1) I realized I didn't make one of my points that I should have, as I was talking about free markets and went towards the Google skipping over the barriers to entry. My apologies. I will not chew you out as a result, but I will write a small thread to explain my position.
2) In a free market set up, we would have the option to switch platforms if one became abusive and began censoring people. We do not have this option, because internet tech giants have been engaging in monopolistic and trust-like manners to stifle all other competition.
3) For example, Google and Apple both booted Gab off of their app stores, but left Twitter in place. Google and Apple do not directly compete with Gab, but Gab is a competitor with Twitter.
4) Did you know that Google and Twitter have been partnering together for years? searchengineland.com/everything-nee…
5) In fact, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft have ALL been partnered together for the purposes of data sharing theverge.com/2018/7/20/1758…
6) Even Apple has partnered with Twitter macrumors.com/2012/08/01/app…
7) See, the internet tech giants already CHOSE their winner in social media. Twitter was at risk of being replaced by Gab, and so Apple and Google moved to prevent any competition for Twitter in order to protect their mutual business partner.
8) In a free market, censorship would naturally drive people away from Twitter over time to other platforms. And it would not JUST be gab; there would be other competitors available.
9) But by behaving in a trust-like manner, Google and Apple have actively staunched the bleed of users from Twitter's censorship because they made Gab non-viable as a social media platform in order to protect their business partner, Twitter.
10) What is not required as a remedy is propping up Gab. Or forcing Twitter to be open to free speech.
What is required is breaking up the trusts and monopolies that currently exist using the tools which normally exist.
What is required is breaking up the trusts and monopolies that currently exist using the tools which normally exist.
11) The existence of the current conflict between censorship and free speech is proof that free speech is a commodity consumers value. The problem is, the conflict is being waged from the mindset that we have to make platforms value free speech, rather than move to those that do
12) We can't change the platforms. We just can't. Because the internet tech giants exist in monopolistic and trust-like behavior, they have no need to modify themselves to value free speech; they have a trapped market.
13) As such, the answer is to change the environment that they exist in. We need to move back towards a freer market. We can't do this by empowering the government further to regulate the internet tech giants and force them to stop censoring. That's the opposite of helping.
14) What should happen is the government using the powers it has already had for 1 1/4 centuries (I just realized that typo earlier, i feel like a fucking moron) to break up the monopolies and trusts so free speech platforms have the ability to enter the market.
15) Once they do and people flood over to them, the internet tech giants/their blasted cratered remnants will then have to choose. Appeal to those wanting censorship and echo chambers, or modifying themselves to appeal to consumers wanting free speech.
16) You know, ACTUALLY FUCKING COMPETING IN A MARKET PLACE RATHER THAN CALLING UP BIG BROTHER GOOGLE AND APPLE TO SHUT DOWN THE MEAN BULLIES TRYING TO STEAL YOUR CUSTOMERS.
/end
/end
