The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Consumer]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
Make Me Move

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-04-12 11:19 by Karl Denninger
in Consumer , 159 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's pretty simple, really, and pretty disgusting too.

First, the Senate is by far the more-intelligent group of people.  This is simply due to what you have to accomplish, generally, to get into the Senate.  McCain is the exception (along with a few others) but most Senators are both highly intelligent and well-accomplished.  Yet they asked exactly zero questions among them related to the actual issue with Facebook and other tech companies -- the collection and mining of personal information where it is impossible for the consumer to consent.

The House had two people who went after that -- one being Rep Debbie Dingell and a second being Rep Kathy Castor.  Both Democrats, both hard-left on other issues and both dead right on where the problem is.  Ms. Castor didn't quite get to the root of it (she clearly didn't quite understand the underlying issue), but Debbie Dingell did.  Either of them could have and so could have all those who followed them taken Zuckerpig, bent him over the table and gang*****d him on national TV for what is a clear violation of everyone's expectations and forced him to admit under questioning that his public posturing about "privacy" and such is a bald lie.

So close but so far for the two of them -- and the rest lobbed softballs or even worse, accolades at Zuckerpig.

When it comes to the Senate, however, I must conclude that they intentionally refused to go after Zuckerpig and his firm's rank abuse of individual rights, with the largest issue being tracking of people not on Facebook but rather all over the Internet.

Then there was Cruz (and a handful of other Republicans) who went after Zuckerpig on the ridiculous bias displayed by Facebook (and other web properties -- Twatter anyone?) when it comes to banning or restricting some viewpoints but not others.  Zuckerpig tried to make this all about terrorism (e.g. ISIS propaganda) but he refused to define so-called "hate speech".

The problem is that nobody tries to ban non-objectionable speech - in their mind of whatever constitutes "objectionable."  The question becomes this: While private property owners can constrain speech if there is sufficient market power and lack of reasonable alternatives then you've crossed the boundary into being a public square -- especially if you try to argue that's what your entire purpose is.  Facesucker has done exactly that and Zuckerpig made the claim several times in testimony that the firm exists "to connect people"; well?  Has the firm, along with Google (e.g. Youtube), Twitter and others, reached the saturation and dominance point at which they must be treated as a public square for purposes of free speech?  Good question -- and one that likely needs legislative activity to resolve.

Finally, Zuckerpig, when challenged, couldn't cite any competitors.  If that's not the definition of monopoly..... what is?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)