An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Pages
▼
Pages
▼
Monday, August 13, 2018
Pam and Russ Martens — Would Sen. Warner’s Ambitious Plan to Regulate Social Media Giants “Ruin” the Internet—Or Save it?
Need to regulate versus opportunity to control versus threat of ruining.
They really need to have the government regulate the internet. Look at how cool that worked with TV. Because of government regulation, you get to learn the whole truth all the time on TV. We need to spread that type of truth to the internet. Right?
Define "free market" and we'll hoc that applies or could apply in the contemporary US given existing institutional arrangement, e.g, what would have to change.
One of the issues here is that the tech giants are monopolistic. Moreover, they are in bed with the government (intel services).
The issue under consideration is whether the government should have even more control over the levers of communication and association.
But its already a bad situation and the question is whether this would make it worse or improve it.
I don't see more government intervention improving it.
"Free markets" inevitably result in monopolies. Regulations are intended (in theory) to create a level playing field (among other things).
As to more government intervention, the "information services" are largely already under their control. Google was started with NSA/CIA money. Bezos (WaPo) is on a Pentagon board and has a $600m CIA contract. The sole result of the Church Committee investigation into intelligence services controlling the media resulted in a promise "not to do it again".
Read: The Triumph of Conservatism : A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 Paperback by Gabriel Kolko (a socialist, by the way).
https://tinyurl.com/y8vbll2d
You will never read this book because it is so definitive in destroying the "free market leads to monopoly" myth.
Also, the free market does not result in business cycles or mass unemployment.
In both cases, the problems are caused by government intervention, seeking to cure problems that do not otherwise exist but for the intervention.
Also, these tech giants are violating their own terms of service with their recent behavior. It ought to be possible to sue them for breach of those terms of service. If someone is unable to sue them, that is just a typical failure of government courts.
In a free market, they could have whatever terms of service they'd like. They would be able to announce that they were whores for the deep state and the military in their terms of service, in which case, no one would ever deal with them.
"aimed at stopping the spread of disinformation"
ReplyDeleteOne man's disinformation is another man's truth. I'll take any of WaPo's (Bezos') 200 fake news sites over WaPo every day.
It's all managed by the CIA, or will be as soon as the purge is complete.
They really need to have the government regulate the internet. Look at how cool that worked with TV. Because of government regulation, you get to learn the whole truth all the time on TV. We need to spread that type of truth to the internet. Right?
ReplyDeleteI'm with Bob. The free market knows what's best.
ReplyDeleteThe free market knows what's best.
ReplyDeleteDefine "free market" and we'll hoc that applies or could apply in the contemporary US given existing institutional arrangement, e.g, what would have to change.
One of the issues here is that the tech giants are monopolistic. Moreover, they are in bed with the government (intel services).
The issue under consideration is whether the government should have even more control over the levers of communication and association.
But its already a bad situation and the question is whether this would make it worse or improve it.
I don't see more government intervention improving it.
"Free markets" inevitably result in monopolies. Regulations are intended (in theory) to create a level playing field (among other things).
ReplyDeleteAs to more government intervention, the "information services" are largely already under their control. Google was started with NSA/CIA money. Bezos (WaPo) is on a Pentagon board and has a $600m CIA contract. The sole result of the Church Committee investigation into intelligence services controlling the media resulted in a promise "not to do it again".
Free markets NEVER result in monopolies.
ReplyDeleteRead: The Triumph of Conservatism : A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 Paperback
by Gabriel Kolko (a socialist, by the way).
https://tinyurl.com/y8vbll2d
You will never read this book because it is so definitive in destroying the "free market leads to monopoly" myth.
Also, the free market does not result in business cycles or mass unemployment.
In both cases, the problems are caused by government intervention, seeking to cure problems that do not otherwise exist but for the intervention.
Also, these tech giants are violating their own terms of service with their recent behavior. It ought to be possible to sue them for breach of those terms of service. If someone is unable to sue them, that is just a typical failure of government courts.
In a free market, they could have whatever terms of service they'd like. They would be able to announce that they were whores for the deep state and the military in their terms of service, in which case, no one would ever deal with them.