EU fines Google $2.7bn for breaching competition rules

That's blerry preposterous. It's Google's search engine, not the EU's. Owners should be allowed to do pretty much as they wish with their own property.
 
Arthur said:
That's blerry preposterous. It's Google's search engine, not the EU's. Owners should be allowed to do pretty much as they wish with their own property.
Click to expand...

[stupidanswermodeon]

It's the EU's territory, not Google's. The EU should be allowed to do pretty much as they wish within their own territory.

[stupidanswermodeoff]

Ever heard of net neutrality ?

I guess ANN7 should also be able to broadcast everything they wish since it's their property ?
 
Last edited:
We have very different understandings of what ownership and private property means.

I reject any state or supra-state role in relating these sorts of things.

Yes. ANN7 should be allowed to broadcast whatever they wish. And, emphatically, the State should have zero role in determining content.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
We have very different understandings of what ownership and private property means.

I reject any state or supra-state role in relating these sorts of things.

Yes. ANN7 should be allowed to broadcast whatever they wish. And, emphatically, the State should have zero role in determining content.
Click to expand...

How do you get journalism and not propaganda ? How do you get efficient search engines not guided by private interests (who pays the most gets its results first for example, the Guptas would have brainwashed SA a long time ago with this) ?

Let's take private schools, would you be open to schools teaching whatever they want instead of having a programme determined by the Ministry of Education ? This would lead to creationism everywhere, religious schools everywhere and very little room for education as we know it.
 
f2wohf said:
How do you get journalism and not propaganda ? How do you get efficient search engines not guided by private interests (who pays the most gets its results first for example, the Guptas would have brainwashed SA a long time ago with this) ?

Let's take private schools, would you be open to schools teaching whatever they want instead of having a programme determined by the Ministry of Education ? This would lead to creationism everywhere, religious schools everywhere and very little room for education as we know it.
Click to expand...
Well, there's one certain way of entrenching propaganda and that's by having the State be the arbiter of ideas. In my view, no State should have the power to tell a speaker, writer, publisher, or media owner what ideas or content she may or may not hold, advocate, propagate, or publish. It's simply not Caesar's business.
 
Arthur said:
Well, there's one certain way of entrenching propaganda and that's by having the State be the arbiter of ideas. In my view, no State should have the power to tell a speaker, writer, publisher, or media owner what ideas or content she may or may not hold, advocate, propagate, or publish. It's simply not Caesar's business.
Click to expand...

So incitation to hate, promoting racism, nazism or Islamic radicalism is fine ? Educating the masses by telling them that garlic or killing a white virgin cured HIV is also fine ?

It's an open door to the end of modern society since the extremes always seduce people.
 
You don't see the wood for the trees. It's called freedom and tolerance.

Of course it's not "fine" when people promote or publish nonsense. The real issue is: how do we deal with people who have wrong/bad/stupid ideas?

I strongly hold that in a free society the protection of the right to free speech is socially more important than being right or wrong. Bad/wrong ideas are best countered with good argument and good ideas in a free public square, not by censorship and State restriction.

For example, though I think it can be shown conclusively by rational argument that socialism is an anti-human and deeply erroneous, false, destructive and unjust system, I nevertheless believe that socialists should be free to publish and propagate their views on their own media. The same goes for purveyors of other wrongheaded and destructive notions like communism, creationism, religious fundamentalism in all its isotopes, racism, fascism, sodomism, nationalism, sexism, etc, etc, etc.

I very much believe in the dictum "I might disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to death your right to say it". For me anything less plunges us all into tyranny.

I don't particularly like Google. But I will defend their right to use their own property as they wish.

There is a direct connection between the right to private property and the maintenance of a free society. Tyrants always start and advance their tyranny by attacking private property, always justified as for the common good. This EU action against Google might be popular and even "legal", but it is deeply misbegotten. It amounts to an attack on all property and is therefore an attack on liberty.

Ultimately, bad ideas are best countered with better ideas, not by the apparatus of State power, which works only by police, prisons, and the seizing of property. We should know by now that when Caesar is an arbiter of ideas he quickly slips into tyranny.

Google just had $2.7-billion unjustly seized by the State.
 
Arthur said:
You don't see the wood for the trees. It's called freedom and tolerance.

Of course it's not "fine" when people promote or publish nonsense. The real issue is: how do we deal with people who have wrong/bad/stupid ideas?

I strongly hold that in a free society the protection of the right to free speech is socially more important than being right or wrong. Bad/wrong ideas are best countered with good argument and good ideas in a free public square, not by censorship and State restriction.

For example, though I think it can be shown conclusively by rational argument that socialism is an anti-human and deeply erroneous, false, destructive and unjust system, I nevertheless believe that socialists should be free to publish and propagate their views on their own media. The same goes for purveyors of other wrongheaded and destructive notions like communism, creationism, religious fundamentalism in all its isotopes, racism, fascism, sodomism, nationalism, sexism, etc, etc, etc.

I very much believe in the dictum "I might disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to death your right to say it". For me anything less plunges us all into tyranny.

I don't particularly like Google. But I will defend their right to use their own property as they wish.

There is a direct connection between the right to private property and the maintenance of a free society. Tyrants always start and advance their tyranny by attacking private property, always justified as for the common good. This EU action against Google might be popular and even "legal", but it is deeply misbegotten. It amounts to an attack on all property and is therefore an attack on liberty.

Ultimately, bad ideas are best countered with better ideas, not by the apparatus of State power, which works only by police, prisons, and the seizing of property. We should know by now that when Caesar is an arbiter of ideas he quickly slips into tyranny.

Google just had $2.7-billion unjustly seized by the State.
Click to expand...

The issue is that they are often not countered by good arguments. The extremes gain more traction than the moderates, it has always been the case.

In an ideal society, I agree with you, in practice it doesn't work and excesses have to be prevented.

Look how Germany fell into nazism and WWII, because of the passivity of part of the population and the workers being seduced. It only takes a few years and can be replicated virtually anywhere.
 
f2wohf said:
Look how Germany fell into nazism and WWII, because of the passivity of part of the population and the workers being seduced. It only takes a few years and can be replicated virtually anywhere.
Click to expand...
So you would have banned the extremists in 1920s-1930s Germany? That was one of Hitler's appeals.

In any case who is to say what is extremist and what is not? Only allowing the ideas that are currently in vogue makes for a very narrow society. In my view, banning bad ideas only breeds resentment and fuels extremism. It gives the repressed a legitimate gripe against the status quo, and that pushes more people into their arms. Proscription is exactly the wrong policy, as history amply shows ... which is why the Anglophone conception of free speech is opposed to banning and censorship - until recently. Continentals have always been rather more dirigiste, both on the Left and the Right.

Sooner or later the shoe is on the other foot. So erecting systems of State censorship and control is shortsighted.

By confiscating thousands of millions of dollars from Google, the EU stands in a long and sorry European tradition of abusing State power. I'm disgusted, appalled, but not surprised.
 
Usually, when you point the finger at one category of the population (the Jews, the Muslims, the whites), you are an extremist.

What systems of state censorship ? Hate speech has always been banned even in UK, continental Europe doesn't ban much more.

In the meanwhile, European citizens agree and it's our way of doing things and will remain as such whether you are happy with it or not.

Note that the biggest fines issued are usually issued to European companies (check the ones for the cellphone operators).

McCarthysm is another shining example of the Anglophone freedom of speech not being restricted. As far as I know we never did anything like it.
 
Last edited:
All this coming from a monopolistic superstate that is in the process of shunting out the competition.
w3hUyFC.gif
 
konfab said:
All this coming from a monopolistic superstate that is in the process of shunting out the competition.
Click to expand...

What is the competition to Google that the EU is trying to defend ?

It's funny how once the EU is a superstate controlling everything like in 1984, and when it's convenient, it's an assembly of libtards allowing too much freedom and not controlling enough their population.
 
konfab said:
Small, cottage industry companies such as Amazon and Ebay.
Click to expand...

And it is right for Google (the search engine with probably 90%+ market share) to push its products versus comparing honestly ?

It's called abusing a dominant position, and every anti trust authority in any country (even SA) issues fines for this.

See the competition commission http://www.compcom.co.za/abuse-of-dominance/

And the cases involving Telkom, Sasol, SAB, Prasa, SAA.
 
Just pull out of and never deal with EU again. Ohhhh no we can't, we're taking all your money.

So how much are they making out of EU to justify a $2.7 billion fine? That's a PK.

f2wohf said:
And it is right for Google (the search engine with probably 90%+ market share) to push its products versus comparing honestly ?

It's called abusing a dominant position, and every anti trust authority in any country (even SA) issues fines for this.

See the competition commission http://www.compcom.co.za/abuse-of-dominance/

And the cases involving Telkom, Sasol, SAB, Prasa, SAA.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X