Bannon wanted to treat Google and Facebook as public utilities and regulate the heck out of them.

[shortylickens]

Heard about it from this article:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/12/harvey-weinstein-breitbart-rose-mcgowan-twitter-243712

Last month, POLITICO’s Nancy Scola reported: “Steve Bannon, while serving as Trump's chief strategist, reportedly floated the idea of treating Facebook and Google as public utilities, similar to the heavily regulated telephone industry — a departure from the traditional conservative focus on deregulation. Meanwhile, Breitbart News, the online publication Bannon now heads, often goes after tech companies for heavy-handedness and elitism. “Tech” is listed as a section of that site just after “Big Government,” “Big Journalism” and “Big Hollywood.” A recent story on Breitbart mocked a Google employee for importing Maine lobsters to the Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert.”

Checked:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/12/conservatives-liberals-silicon-valley-242631
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/

Its true. And more importantly a lot of Democrats and Republicans agreed with him. This scares me. On the one hand he makes a convincing argument, on the other hand if I agree with Bannon it could be a sign I'm losing my marbles.

The good thing is the GOP is fairly consistent in their hypocrisy. They whine about too much regulation but when offered the chance to regulate something they dont like, they jump all over it.

 

[Pulsar]

Yep. By all means. Let's regulate google and facebook - which provide a service that NO ONE NEEDS. But let's deregulate all the ISP's and get rid of net neutrality, because the peons shouldn't get to decide what bits you actually get when you want them!

The dichotomy... the stupidity is just so overwhelming.

 

[fskimospy]

Why is this surprising? He wants to use government to attack things he doesn’t agree with.

This is the difference between modern liberalism and modern conservatism. Liberals believe in the system as a neutral arbiter. Conservatives believe in the system as a way to advance their goals.

 

[UNCjigga]

Well, I would actually argue that some aspects of Facebook, Twitter and Google do need to be better regulated. For example, political advertising on Facebook is not subject to the same regulations as ads on broadcast TV--one could argue which has more reach now.

 

[brandonbull]

Yep. By all means. Let's regulate google and facebook - which provide a service that NO ONE NEEDS. But let's deregulate all the ISP's and get rid of net neutrality, because the peons shouldn't get to decide what bits you actually get when you want them!

The dichotomy... the stupidity is just so overwhelming.

Phone companies got regulated and no one needs a phone. I think everyone forgets that several of these tech companies are installing thousands of miles of cables that the vast majority of the information flows through. Companies that own and control internet pathways should be regulated.

 

[FIVR]

This is a good idea and I support it. Anything that makes manipulative orwellian assholes like Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg a little bit poorer and a little bit less powerful is a good thing.


Obviously regulating ISPs as public utilities is smart too.


Stop being such partisans and realize that Facbook and Google are not on "your side". They are highly corrupt and dangerous companies that are at least part of the reason the country is run by a insane dotard.

 

[FIVR]

Well, I would actually argue that some aspects of Facebook, Twitter and Google do need to be better regulated. For example, political advertising on Facebook is not subject to the same regulations as ads on broadcast TV--one could argue which has more reach now.

Twitter is arguably much less intrusive in its analytic practices and does not masquerade its accounts as "real people". Everyone knows the Russians (and every other government) is on twitter, and twitter doesn't hide that.


Facebook is pure evil and I would point out that it was created by Mark Zuckerberg specifically for the purpose of humiliating and ostracizing the women who rejected him at Harvard. It has a long history of being an orwellian cyber shithole and it probably should've been shut down long ago.


Google is similarly evil but arguably a necessary one. Still, it needs to be regulated


You can't throw them all in one bag and say "OMG REGULATE THEM!". That is foolishness.

 

[Pulsar]

Well if you want to get technical, we don't technically need electricity either. But I think a large proportion of people would tell you that life would be near impossible without electricity in the modern world - and without phones. Tried to make an appointment by sending a letter?

ISP's monopolies like Comcast / AT&T are very similar to that of electricity - which is also regulated as a public utility. And most people recognize that the internet is nearly as useful now as a phone is in terms of "utility". Monopolies will by definition abuse that monopoly to extract more profit - after all profit is their single over-riding goal regardless of what it does to the customer.

Facebook? Google? Those could both be destroyed by nuclear devices tomorrow and you know what? It really wouldn't inconvenience most folks. Google is already regulated - look at all the lawsuits that are being filed against them by the government. Facebook? If people are STUPID enough to believe what they read on Facebook, then that's their fucking problem. Until they elect a president by abusing it. Then it's ours. Oh wait.

 

[senseamp]

This is a good idea and I support it. Anything that makes manipulative orwellian assholes like Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg a little bit poorer and a little bit less powerful is a good thing.


Obviously regulating ISPs as public utilities is smart too.


Stop being such partisans and realize that Facbook and Google are not on "your side". They are highly corrupt and dangerous companies that are at least part of the reason the country is run by a insane dotard.

Drug companies should also be regulated as public utilities to stop the price gouging.
Government should set the price for drugs.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Not saying I agree with Bannon but on the surface these guys do need some regulation. Whether it's copyright law or outright slander these folks have been skirting the laws and are generally allowed to do stuff nobody else can.


Examples:
Look at YouTube, what are the odds of me being able to set up a site that has copyrighted material on it and me just saying, it's not my content it's someone else's content, I just present it & run ads but I'll gladly remove any stuff you report to me within 24 hours but this doesn't mean it won't get posted again you'd need to ask me to remove it and I'll do it within 24 hours.

Or a more P&N topic
What television station is allowed to play content paid for by know foreign governments that is obvious propaganda without any consequences

 

[JimKiler]

Phone companies got regulated and no one needs a phone. I think everyone forgets that several of these tech companies are installing thousands of miles of cables that the vast majority of the information flows through. Companies that own and control internet pathways should be regulated.

Google and Facebook are not monopolies, the phone company was a monopoly.

based on your post i presume you are for net neutrality, correct?

 

[mect]

Not saying I agree with Bannon but on the surface these guys do need some regulation. Whether it's copyright law or outright slander these folks have been skirting the laws and are generally allowed to do stuff nobody else can.


Examples:
Look at YouTube, what are the odds of me being able to set up a site that has copyrighted material on it and me just saying, it's not my content it's someone else's content, I just present it & run ads but I'll gladly remove any stuff you report to me within 24 hours but this doesn't mean it won't get posted again you'd need to ask me to remove it and I'll do it within 24 hours.

Or a more P&N topic
What television station is allowed to play content paid for by know foreign governments that is obvious propaganda without any consequences

So long as you aren't actively promoting illegal sharing of copyrighted content, I'd say the odds are pretty good, considering there are many other sites that also allow uploading of user created content From your post I assume you haven't recently uploaded any videos to youtube.. Youtube does take active measures to try to prevent illegal content from being shared, they just aren't willing to be held responsible for such content being posted because if they were, such sites couldn't exist.

On your second point, I'm unaware of any regulations preventing a television station from playing propaganda from a foreign government. Could you share the regulations that prevent this? I assumed most don't do it because it would kill their brand.

 

[mect]

Depending on what the regulations are, I don't have an issue with the idea. I think it might promote more active measures being taken by these companies instead of always reacting after some shit happens. So long as it applies to all similar sites and not just to these specific companies, and so long as it isn't a means of government censoring the information being shared to promote the republican party.

 

[Gryz]

Whatsapp is Facebook.

I don't like Facebook, and I don't use it. The whole concept is evil. The technology is evil (proprietary technology, in stead of open and standards based). And the execution is evil. But you can avoid Facebook itself, if you want. No big deal.

But Whatsapp is different. I didn't want to use it. But because so many others use it for basic messaging, it almost becomes unavoidable to use it too. I caved in, and I have Whatsapp on my phone. Was kinda necessary to talk to collegues.

A similar thing with Google. You can avoid a lot of their services. But it becomes harder and harder. If you don't want to run their browser, you got a few choices. But if you want a smartphone, but don't want Android, life is becoming harder and harder.

I wouldn't object to some things being more regulated. I'm not sure yet exactly which things.

 

[MrPickins]

Not saying I agree with Bannon but on the surface these guys do need some regulation. Whether it's copyright law or outright slander these folks have been skirting the laws and are generally allowed to do stuff nobody else can.


Examples:
Look at YouTube, what are the odds of me being able to set up a site that has copyrighted material on it and me just saying, it's not my content it's someone else's content, I just present it & run ads but I'll gladly remove any stuff you report to me within 24 hours but this doesn't mean it won't get posted again you'd need to ask me to remove it and I'll do it within 24 hours.

That's not skirting the law, that's following the law exactly as it was laid out in the DMCA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional safe harbor for online service providers (OSP) (a group which includes internet service providers (ISP)) and other Internet intermediaries by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement (when they make unauthorized copies) as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

Without the "safe harbor" sites that include user submitted content would not really be feasible, and that includes these forums.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well, I would actually argue that some aspects of Facebook, Twitter and Google do need to be better regulated. For example, political advertising on Facebook is not subject to the same regulations as ads on broadcast TV--one could argue which has more reach now.

50% of the idiots in this country get their news on Facebook. They want to play like there just a facilitator. Bullshit. They are a full blown media company with massive influence. They have to have at least some of the same regulations that existing media companies have to follow.
I own FB stock and have never been on Facebook.

 

[realibrad]

50% of the idiots in this country get their news on Facebook. They want to play like there just a facilitator. Bullshit. They are a full blown media company with massive influence. They have to have at least some of the same regulations that existing media companies have to follow.
I own FB stock and have never been on Facebook.

You should fix what you just said. 44% of Americans get news from Facebook, not all their news from Facebook. That is to say that Facebook is only one part of a system where they get their news.

http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/

Further, much of the "news" they get is from people sending them information though Facebook which is no different than people talking and spreading what they heard.

Also, the majority of those idiots you are talking about are women as Women...

 

[FIVR]

Drug companies should also be regulated as public utilities to stop the price gouging.
Government should set the price for drugs.

I thank Cory Booker for screwing that up (I agree). I still can't believe he voted down allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices.

 

[FIVR]

You should fix what you just said. 44% of Americans get news from Facebook, not all their news from Facebook. That is to say that Facebook is only one part of a system where they get their news.

http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/

Further, much of the "news" they get is from people sending them information though Facebook which is no different than people talking and spreading what they heard.

Also, the majority of those idiots you are talking about are women as Women...

Have you ever actually been on or used Facebook? It is plastered with propaganda from all sorts of directions, much of it paid ads which target you, the user, from your own demographics for the political gain of international corporations, the US gov, and foreign governments. You have no choice in the matter, also. You do not "get" to not be propagandized on FB. If you use it, you must see the ads and the ads choose you, not the other way around.

It is an orwellian nightmare of biblical proportions. 2 billion people ensnared so far. Including me

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Not saying I agree with Bannon but on the surface these guys do need some regulation. Whether it's copyright law or outright slander these folks have been skirting the laws and are generally allowed to do stuff nobody else can.


Examples:
Look at YouTube, what are the odds of me being able to set up a site that has copyrighted material on it and me just saying, it's not my content it's someone else's content, I just present it & run ads but I'll gladly remove any stuff you report to me within 24 hours but this doesn't mean it won't get posted again you'd need to ask me to remove it and I'll do it within 24 hours.

Or a more P&N topic
What television station is allowed to play content paid for by know foreign governments that is obvious propaganda without any consequences

So you want to dismantle safe harbor? That would have an extremely chilling effect on the internet.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So you want to dismantle safe harbor? That would have an extremely chilling effect on the internet.

No just something smarter, I feel they get away with way more than any other industry

 

[cytg111]

Facebook, google, apple, microsoft, all of them should be regulated BIG time.
With no oversight they have collected every single detail of your public AND private life, where you work, whats your salary, what you vote, how many guns you own, married to, on the sides, how often you screw, for how long, when you go to sleep, wake up, what you eat, hobbies, pets, friends, education, iq ... a total and complete profile of your existence past present and what you can ever hope to ever achieve in life. To make money out of this BIG DATA they have created these micro targeting engines and the rest is history, next comes cambridge analytica, mercer and the russians and their puppet Trump.
Democracy is in the hands of these capitalistic entities. I have preached this for over a decade, on here too... and now its here.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/743:_Infrastructures

What happens when a machine AI knows you better than you know yourself? End of free will is what happens.
Regulation. Now. Nooooooooow.

 

[Pulsar]

Drug companies should also be regulated as public utilities to stop the price gouging.
Government should set the price for drugs.

Single payer would, in affect, do that. Because if the drugs are priced so high that the government won't buy them........ the drug companies won't make any money.

 

[edcoolio]

Single payer would, in affect, do that. Because if the drugs are priced so high that the government won't buy them........ the drug companies won't make any money.

... and if the drug companies don't make any money on a product they spent a fortune researching, how do you believe that would affect future research investment?

 

[Pulsar]

... and if the drug companies don't make any money on a product they spent a fortune researching, how do you believe that would affect future research investment?

Oh boy. Here we go down the rabbit hole of lies.

Go reconcile how an epi-pen can cost $700 in the United States, and $69 in Britain. Then explain why the United States' population should be footing the bill for drug research for the entire planet.

Nexium in the US? $215 per customer. In the Netherlands? $23.

Multiple studies shows that prices in the US for identical drugs are higher than in any other developed country in the world. Including places like Japan where the cost of living is obscene.

I hope the truth is that you don't understand what's really going on..... because if you DO understand how US customers are being raped right now and you're trying to support it through deception then you're just disgusting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-u-s-pays-3-times-more-for-drugs/

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-us-pays-more-for-prescription-drugs-2016-8

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-drug-prices/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/health/us-pays-more-for-drugs/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/08/24/can-anything-contain-us-drug-costs.html

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/09/economist-explains-2

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...70-000-in-the-us-costs-2-500-in-india/274847/

I'll wait for your well reasoned and well researched response.