Grim.