Banned by ******** & instagram

[miscinbro]

When a company of any industry fits the anti-trust model they are subject to regulation.

No, terms of service DOES matter.

How do they matter if they are subject to the government telling them what they can/can't do?

A good example is restaurants, coffee shops, etc with signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" - that sign is actually totally meaningless. That seems to be what you're arguing for in regards to internet content hosts.

[Cleveland33]

How do they matter if they are subject to the government telling them what they can/can't do?

I didn't say that the government should tell them what they can and can't do

[miscinbro]

I didn't say that the government should tell them what they can and can't do

Unless you're arguing the law is currently wrong, yes you literally did, in your last post.

When a company of any industry fits the anti-trust model they are subject to regulation.

[Cleveland33]

Unless you're arguing the law is currently wrong, yes you literally did, in your last post.

I don't consider "regulation" to telling them what they can and can't do, except in the loosest sense - and certainly not in the context of your questioning.

[miscinbro]

I don't consider "regulation" to telling them what they can and can't do ...

"Social
Regulation in the social, political, and economic domains can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, contractual obligations (for example, contracts between insurers and their insureds[1]), social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation, third-party regulation, certification, accreditation or market regulation.[2]

State-mandated regulation is government intervention in the private market in an attempt to implement policy and produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur,[3] ranging from consumer protection to faster growth or technological advancement.

The regulations may prescribe or proscribe conduct ("command-and-control" regulation), calibrate incentives ("incentive" regulation), or change preferences ("preferences shaping" regulation). Common examples of regulation include controls on market entries, prices, wages, development approvals, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods, the military forces and services. The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in regulatory economics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation

Regulating something is literally all about telling people what they can and can't do.

The bolded portion is what you're arguing for.

[Cleveland33]

Regulating something is literally all about telling people what they can and can't do.

You wonder why people question that you are a lawyer?

Yes it is a definition of regulation - yet government regulation has a broader conceptual scope, especially when you use this crazy concept call context

[miscinbro]

You wonder why people question that you are a lawyer?

Yes it is a definition of regulation - yet government regulation has a broader conceptual scope, especially when you use this crazy concept call context

You said;

When a company of any industry fits the anti-trust model they are subject to regulation.

Educate me then, what "context" does it take that government regulation doesn't amount to telling people what they can and can't do.

[Cleveland33]

You said;

Educate me then, what "context" does it take that government regulation doesn't amount to telling people what they can and can't do.

If a woman goes to buy something and her husband tells her not to because there isn't enough money in the account - he is LITERALLY telling her what to do.

But in the scope of what is considered a husband telling a wife what to do, this is not an example.

See how that can work?

When Congress investigated baseball for PED use - I would consider that regulation.

[miscinbro]

When Congress investigated baseball for PED use - I would consider that regulation.

I can't believe you're still trying to make this argument. PED are illigal because of government regulations. It's (and I've used this term a lot here I know), literally the government telling people what they can and can't do - and you want to use an example of the government investigating a violation of that regulation as an argument that regulations aren't the government telling people what they can and can't do?

Unbelievable.

[Cleveland33]

I can't believe you're still trying to make this argument. PED are illigal because of government regulations. It's (and I've used this term a lot here I know), literally the government telling people what they can and can't do - and you want to use an example of the government investigating a violation of that regulation as an argument that regulations aren't the government telling people what they can and can't do?

Unbelievable.

That's not the point - the investigation was primarily into MLB's response to responsibility of the players' use.

[miscinbro]

That's not the point - the investigation was primarily into MLB's response to responsibility of the players' use.

Sure, but MLB couldn't change their policies to say that PEDs were ok because of ... government regulation telling them what they can and can't do.

I'm still almost at a loss for words trying to understand how someone can keep trying to argue that "regulations" coming from the government aren't about telling people what they can and can't do. Just admit you made a mistake with your language and move on.

[Cleveland33]

Sure, but MLB couldn't change their policies to say that PEDs were ok because of ... government regulation telling them what they can and can't do.

But the government didn't tell MLB to change their policies either.

[miscinbro]

But the government didn't tell MLB to change their policies either.

If the MLB policy was that all players needed to take PEDs the government certainly would have - because it regulates such behavior. Seriously, this is getting embarrassing.

[Cleveland33]

If the MLB policy was that all players needed to take PEDs the government certainly would have - because it regulates such behavior. Seriously, this is getting embarrassing.

It sure is, even for you.

[miscinbro]

It sure is, even for you.

I guess, beating a dead horse is sort of embarrassing.

[maciejmuta]

******** and twitter are not private companies. They collect subsidies from the American tax payer, they use a platform designed by the US military (the internet,) they partner with the American government to dispense information such as disaster warnings, etc. They aren't muh private company.

Regarding twitter, if a judge can declare that Donald Trump's twitter account is a public platform and he cannot block people from accessing his content, nor should twitter be able to ban people from accessing Donald Trump's messages or any other government information.

[Cleveland33]

I guess, beating a dead horse is sort of embarrassing.

You're not beating anything here except your own meat.

[miscinbro]

******** and twitter are not private companies. They collect subsidies from the American tax payer, they use a platform designed by the US military (the internet,) they partner with the American government to dispense information such as disaster warnings, etc. They aren't muh private company.

Regarding twitter, if a judge can declare that Donald Trump's twitter account is a public platform and he cannot block people from accessing his content, nor should twitter be able to ban people from accessing Donald Trump's messages or any other government information.

What subsidies?

[|ceman]

Internet was created by DARPA as a second and third line of communications in the event the Soviet Union severed US communications in a conventional war that went nuclear. Theres also the fact that the infrastructure ******** uses (roads, highways, heavily regulated telecoms, ect.) are not something ******** ever financed. Then you have twitter that considers itself a "public townsquare", which by law isnt supposed to be blaming or shadow banning people for political reasons...To quote Obama "You didnt build that."

Companies like ******** cant hide behind the "terms of service" and private company label here. They are dependent on Government subsidies that created their company. The backbone of their product is predicated on a system they did not invent, or pay for. And Im pretty sure there are some campaign finance violations for what ******** is doing, censoring conservatives, shadow banning, ect. to the benefit of another party that starts with a D. All illegal. If they want to be the digital townsquare of the 21st century, they better start acting like it.

DARPA funded the research that created the internet, but today's internet is managed by major telecom players.

Also, it's not like some freeway that ******** can use for free. They pay massive amounts of money to connect their servers to the internet, and the private citizens who access the content also pay on their end. Nobody is getting a free ride on the Internet superhighway.

******** and twitter are not private companies. They collect subsidies from the American tax payer, they use a platform designed by the US military (the internet,) they partner with the American government to dispense information such as disaster warnings, etc. They aren't muh private company.

Regarding twitter, if a judge can declare that Donald Trump's twitter account is a public platform and he cannot block people from accessing his content, nor should twitter be able to ban people from accessing Donald Trump's messages or any other government information.

what subsidies are you talking about?

you do realize that anyone can access Donald Trump's twitter messages without creating a twitter account, right?

[ThePoz]

Regarding twitter, if a judge can declare that Donald Trump's twitter account is a public platform and he cannot block people from accessing his content, nor should twitter be able to ban people from accessing Donald Trump's messages or any other government information.

Blocking someone doesn't stop people from viewing your content on Twitter.

[Cleveland33]

Blocking someone doesn't stop people from viewing your content on Twitter.

you can't see them if you are logged in

[|ceman]

you can't see them if you are logged in

yes, which is why the judge ruled against Trump (as the courts always do)

[LieutenantGains]

I did my part to help get a pro-Trump bot banned





Cleaning up Twitter one report at a time #MTGA

[MawlawiGhazi]

I would watch this, but this britbong has such a ******* voice.

[|ceman]

I did my part to help get a pro-Trump bot banned





Cleaning up Twitter one report at a time #MTGA

wow. she's practically a white walker!