Or maybe you know, the vast majority of reddit strongly supports net neutrality and up vote the posts they see....

Sheep being sheep

I'm strongly in favor of Net Neutrality. Its just wrong that monopolies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook censor and suppress opposing political viewpoints. Something needs to be done about that.

How are Google, Twitter, and Facebook monopolies?

Do you know what a monopoly is?

Just because most everyone uses the same service doesn't make it a monopoly.

You can use MySpace or Friendster instead of Facebook. You can use Bing or Dogpile instead of Google. You can use Gab or Mastodon instead of Twitter.

If google it (ironic I know) you will get way more in depth answers to your question than I could ever be bothered to type out.

I Dogpiled it. Proving you wrong.

Good job! I wonder what percentage of the public uses Dogpile and other google alternatives.

For these types of companies, whether they're a "monopoly" depends on what you're defining the market as. Legally, to be considered to have monopoly power a company must have at the very least 30% of the market, and usually closer to 50%. Google has about 75% share of the search engine market, which is unquestionably monopoly power. Whether Twitter or Facebook have monopoly power depends a bit on what you're saying the market is. (Social media, social networks, content distribution, etc.)

Legally it would have to be proved that the market dominance has lead to unfair pricing. How much did you guys pay for Facebook and Twitter service again? Oh that's right you're not the even the customers. Just penned up sheep to be sold to the real customers, advertisers, who have no shortage of other platforms to choose from.

No, you're a bit off. There's two types of Sherman Act claims, referred to as Section 1 claims (anticompetitive agreements) and Section 2 (monopolization). The elements of the first is an agreement that unreasonably constrains trade, and affects interstate commerce. That does not depend on monopoly power. The elements of the second are a company that holds monopoly power, and has used unlawful means to acquire or maintain that power.

The impact on prices is important to assessing damages, but it's a violation to improperly create a monopoly regardless of a showing that the monopoly has negatively impacted prices.

Not seeing how those points, show that those advertising platforms are monopolies. That's like claiming the Super Bowl is a monopoly because a majority of TV views are watching it at the time.

Like I said, it all depends on how you define the market. "Internet searching" is a clearly defined market, and Google's already been hit with fines in Europe for abusing its monopoly position.

Its just wrong that monopolies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook censor and suppress opposing political viewpoints.

Which has nothing to do with NN.

I want a Neutral Net. Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others are preventing that from happening.

I don't think you understand what net neutrality is...

How does what I mentioned not relevant to having a neutral internet?

Google, Twitter, and Facebook will benefit most from continued Net Neutrality because they would be forced to finance the infrastructure to maintain their services, and ISPs would be able to limit the total internet resources their services could use. There are no good guys in the net neutrality debate. Just another pointless debate over the lesser of two irredeemable evils.

Or maybe, you know, the astroturfing campaign has nothing to do with net neutrality and is really about ISPs selling customer data.

And who controls crypto-currency futures

Rant with no proof?

Vote brigading has always been a thing, no reason to assume this is any different.

lol @ no proof.

try pressing /r all.

That's not proof.

That's the algorithm doing it's job.

Baa Baa

You're adorable.

You won't take the time to understand something you're obviously confused about... and I'm the sheep?

Read up on the subject and provide some evidence.

Don't just point at your ignorance and call it proof.

neigh neigh

a copy from another post:

good idea. I searched on the wayback machine and after a few tries I found this: http://web.archive.org/web/20171201130112/reddit.com/r/all/ you can see that r/Colorado had a post that was (at that time 8 hours old.) So I got to that subreddit, and at this time it was posted 12 hours ago. If you go to the homepage, you can see that that the other posts are 1/2 hours old. So you can conclude that the the other state subreddits followed the same pattern after it was in hot.

I hope this shows that it was started by 1 state, and followed by others.

While I do like the message -- the messenger here is what's up for debate and that is the very blatant vote manipulation / astroturfing.

I agree with the message. I don't agree with the method.

Why?

Because once you do something like this ONE TIME.. it can always happen again for a message I don't like.

for example:

What if the top posts were the 100 most wealthy people in the world who have 50% of the world's money -- stating that they are good people who have no blame, what so ever, for the state of things in the world.

Once you take this route for a message it can be turned around and used against you very quickly.

I Dogpiled it. Proving you wrong.

Good job! I wonder what percentage of the public uses Dogpile and other google alternatives.

I don't think you understand what net neutrality is...