Should Corporate Wealth Get Broken Up?

**wickedsolo** · 06-29-2021, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by TIGERBLOOD

Yes, but they need to be regulated like utilities.

People use Facebook and Twitter to communicate as much if not more than public telephone companies. Same with Google, Amazon and Microsoft. Their cloud services host most of the online services that people use to communicate and perform basic but critical day to day services like Banking, insurance, paying bills, etc. They also control most site hosting and advertising for corporate and small business America.

They are using this power to restrict basic civil rights and to discriminate against certain political opposition.

It also now looks like information is coming out to confirm what many suspected and that they were colluding with and operating on behalf of the DNC and Democrat politicians. I pray there is an honest judge left that will rule that they are acting on behalf of the US Government and subjected to legal ramifications for violating 1st Amendment rights.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

I think one of the bigger issues I have with Amazon is because of AWS. They literally control the cloud infrastructure for a significant percentage of the world. That's how they were able to basically "cancel" Parler.

**wickedsolo** · 06-29-2021, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

You mean like the Clintons and Obama’s wealthy increasing attention a rate over 10x’s the salary they were paid during their presidency?

Yes, Insurance companies having the ability to bribe the president of the United States to destroy the healthcare system by forcing everyone to buy massively overpriced worthless policies is not free market capitalism nor how we all hope our government works.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, but not just them. There are plenty of Republicans that have gotten wealthy and lived a lavish lifestyle off the backs of their position.

**wickedsolo** · 06-29-2021, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

Because i dare challenge you? boo fricking hoo

No, not at all. I don't mind being challenged. In fact, there have been times where you have challenged me in the past or others and it has made me reconsider my position on certain things.

However, by and large, your "challenging" is really an excuse for you to act like a pompous jackass to folks on this forum. I guess you feel like that's who you need to portray yourself as on an internet forum. I'm just not interested in entertaining that type of behavior.

**Greg** · 06-29-2021, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

There are always going to be people with envy who look at others and see someone that has “too much”.

What I’m referring to are the people and corporations that have amassed so much wealth and economic power that they have effectively become a government in and of themselves and they have created a monopoly with the federal government to influence public policy, economic policies, trade policies, and so on.

If that wasn’t happening, it wouldn’t matter so much that there are people worth 177 billion. But the fact that they are using that wealth and power to influence public policies by buying off government officials…I don’t know. I think there is an argument to be made that those things should be broken up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.

What really ticks me off about Facebook, YouTube/Google, Twitter, etc is that they have government protection that keeps them harmless about what is posted on their sites but then they turn around and start regulating it. IF you want immunity then you have to let it all out there. If you start banning people then you now have taken responsibility for what is on their site and should immediately lost that immunity.

If you want government protection so you can't be sued or held responsible for what is posted then you should be restricted by the Bill of Rights just like government is. If you start censoring at all you should lose that protection and be responsible for what is on your site.

**Greg** · 06-29-2021, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

You keep saying you don’t begrudge the uber wealthy, but your suggestions for proposals indicate otherwise.

I think he is talking about the power that the company has, not the individual.

**blah3** · 06-30-2021, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

No, not at all. I don't mind being challenged. In fact, there have been times where you have challenged me in the past or others and it has made me reconsider my position on certain things.

However, by and large, your "challenging" is really an excuse for you to act like a pompous jackass to folks on this forum. I guess you feel like that's who you need to portray yourself as on an internet forum. I'm just not interested in entertaining that type of behavior.

Super, then explain to us why you would be willing to foist something, presumably a regulation (You havent really enumerated anything specific), on the uber rich that you wouldn’t on the common fellow. Please keep in mind that more regulation actually helps the uber rich and big corps

**wickedsolo** · 06-30-2021, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Greg

I think he is talking about the power that the company has, not the individual.

Essentially.

And I don’t know what the answer really is.

However, I do think it is a problem worth exploring. When corporations become so powerful that they can just continually gobble up everything and buy favors/influence with government…that’s essentially what corruption is in many ways.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Willbacker** · 06-30-2021, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Greg

I agree.

What really ticks me off about Facebook, YouTube/Google, Twitter, etc is that they have government protection that keeps them harmless about what is posted on their sites but then they turn around and start regulating it. IF you want immunity then you have to let it all out there. If you start banning people then you now have taken responsibility for what is on their site and should immediately lost that immunity.

If you want government protection so you can't be sued or held responsible for what is posted then you should be restricted by the Bill of Rights just like government is. If you start censoring at all you should lose that protection and be responsible for what is on your site.

Exactly. Pretty obvious they're protected cuz they're a platform. There has to be an avenue some way to get the govt to drop sect 230 maybe thru suing the govt. I'm not sure but sect 230 is a joke with all the censorship. Purely makes them responsible for the content thats on there.

**wickedsolo** · 06-30-2021, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Willbacker

Exactly. Pretty obvious they're protected cuz they're a platform. There has to be an avenue some way to get the govt to drop sect 230 maybe thru suing the govt. I'm not sure but sect 230 is a joke with all the censorship. Purely makes them responsible for the content thats on there.

They're definitely part of the problem, but you also have people like Soros and the Koch brothers that are massive funders for a variety of politicians, policy initiatives, etc.

How do you deal with those things?

**Willbacker** · 06-30-2021, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

They're definitely part of the problem, but you also have people like Soros and the Koch brothers that are massive funders for a variety of politicians, policy initiatives, etc.

How do you deal with those things?

Put a cap on donations? I have no idea but to outfox and expose their evil. One being a financier of ultra left wing philosophies funding marches and worthless DA's and the other being greedy cheap labor guys. The start of exposing these guys is getting rid of sect 230. 1st amendment rights should be adhered to on a public platform. How can you hide the Hunter Biden story or cut off the doctors hyping hyroxychloroquine (spel chek). We the people should have the right to be exposed to all sides and make our own decisions. Not be told whats true and what's not.

**Vlad the lad** · 06-30-2021, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Terpsfan82

Agree 100%

The "pandemic" resulted in one of the largest, if not the largest transfer of wealth in history. They DID just seize control of the planet. Phase II (economic collapse) is next on the horizon.

I don't usually advocate for interfering with the growth of business, but the owners should not have any more access to power than the average citizen. They should also pay their fair share in taxes. In addition, you have rulings from the Supreme Court that allows influence in elections.

What is “fair share”. Can you define that talking point?

**Greg** · 06-30-2021, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

They're definitely part of the problem, but you also have people like Soros and the Koch brothers that are massive funders for a variety of politicians, policy initiatives, etc.

How do you deal with those things?

That is a different concern than mine and I don't sweat that as much.

If the platforms were free speech platforms then the Soros and Koch influences could be brought out into the open.