1) I’m not quote-tweeting this guy to blast him, but no, Twitter should NOT be government regulated.
2) Look at the bank bailouts from the 2008 crash. Look at the bullshit that created the CFPB. What happened?
3) People said the solution was ‘banks should have MORE regulation.’ With more regulation and oversight, compliance costs went up.
4) Compliance costs are specifically costs associated with lawyers, auditors, accountants, etc that make sure everything is done by the books so the government doesn’t bite your ass off.
5) The more regulations, the higher the compliance costs. The higher the complaince costs, the higher the barriers to entry for an industry.
6) Barriers to entry include the amount of baseline costs that don’t necessarily generate or contribute to any revenue that are still required just to be in business.
High barriers to entry mean only very large companies can exist in an industry.
High barriers to entry mean only very large companies can exist in an industry.
7) In the banking ‘reforms’, small banks couldn’t keep up with the compliance costs created by the CFPB and other regulations and were bought up by larger banks. Why do you think the big banks were contributing so heavily to Democrat coffers? Their regulations MADE banks that big
8) Fuck you, you’re just fucking stupid, and I’m blocking your dumb ass because I didn’t get to that point yet. This is a thread. Ideas compound. I’m presenting the PROBLEM with the government regulation solution, you fucking shitstick.
9) So, baseline, government regulation concentrates power into a few large businesses who then have no competitors, so they can be as abusive as they want and are large enough to absorb any regulatory actions as just a cost of doing business.
10) I mean, fuck, look at Wells Fargo. Regultion causes them to absorb a fair portion of the banking market. Massive account fraud as they abuse customers. Then a big fine that they’ll write off on their balance sheets. cnbc.com/2016/09/08/wel…
11) So, we established that sufficiently. Regulation=>concentration of market power=>abuse of customers=>no consequences.
12) So, we focus on the abuse of customers. When customers are abused, they should go to a competitor. Problem: with enough concentrated market power, there may be no VIABLE competitors.
13) What should happen instead is a deregulation of the internet, a deregulation of our communications in general, which is what @AjitPaiFCC has been trying to do. This isn’t even unprecedented, deregulation of communications. As Ajit Pai said, Bill Clinton’s FCC had it right.
@AjitPaiFCC 14) If you deregulate and lower the compliance costs, the barriers to entry, that opens up opportunities for new companies to enter the market and compete.
@AjitPaiFCC 15) More companies competing means that companies like Twitter and Facebook cannot be as abusive as they are now, because people can and will simply switch platforms. They already do, problem is that there aren’t many competitors, and none of them have significant market shares.
@AjitPaiFCC 16) This is where the second step comes in.
Trust busting.
The internet tech giants are a trust right now.
Trust busting.
The internet tech giants are a trust right now.
@AjitPaiFCC 17) They have such a COMMANDING market share across multiple aspects of the same overall industry that they’re able to make or break companies, first by allowing or disallowing the companies access to the market as gatekeepers via app stores and such...
@AjitPaiFCC 18) And secondly, MORE IMPORTANTLY, they’re able to use their power in the market place to actively pressure other companies on whether to do business with a third party.
They have BLATANTLY actively interfered with Gab’s ability to find the necessary services to compete.
They have BLATANTLY actively interfered with Gab’s ability to find the necessary services to compete.
@AjitPaiFCC 19) Breaking up the network of agreements that make up the internet tech giant trust and lowering the compliance costs for companies in the industry will allow a swathe of new competitors to enter the market of social media.
@AjitPaiFCC 20) More competitors at all levels of the communications industry means that abusive platforms will no longer be incentivized to be anusive, because there’s nothing keeping customers upset with the abuse that they themselves may not have yet suffered from leaving.
@AjitPaiFCC 21) See, here’s a key secret to a free market. This is the core aspect of the free market.
Anyone who is a customer can find a vendor to provide a good or service. ANYONE can find SOMEONE to sell them a specific good.
Anyone who is a customer can find a vendor to provide a good or service. ANYONE can find SOMEONE to sell them a specific good.
@AjitPaiFCC 22) You can be the most vile hate filled piece of shit possible, and in a free market, even YOU should be able to find SOMEONE willing to deal with your dumb ass.
@AjitPaiFCC 23) This rule also applies in the total reverse. In a truly free market, no one should ever be FORCED to use YOUR service. Every decision you make would have an effect on your clientele, and anyone could stop being your customer at any moment.
@AjitPaiFCC 24) In short, Gab and Infowars in a truly free market would not have been able to be so effectively disenfranchised. We as customers shouldn’t be trapped on twitter as the only viable microblogging and conversation platform.
@AjitPaiFCC 25) So don’t regulate. Trust bust and enourage further development of the internet and competitors on it.
/end
/end
