Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Sherman antitrust act covers vertical monopolies. That's because such a monopoly economically prohibits other companies from entering that market.You are begging the question. You assume in your post what the court was required to prove, that Standard Oil was a monopoly.
IN reality, they are not, but the courts have been treating them as if they were. Thomas is arguing that the courts should stop treating them that way.carrier, proves that they are NOT currently a common carrier.And Clarence Thomas in a statement against interest said they were NOT.They claimed they were a common carrier in court, dumbass.
Case closed.
Leaving or not participating stops short. This method of censorship needs to be stopped. Two way street and level playing field to be an equal opportunity for All. Equality is Not a one way street .
Standard oil was dissolved in 1911, moron.The Sherman antitrust act covers vertical monopolies. That's because such a monopoly economically prohibits other companies from entering that market.You are begging the question. You assume in your post what the court was required to prove, that Standard Oil was a monopoly.
Vertical integration through a merger is subject to the provisions laid out in the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which governs transactions that fall under the umbrella of antitrust law. The Act provides substance and clarification to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
And Clarence Thomas in a statement against interest said they were NOT.
Case closed.
Clarence Thomas said such companies were not covered by the definition of "common carrier" in his dissenting opinion.That isn't what he said, moron.
Choosing to not associate yourself with a platform you don't agree with is not running or hiding. It is making a choice as to whether you want to participate in that platform. Correcting an error, however, implies you have the right to judge whether or not it is an error. (a hard thing to do when you are neither a judge nor have ownership rights of the platform)You offer run and hide as the solution which is of course standard Lib 101Also. You invite the office to your home. You find that one if the couples is interracial and you ask them to leave. You have NO prescribed Right to do that based solely on the fact that it is your private property. And rights you may have had, if any, you waived with the invitation which was without stipulations. Facebook is not stipulating when they seek your participation and then imposed undisclosed stipulations after you join. That is not legal.True, like if you rent an apartment, and you take in a roommate. Once you accept the roommate in, he then has some rights to his existence in that apartment.That right can be restricted when you invite them in to begin with
So you're saying that companies can not EVER change the terms of their agreements?
You are free to terminate your association with them if you do not like the new terms.
What planet are you from? Obviously, not Earth!
Thinkers and doers offer to correct the error
Quote him.And Clarence Thomas in a statement against interest said they were NOT.
Case closed.Clarence Thomas said such companies were not covered by the definition of "common carrier" in his dissenting opinion.That isn't what he said, moron.
A "platform," by definition, is a common carrier.
There absolutely is equality is private business regulated by government . You cannot exclude blacks from your diner and you cannot declare you did not hire a black for your diner because he’s black. You won’t be able to offer the “it’s my private business and property” either for your defense.Leaving or not participating stops short. This method of censorship needs to be stopped. Two way street and level playing field to be an equal opportunity for All. Equality is Not a one way street .
There is no equality in private business. Equality in government and country, yes, at least that's the way it's supposed to be anyway.
When our people found out that the left called for a boycott of Chick-Fla-A, we on the right flooded their restaurants. Waiting lines all around the building at many locations. 45 minutes standing in the hot sun to show our support of normal marriage and the CEO's beliefs about it.
When the losers on sports fields took a knee, those of us on the non-hypocrite right turned off sports. We didn't go to their games, buy anything with a sports logo on it, and their ratings showed they were suffering over it.
When Hollywood awards shows got political, especially against Trump and the right, we turned them off, many to never return again. Their last show had the worst ratings ever. The other shows continue to lose large amounts of audience.
This is the way to protest, not making some unenforceable law for a dog and pony show. The problem is some people are willing to stand up to wrong doing, as long as they don't have to make any major sacrifices to do it.
That's what lefties would like to think. Unfortunately though, the new sight was neutered. It is now BLM compliant.So not true. It's the same site with the same URL. All that changed was their webhost.The original site is gone now. It has been replaced with a site that looks similar, but it complies to lefty woke agenda on behalf of the government.Who canceled Parlor's hosting? The original Parlor is gone now, and has been replaced with site that complies with lefty woke agenda on behalf of the government.
I just went to their site and it's still there. Never joined up, but from what I understand, they don't take political sides. Liberals and conservatives have the ability to post virtually anything they want.
And Clarence Thomas in a statement against interest said they were NOT.
Case closed.
You're acting the dumbass, you just said the opposite before.IN reality, they are not, but the courts have been treating them as if they were. Thomas is arguing that the courts should stop treating them that way.
You're such a dumbfuck.
It’s an error when they solicit everyone is welcome and later on impose “except you”Choosing to not associate yourself with a platform you don't agree with is not running or hiding. It is making a choice as to whether you want to participate in that platform. Correcting an error, however, implies you have the right to judge whether or not it is an error. (a hard thing to do when you are neither a judge nor have ownership rights of the platform)You offer run and hide as the solution which is of course standard Lib 101Also. You invite the office to your home. You find that one if the couples is interracial and you ask them to leave. You have NO prescribed Right to do that based solely on the fact that it is your private property. And rights you may have had, if any, you waived with the invitation which was without stipulations. Facebook is not stipulating when they seek your participation and then imposed undisclosed stipulations after you join. That is not legal.True, like if you rent an apartment, and you take in a roommate. Once you accept the roommate in, he then has some rights to his existence in that apartment.That right can be restricted when you invite them in to begin with
So you're saying that companies can not EVER change the terms of their agreements?
You are free to terminate your association with them if you do not like the new terms.
What planet are you from? Obviously, not Earth!
Thinkers and doers offer to correct the error
You offer run and hide as the solution which is of course standard Lib 101Also. You invite the office to your home. You find that one if the couples is interracial and you ask them to leave. You have NO prescribed Right to do that based solely on the fact that it is your private property. And rights you may have had, if any, you waived with the invitation which was without stipulations. Facebook is not stipulating when they seek your participation and then imposed undisclosed stipulations after you join. That is not legal.True, like if you rent an apartment, and you take in a roommate. Once you accept the roommate in, he then has some rights to his existence in that apartment.That right can be restricted when you invite them in to begin with
So you're saying that companies can not EVER change the terms of their agreements?
You are free to terminate your association with them if you do not like the new terms.
What planet are you from? Obviously, not Earth!
Thinkers and doers offer to correct the error
They have jurisdiction in Florida though, so if Twitter fucks over a citizen there, they will be seud.
The Act provides substance and clarification to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.[/I]
Under the Sherman act of 1890.Standard oil was dissolved in 1911, moron.
I'm not interested in playing your word games.A "platform," by definition, is a common carrier.
I thought a train was the common carrier, not the platform.
“Not in the communication business”. Jesus Christ the stupidity.Vague nebulous and non specificThe State has full jurisdiction over deceptive and undisclosed trade practicesThe State of Florida has no jurisdiction over these companies.
However, these companies do have the right to shut down their services for the entire State of Florida.
Grasping at straws much?
There is no inalienable or Constitutional right for anyone to have a Facebook account. It's a private company and can set it's own rules for user accounts. If you don't like those rules, then close your account.
Facebook can change those rules as it sees fit. Facebook doesn't allow hateful, false or inflammatory content - and it has the right to determine which posts fit those descriptions. They have a team of independent qualified experts to review the standards. There's nothing 'deceptive or undisclosed' about it.
It is unpermitted by numerous communications statues . You have got to stop offering the silly notion that private business can do what they want. See their business is communication; they rely and seek public participation to exist. Very similar to the telephone they may be able to prohibit calls about blowing up a bridge but they can’t kick off a President and his supporters for being supporters and supported. If they made it a precondition before you hit the I Agree that favorable or supportive comments about Trump are not allowed then it could be a different matter. They don’t do that. They invite you in wide arms wide open and then throttle you later on. That’s what this will correct.
Facebook and Twitter are NOT in the communications business. They are in the business of selling advertising.
They give people accounts for free. They have NO OBLIGATIONS to the people that use their sites.
If people paid for their accounts, then certain changes to the conditions may not be legal, but since people get FREE accounts, these companies owe them NOTHING.
Then why did you bring up the Clayton act of 1914?The Act provides substance and clarification to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.[/I]Under the Sherman act of 1890.Standard oil was dissolved in 1911, moron.
Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.And Clarence Thomas in a statement against interest said they were NOT.
Case closed.You're acting the dumbass, you just said the opposite before.IN reality, they are not, but the courts have been treating them as if they were. Thomas is arguing that the courts should stop treating them that way.
You're such a dumbfuck.
Thomas is saying they should be a common carrier, but the law currently says they are not. And he said they should overturn the current interpretation of "common carrier"
Facebook and Twitter are NOT in the communications business. They are in the business of selling advertising.
