Alex Jones and anything INFOwars, even private people that would replay: BANNED (employment, Reagan)

[latimeria]

Originally Posted by BentBow

So, you agree, they are a platform to publish registered users content.
They(all but Twitter) have not been very specific what violated their TOS.

As long as the user follows their rules. I see no mention in there that they must publically announce the nitty gritty specifics of what the violation was. There are business practices where it would possibly be prudent to do so, but the agreement does not compel them to do so.

The user agrees that YouTube gets to decide whether something violates or not and reserves the right to remove them accordingly. The user can also decide that they dont like this setup and not use YouTube.

[Kevroqs]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

No. They are a platform. There are many Internet platforms, of which YouTube is one. City-Data is also a platform, and can censor anything and everything as they see fit per their Terms of Service (that you agreed to when you signed up).

Don't like it? Great! There are many other video streaming services on the Internet.

And if a conservative website censors liberals and says "no liberal posts", the libs would be protesting and claiming a violation of first amendment rights

[RedZin]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

What happened here is like Grandma stopping you from cursing like a sailor while she served Sunday dinner, but did NOT stop your brother from cursing like a sailor while she served Sunday dinner.

Again, if they make the claim that it was because he violated TOS, then they need to show everyone that they are also going after antifa, pedophiles, and others who are promoting violence, hate, and harm to other people.

But that didn't happen.

Good point. I think it would be useful to know what they specifically cite as their reasons, although they don’t actually have to have any.

Their site, their decision.

[DRob4JC]

Have you seen the government's track record at running things?

Services cost too much, and quality sucks. They couldn't build an effective health care website. How are they are running public education? The Post Office? Student Loans?

Throw in the fact that the NSA would be tapping every internet connection more than they are already - all in the name of monitoring the ISPs to make sure they are behaving themselves. How would they use the data? Don't answer that.

[RedZin]

Originally Posted by Kevroqs

And if a conservative website censors liberals and says "no liberal posts", the libs would be protesting and claiming a violation of first amendment rights

Only the ones who don’t understand the first amendment.

[latimeria]

Originally Posted by Kevroqs

And if a conservative website censors liberals and says "no liberal posts", the libs would be protesting and claiming a violation of first amendment rights

I am not a liberal. I am arguing this in a general universal sense. No one has a right to be published on any website. Obama (who is a private citizen) cannot go to InfoWars and demand to put up an article. InfoWars is free to only allow what they wish.

YouTube doesn't have to let a single user upload videos to their site. They have a business model where they allow it if people agree to their rules. People can deem their business model to be faulty and go elsewhere. The fact that many are complacent does not erase this.

Now, one current example where it might get weird is if Twitter tried to ban Trump, but that is a special new case, especially since his tweets have been deemed official presidential statements by the government. I dont know the full logistics considering this. Its complicated.

Outside of this, Twitter is not obligated to let a single user send out a tweet. They allow people to do so if they agree to the TOS.

[Kevroqs]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

The First Amendment applies ONLY to the government - NOT to private companies.

So a private company, like the NFL, can prevent players from kneeling during the national anthem?

[J_Quayle_Higgins_III]

Originally Posted by Kevroqs

And if a conservative website censors liberals and says "no liberal posts", the libs would be protesting and claiming a violation of first amendment rights

You do realize that conservative pages do just that don't you? And you also realize that the scenario you just mentioned is an Alex Jones sized whopper of an exaggeration, right?

I'm not on FB or Twitter anymore, but I use YouTube and it is still flooded with right wing opinions both sane and insane. These are the same companies that refused to pull NRAtv from their platforms. Maybe come back with this comment if they actually ever do what you are trying to pretend that they are doing.

[J_Quayle_Higgins_III]

Originally Posted by Kevroqs

So a private company, like the NFL, can prevent players from kneeling during the national anthem?

Yes, what is your point?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Have you seen the government's track record at running things?

Services cost too much, and quality sucks. They couldn't build an effective health care website. How are they are running public education? The Post Office? Student Loans?

The post office runs just fine, Public education is based on the individual districts, for every bad high school in the news, there is some public high school in New York city sending 90% of their graduating class to college.


2 problems with the healthcare site argument.

1. The site was built by people, not the "government", the people screwed up, all of which were website designers and should have been capable of doing their job.

2. The website works fine now, negating your argument entirely.

Throw in the fact that the NSA would be tapping every internet connection more than they are already - all in the name of monitoring the ISPs to make sure they are behaving themselves. How would they use the data? Don't answer that.

I dont think you know how ISPs or the NSA works based on that paragraph, LOL

ISPs store data. if the NSA wants your info, they can get it.