181–190 of 451 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crushing competition is certainly a thing that can happen in a free market.
Isn’t a free market the lack of any government regulation and leaving it up to the “Invisible Hand”? With that definition, monopolies are still “free market”. I guess it depends on your definition of “free market”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opposite of a contradiction is another contradiction. Why are people that believe in regulation of the world's largest corporations suddenly laissez-faire libertarians? If you have opposed the Citizen's United ruling for a decade, don't suddenly act like you care about a corporation's civil liberties, including freedom of association and freedom of expression. The answer is obvious: both sides want power more tha…
Inversions are happening faster than ever. The red and blue tribes swap their positions in sync at this point.
Sad to see this with the Adam Swartz post both on the front page. We need more powerful people who will voice, not for the proliferation of conspiracies, but for the right to speak ones mind on the internet. Even here on HN any attempt at putting forth the wrong opinion on the election will result in a ban. This will embolden and validate the opinions of Trump supporters. This morning, Angela Merkel voiced her own fe…
I haven't seen this, all the bans I have seen are the result of ideological warfare and flamebait.
However you will get downvoted to -4 for questioning the integrity of the election. So don't do that ;)
As long as Facebook is attempting to care about the spread of misinformation, can they nuke the various Flat Earth groups? I swear those people provide breeding stock for almost every other conspiracy theory on the planet.
They are just appeasing the Democrats before they take control and break them up. Big Tech has had no issue offering services to third world dictatorships but when Americans drink the same koolaid, suddenly it's a pressing issue! Just to be clear, I am not blaming them, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Errrhm, all the "protected classes" tend to come from the left wing ideologies. Sure, the right isn't what it used to be with Jeffersonian liberalism and free speech, but that quote could easily be interpreted to be about modern left by simply replacing "Conservatism" with "Liberalism'.
> […] all the "protected classes" tend to come from the left wing ideologies. You don’t know what the term “protected class” means, and you should probably stop using it. “Woman” isn’t a protected class, “sex” is. “Christian” isn’t a protected class, “religion” is.
Veteran status and age over 40 are notable examples; you are absolutely permitted to discriminate against non-veterans and against people under 40.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes everyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite and dumb and it’s impossible they may have actual reasoning behind their thoughts. you’re very empathetic
Not op - but please provide an explanation that counters the argument, then. Seriously, I would really like to understand how to come to terms with two world views that appear to be diametrically opposed within the same movement.
> Buckley used the pages of National Review to promote a ‘fusionism’ of sorts between paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, tea-party enthusiasts, the deeply religious, libertarians, social conservatives and free-marketeers.
Particularly since Trump, a lot of the base is now economically moderate or even liberal, but socially conservative. The social conservatives are the ones who are most worried about the social liberals having increased power over online media platforms.
Apart from that, the deregulatory conservatives don’t believe that criticizing some practice of private business means going further to impose government regulation. To them, there is a role for self regulation. And the social conservatives and traditional conservatives don’t care about using the power of government for perceived proper ends at all. They are quite mad, in fact, at the limited government conservatives for giving up so much ground on things like healthcare and unions over those issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad to see this misinformation downvoted, but in these troubling times it's important to restate the facts. There is ample and well documented evidence that there was strong Russian influence on our election in ad buys, concentrated highly to spread falsehoods and change the entire election's results. Anybody saying otherwise is trying to snow us. Calling this a "hoax" is telling us that there are five lights wh…
There are two contentions: 1. Russia bought ads and manipulated social media to influence the 2016 election. 2. Trump was an active participant and collaborator with Russia in doing 1. I don't think anyone disputes 1. 2 was the basis of the failed impeachment and investigation and for which no convincing evidence can be produced. That is what people are generally referring to when they mention the "Russia hoax".
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
They want the government to replaced by the free market for other people . For them, it's government benefits all the way. The political scientist and author Frank Wilhoit talked about it in his works: > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
1. These companies have every right to legally censor those they disagree with.
2. By exercising that right they put themselves at risk of being regulated more stringently (as utilities for example) when they demonstrate inelasticity in consumer choice.
3. I'd rather them not be treated as utilities because that hampers competition and thus impedes efficiency.
4. Your statement above is a farcical caricature of conservative ideology. Every product/service deserves a debate on what regulation is appropriate but as a society regulation only exists because bad actors necessitated its creation. No one wants car seats for their 8 year olds - we'd much rather be trusted to do the right thing.
Sad to see this with the Adam Swartz post both on the front page. We need more powerful people who will voice, not for the proliferation of conspiracies, but for the right to speak ones mind on the internet. Even here on HN any attempt at putting forth the wrong opinion on the election will result in a ban. This will embolden and validate the opinions of Trump supporters. This morning, Angela Merkel voiced her own fe…
Politics are off-topic on HN.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.