Political views dont hurt NFL players

[Ortizer]

great question...

It's a double-edged sword and a great discussion topic.

Here's my take. For when antitrust laws went into effect, it 100% made sense. The purpose behind them was to break up Rockefeller’s monopoly over the oil market...which he owned almost 100% of it. The government said that wasn't fair. In 1890...that made sense.

The US economic landscape has changed drastically since 1890. Hell...since 1990.

IMO...capitalism already has antitrust laws built into its framework. Consumer choice. We have more options for goods and services today than we ever did at any point in US history. I would be ok if antitrust laws were amended to reflect the changes.

Outside of taxing us and protecting us...I just don't like the government's hand in shit they shouldn't be in.

To quote the great Thomas Sowell:

I like that quote.

The way I look at it, the antitrust laws make sense in industries where already high barriers of entry can lend themselves to abuse. Oil, and steel were good examples of that.

Utilities I believe would also qualify, which is where I could see the argument on isps, since I tend to look at them as more akin to a utility than someone like Disney for example.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[Ortizer]

Here is a decent summation of what net neutrality did....

Internet service resembles telephone service more than it does television service. ISPs charge consumers for the connection, not for specific content[5]—this is largely due to the 2015 net neutrality rules. The rules prohibit ISPs from limiting access to certain websites or parts of the Internet by manipulating connection speeds or by blocking access to certain websites.[6] Specifically, ISPs cannot block, throttle, or engage in paid prioritization.[7] Throttling is the control of Internet speeds and it cannot be selectively used against certain websites.[8] Paid prioritization is when an ISP charges content providers more for faster connection speeds. These rules constrict an ISP’s pricing options and business dealings with content providers.
https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/20...et-neutrality/

So I don't see that set of stuff as necessarily bad. What rav was saying where they would need to get pre-approval to run their business is absurd though.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[wickedsolo]

So I don't see that set of stuff as necessarily bad. What rav was saying where they would need to get pre-approval to run their business is absurd though.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

I think net neutrality really comes down to whether or not you want the government to have oversight of the internet.

In my mind - gov oversight means future censorship. We already have enough of that.

[Ortizer]

I think net neutrality really comes down to whether or not you want the government to have oversight of the internet.

In my mind - gov oversight means future censorship. We already have enough of that.

That's a fair point. I do like the concept, but trusting the government to rationally implement it does seem unlikely.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[NCRAVEN]

I think net neutrality really comes down to whether or not you want the government to have oversight of the internet.

In my mind - gov oversight means future censorship. We already have enough of that.

Google, Twitter and Facebook are doing a great job of it.

I got banned on twitter when having a convo about the movie Unplanned, and I didn't violate any terms. Plus did you see all the stuff that happened with that movie and trying to get the message out? Let's just say there was some shady shit.

[cjandrze]

Google, Twitter and Facebook are doing a great job of it.

I got banned on twitter when having a convo about the movie Unplanned, and I didn't violate any terms. Plus did you see all the stuff that happened with that movie and trying to get the message out? Let's just say there was some shady shit.

Shutting down net neutrality would not change that situation though. Those are company decisions.

[NCRAVEN]

Shutting down net neutrality would not change that situation though. Those are company decisions.

No, but his point was we don't need someone else in there means there would likely be MORE censorship.

[wickedsolo]

No, but his point was we don't need someone else in there means there would likely be MORE censorship.

Indeed.

There was a really great Joe Rogan podcast a few weeks ago with Tim Gallo (a journalist), Jack Dorsey (Twitter), and a woman (can't recall her name, but she's legal counsel or something for Twitter).

It was pretty eye opening in a lot of ways. Both Joe and Tim went at them with some pretty tough questions and their responses were interesting. Seemed to me like Jack Dorsey probably doesn't have any idea at all about what's happening in Twitter's day-to-day operations.

[blah3]

So I don't see that set of stuff as necessarily bad. What rav was saying where they would need to get pre-approval to run their business is absurd though.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

It's basically telling companies what plans they can offer. All it does is limit choice and drive up prices.

[ravenmaniac4life]

It's basically telling companies what plans they can offer. All it does is limit choice and drive up prices.

This is exactly why college tuition costs have gotten out of control.