221–230 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti trust law does not deal only with monopolies. It is about companies with dominant positions. Is facebook a company with dominant position?
You're talking about things you don't understand, there is no case anyone can rationally make that Facebook is subject to anti-trust laws. You do not have to use Facebook, there are tons of other social networking sites, Facebook is not using anti-competitive practices to prevent competition. Anti-trust laws require far more than just being popular to apply and there's nothing in them that applies to Facebook or any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>there is plenty of apolitical journalism Could you name three major sources of it, preferably not personal blogs? I am asking out of curiosity and disbelief.
I think the real issue is to consider why many people have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea. I think it undermines their worldview that everyone is an angry ideologue, necessary to justify their own behavior.
Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, worse yet, the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist. In short, I doubt you could staff a newsroom full of people receptive to out-group ideas. (And if you think that you, yourself, aren't biased this way without very strong evidence for it I would suggest you take an outside view, per https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view)
Because of all of this I'd appreciate a genuine answer to my question even if I end up disagreeing with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I just believe calling Reuters unbiased is not true. They do have a lot of anti-Israel headlines to the point its become a joke.
Or maybe they have a lot of unbiased headlines on the topic and you are biased?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the real issue is to consider why many people have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea. I think it undermines their worldview that everyone is an angry ideologue, necessary to justify their own behavior.
I think to focus on the angry ideologues is actually to divert the attention from the real issue, to the extent there is one; namely, that neurotypical humans, whether happy or angry, have a strong, automatic in-group bias. If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, wo…
> Now, this ability appears to be quite rare.
I disagree that it's nearly so difficult or rare. The U.S. rarely has been this polarized, and everyone used to share the same news sources (major network nightly news - which probably still are the leading sources). Again, I think this approach is just the justification of those who want ideological war rather than finding ways, as so many have done so often in history, to bring people together.
> the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have no reason to believe this statement is accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're talking about things you don't understand, there is no case anyone can rationally make that Facebook is subject to anti-trust laws. You do not have to use Facebook, there are tons of other social networking sites, Facebook is not using anti-competitive practices to prevent competition. Anti-trust laws require far more than just being popular to apply and there's nothing in them that applies to Facebook or any…
There are clear methods to decide if a company has dominant position or not. It has nothing to do with whether you can use another one or not. Perhaps you don't have an idea what you are talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are clear methods to decide if a company has dominant position or not. It has nothing to do with whether you can use another one or not. Perhaps you don't have an idea what you are talking about.
You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough. The FTC couldn't even make a case against Google, a far more dominant company than Facebook. You're just making shit up dude, just stop, there is no case here for anti-trust nor will there be.
Yeah, I'm gonna bet on me and my law degree for being right about that. Whether Facebook is in a dominant position is for the court to decide.
You on the other hand are a funny... dude. Haha, "dude" he says :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough. The FTC couldn't even make a case against Google, a far more dominant company than Facebook. You're just making shit up dude, just stop, there is no case here for anti-trust nor will there be.
>You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough. Yeah, I'm gonna bet on me and my law degree for being right about that. Whether Facebook is in a dominant position is for the court to decide. You on the other hand are a funny... dude. Haha, "dude" he says :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough. Yeah, I'm gonna bet on me and my law degree for being right about that. Whether Facebook is in a dominant position is for the court to decide. You on the other hand are a funny... dude. Haha, "dude" he says :)
Great, get back to me when hell freezes over, because that'll happen before Facebook is ever taken down by anti-trust laws.
You look confused. Probably because people want to call facebook "social media" and Fox News is also called "media". Fox News produces editorial content. They are entitled to their opinion thanks to the first Amendment. Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias in the very same way that your TV set is not allowed to receive only conservative news channe…