Paranormal : Is this why Facebook nuked Alex Jones?

Is this why Facebook nuked Alex Jones?


For telling the truth?

Re: Is this why Facebook nuked Alex Jones?

You are going to get this site shutdown, dude.

Re: Is this why Facebook nuked Alex Jones?

I'm guessing he was making some sort of satirical point by obviously faking emotion.



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

Re: Is this why Facebook nuked Alex Jones?

As an aside, too many people are afraid of defending free speech because they don't want to be lumped with Alex Jones.. I swear, its McCarthyism all over again. Bring back Communist writers - the movies of the last 40 years sucks, just like the fake drum machine, auto-tuned shit noise.

Fuckerberg decides for 2 billion on fakebook. And don't give me that "private business" shit until you read some legislation - Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 and some precedent

Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904) 5 to 4, a railway monopoly, formed through a merger of 3 corporations was ordered to be dissolved. The owner, James Jerome Hill was forced to manage his ownership stake in each independently.
Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) the antitrust laws entitled the federal government to regulate monopolies that had a direct impact on commerce
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911) Standard Oil was dismantled into geographical entities given its size, and that it was too much of a monopoly
United States v. American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911) found to have monopolized the trade.
United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) a monopoly can be deemed to exist depending on the size of the market. It was generally irrelevant how the monopoly was achieved since the fact of being dominant on the market was negative for competition. (Criticised by Alan Greenspan.)
United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956), illustrates the cellophane paradox of defining the relevant market. If a monopolist has set a price very high, there may now be many substitutable goods at similar prices, which could lead to a conclusion that the market share is small, and there is no monopoly. However, if a competitive price were charged, there would be a lower price, and so very few substitutes, whereupon the market share would be very high, and a monopoly established.
United States v. Syufy Enterprises, 903 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1990) necessity of barriers to entry
Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951) attempted monopolization
United States v. American Airlines, Inc., 743 F.2d 1114 (1985)
Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993) in order for monopolies to be found to have acted unlawfully, action must have actually been taken. The threat of abusive behavior is insufficient.
Fraser v. Major League Soccer, 284 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2002) there could be no unlawful monopolization of the soccer market by MLS where no market previously existed
United States v. Griffith 334 U.S. 100 (1948) four cinema corporations secured exclusive rights from distributors, foreclosing competitors. Specific intent to monopolize is not required, violating the Sherman Act §§1 and 2.
United Shoe Machinery Corp v. U.S., 347 U.S. 521 (1954) exclusionary behavior
United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) Grinnell made plumbing supplies and fire sprinklers, and with affiliates had 87% of the central station protective service market. From this predominant share there was no doubt of monopoly power.

https://www.scribd.com/document/382737647/MortSahlFan-Song-List
Top