Alex Jones and anything INFOwars, even private people that would replay: BANNED (highway, Barack Obama)

[No_Recess]

End all State involvement and let the free market decide.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by latimeria

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.

One thing though...what Youtube has been doing lately has been deleting and demonetizing channels that have been running for years and making money. Also, there isn't anywhere else they can go. Youtube more or less has a monopoly over its kind of content. Nobody else comes close to competing with it...so it's either find a new career, or work in Youtube...and also you may find yourself demonetized without explanation at any time so be prepared to rapidly switch your content, and smile big while you do it, at the slightest sign of changing policies, from what I've heard.

I just wanted to emphasize that.

Some of the claims that free speech is being limited are definitely true, just not in the legal sense. When Facebook censors you, and Youtube censors you, and a couple other big internet websites censor you...you might as well not have a mouth.

[mkpunk]

It just proves how conservatives thought that throttling and control of content was all fine and well until it affected them, stupid hypocrites.

[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by No_Recess

End all State involvement and let the free market decide.

The US government created the internet. We owned it. Sadly, not anymore. The free market solution doesn’t work for everything, for the same reason communism does not work. Human nature. Greed, specifically.

But sometimes we all work together. It used to be called American exceptionalism.

[usayit]

Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound

You can have the greatest website every made but if no one visits it, it does not matter. Lots of people use youtube as a marketing tool for their paid content.

So it is both platform and content or why use youtube to begin with? For Jones youtube is a way to draw in subscribers to his website.

Then you suck at marketing your website.... YouTube is just one way. Every well visited website had its starts as unknown one.



I could care less about youtube and Alex Jones. What I don't like is the hypocritical and embarrassing response from those that claim to be conservative to this news... Suggesting that there should be some sort of big government intervention that results in a violation of rights of a private entity.

[usayit]

Originally Posted by Kevroqs

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

Irrevelant to this thread.

But one thing you don't seem to understand is that most employment is either based on contract or at will. If at will, you can be fired for pretty much anything and for even no reason as long as it doesn't violate the protections of a protected class. Under contract there are usually provisions that are related to representation of company.

So yes... A private company can fire them.

People get fired from their jobs each and every day for posting stupid crap on their personal social media pages.

Again you have the freedom to say whatever you want but you are not protected from its consequences

[usayit]

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

This already happens. It happens here.... I cannot post in a religious forum content that insults that religion or promotes athiesm. I cannot force them to host that content. It will be censored. It is within their right.

As I asked earlier in this thread multiple times and no one answered. Can a LGBTQ group promote their lifestyle with content on Godtube and force them to host that content?

It doesn't matter what others, liberals included, say in protest.... It's still their right.

[usayit]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

It just proves how conservatives thought that throttling and control of content was all fine and well until it affected them, stupid hypocrites.

[GeorgiaTransplant]

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

‘Would’ is a weak argument. You are making up vaguely possible scenarios to support your position. There will always be some nincompoop or another who doesn’t understand how private websites and free expression work. Even if your scenario happened, it would not be evidence that ‘the libs’, as a group, feel anything.

I don’t think this FB action means ‘the cons’ feel this action is wrong as a group-just individual members of the lunatic fringe who actually believe Alex Jones and his vile and sophomoric content, suitable for naive and uneducated conspiracy buffs. Principled, Reagan style conservatives more likely think Alex Jones is a freak and his audience has real issues. I sure miss him-regardless of your individual views, THAT was a President.

[nononsenseguy]

False! This has nothing to do with so-called, "net neutrality," which has nothing to do with keeping the Internet free and open, but instead is all about government control.