Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is for a court decide, it should not be the arbitrary decision made by a handful of private companies especially for something as basic and essential as a domain registration. Once again if you go go back and read the blog post I referenced earlier his major point is that there is no due process when private companies are making those decisions.
And that is because the private sector don't do due process for the most part, only the government guarantees it. It is apples to oranges.
The same people who say that a corporation should be able to censor behavior are the ones who say the NFL should not be able to stop the knee benders.
Go to that topic and look at the same people who do a 100% U-Turn on the issue when it's against a leftist cause.
It the same old hypocritical double standard by the leftists.
Yes.. Hypocritical as well. I am not a liberal nor conservative. I am pro business rights. How about you?
Not a single neysayer here has once answered whether or not they are pro business rights... Not a single one? I have lost count how many times it has been asked.
And that is because the private sector don't do due process for the most part, only the government guarantees it. It is apples to oranges.
You are missing the point. Critical pieces of infrastructure, services and other things that essential to the internet are being concentrated into the hands of a limited amount of companies. A domain registration is the firs requirement if you expect someone to type xyz.com into a browser and arrive at your site, if the limited amount of companies offering these services deny you that registration you're toast. Nobody should ever be denied a domain registration, period.
Once I would suggest you read the blog post I previously linked to from Cloudflare's CEO who is one of the people that pulled the plug on that site. He himself understands the danger of his actions and the issues with so much power in the hands of so few companies .... in his case one person. Stormfront is another site that uses their services, he could simply wave his magic wand and <poof> no more Stormfront.
...But legal rights may not matter if Cloudflare comes under pressure from customers to take down content. And that's why Prince is working to cultivate a social consensus that infrastructure providers like Cloudflare should not be in the censorship business—no matter how offensive its customers' content might be.
Prince's visit came in the midst of the network neutrality debate. Cloudflare supports network neutrality—it even offers customers an option to display a pro-net-neutrality page to visitors—and Prince argues that people should think of Cloudflare as a neutral infrastructure provider like Comcast or Verizon.
In theory, Comcast could blacklist hate sites, preventing its broadband customers from accessing them. But nobody gets mad at Comcast for declining to do that. In fact, lots of people think it should be illegal for Comcast to block websites based on their content (and current FCC rules prohibit such blocking).
The thing that has be very puzzled: The Democrats and Left-leaning folks on this forum are very concerned that Trump is going to do something like shutdown CNN or the New York Times, etc.
Not the same. At all.
Quote:
What am I missing here?
Everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
If you haven't picked up on the difference between private companies not hosting content vs. government officials using the force of law to ban certain viewpoints in 1100 posts or so, then it's certainly beyond my powers to formulate an explanation you'd understand.
Mind-boggling, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
OPC's are federally regulated, even if privately owned by shareholders.
There are rules and there is no having it both ways.
You can link to that law until the cows come home, but it still won't apply to the topic at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
If cable companies across the nation removed CNN and MSNBC enmasse because they didn't like their politics, would you care?
Not the same thing. At all.
Internet - YouTube - Alex Jones' videos are equitable to Cable company = CNN - advertisement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
But it concerns me that we might be heading towards a world where everyone on Gab.ai, Bitchute and Minds.com is Right-leaning and everyone on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook is Left-leaning. We end up losing the ability to discuss and engage with those with opposing views because we've been forcibly segregated by giant Internet platforms. I don't think it's a good idea. I acknowledge that they have the legal right to kick people off. They don't even need a good reason. But it's leading nowhere good. We're already getting dangerously divided. Segregating Left and Right into echo-chambers on the Internet isn't helpful.
Maybe you should have told Alex Jones about this before he violated YouTube's TOS. Repeatedly.
Quote:
Like it or not, InfoWars is a news media company and these people just demonstrated that they are willing and able to run a coordinated takedown of a news media company. That bothers me and it really should bother you. Very strange that it does not.
'
There's nothing that even remotely approaches news on InfoWars. Furthermore, InfoWars is still around; it's just not available on YouTube. That's why it doesn't bother me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
YouTube has always billed itself as a video sharing platform open to everyone.
YouTube has always had a Terms of Service policy. Videos are removed from YouTube every day for violating that policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Yes, they all simultaneously made a business decision.
They all decided to no longer just be content providers.
They have stepped up to official media publishers with an editorial staff, from protected social media host, where they could not be held liable for what was posted on their "private" site.
LMAO -- still spouting the same old errors in fact?
You are missing the point. Critical pieces of infrastructure, services and other things that essential to the internet are being concentrated into the hands of a limited amount of companies. A domain registration is the firs requirement if you expect someone to type xyz.com into a browser and arrive at your site, if the limited amount of companies offering these services deny you that registration you're toast. Nobody should ever be denied a domain registration, period.
Once I would suggest you read the blog post I previously linked to from Cloudflare's CEO who is one of the people that pulled the plug on that site. He himself understands the danger of his actions and the issues with so much power in the hands of so few companies .... in his case one person. Stormfront is another site that uses their services, he could simply wave his magic wand and <poof> no more Stormfront.
Here's another article on it:
I've read it and it is an unenviable position that companies like GoDaddy and Cloudflare were with realizing they hosted websites like that. I am not discounting the point at all either. I understand what those companies do. What you and I disagree with and will continue to is that nobody should ever be denied a domain registration. Should child molesters have a website to go to to be anonymous and talk about their exploits? You say yes they should. White supremacists, sure. IKA, fine. I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this disgusting and vile deporables.
Did you know that "editing" is not the same as "removing"? YouTube didn't "edit" Alex Jones's content, they removed it. There is a significant difference between the two.
Do you know the difference in an editor editing and an editor retracting. Both done by publishers, not content providers, that are immune.
YouTube is not a publisher nor content provider; doubly so from a legal perspective.
They make money for providing an open forum video producers to publish them to the public.
Those publishers, bring traffic and they sell $$$$$$$$$$$$$ in advertising.
They provide content, for the publishers to publish. So they can make a buck off their back.
Now they have an editor retracting content. They are the editing publisher, not just a content provider.
They make money for providing an open forum video producers to publish them to the public.
Those publishers, bring traffic and they sell $$$$$$$$$$$$$ in advertising.
They provide content, for the publishers to publish. So they can make a buck off their back.
Now they have an editor, editing & retracting content, they are the editing publisher, not just a content provider.
Yes, YouTube is a business doing business and making money.
Edits dont automatically transform a platform into a publisher under 230.
End all State involvement and let the free market decide.
We already tried that. It didn't work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
