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.
Well now there are other platforms he get on he is most likely there already there GAB, bitchute, minds etc: these platforms are growing because of the censorship that's going on!
They are. It's kinda weird that the lessons of the demise of MySpace need to be learned the hard way all over again: If you treat your uses like crap, then they'll abandon you and jump on somebody else's website.
Gab.ai is functionally better than Twitter and a free speech absolutists zone.
Minds.com is a better version of Facebook without all the spying and selling of your personal information. They also are completely against censorship period.
Bitchute isn't as good as YouTube yet, but it does lack the politically biased censorship. It also can function bit-torrent style without needing a centralized server. You-Tube costs Google more money to run than it makes them, but Bitchute would have almost no overhead giving them an insanely huge competitive advantage.
The site or sites that replace today's massive social media platforms may not even exist yet. The big guys seem to have chosen suicide, so it'll be interesting to see who replaces them.
So...bakers can choose not to bake cakes according to their beliefs, but Internet businesses (not The Internet itself, a different construct) must be forced to allow anything?
Common sense is on your side, but sadly Alex Jones fans don't get it.
They are. It's kinda weird that the lessons of the demise of MySpace need to be learned the hard way all over again: If you treat your uses like crap, then they'll abandon you and jump on somebody else's website.
Gab.ai is functionally better than Twitter and a free speech absolutists zone.
Minds.com is a better version of Facebook without all the spying and selling of your personal information. They also are completely against censorship period.
Bitchute isn't as good as YouTube yet, but it does lack the politically biased censorship. It also can function bit-torrent style without needing a centralized server. You-Tube costs Google more money to run than it makes them, but Bitchute would have almost no overhead giving them an insanely huge competitive advantage.
The site or sites that replace today's massive social media platforms may not even exist yet. The big guys seem to have chosen suicide, so it'll be interesting to see who replaces them.
....and here is how it should be. YouTube owes nothing to anyone. By the reverse, users owe no loyalty to YouTube. They are free to take their business elsewhere. YouTube can decide to change their business practices to woo people back, or stick to their guns, or whatever.
If everyone wants to stay complacent, it's their choice. It doesn't mean that monetizers are supposed to be able to have their income guaranteed right away. It isn't going to be easy. But you innovate and struggle ahead or die as a business.
If Net Neutrality would have passed, not only would Jones social media be removed, his entire website would have been removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
You are completely, utterly wrong.
You don't understand net neutrality.
Neither of you can provide a government document to support your claims.
Net neutrality is about band-with, not content.
The FCC under the Obama Administration imposed 1930s regulations designed for radio onto ISPs. You can find those regulations in Title II United States Code. Those regulations caused a nearly 6% decrease in investment in broad-band, and seriously hampered small and local ISP providers, who now had to pay several $Million annually in compliance fees, and that's just for the army of attorneys, paralegals and legal secretaries, it doesn't include the actual cost of compliance, which is tens of $Millions more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Nope, you're the one who has it backwards. Net neutrality prohibits ISPs from throttling speed or altering access to websites.
Your reading comprehension is incredibly poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted_Foster
The banning of Infowars is nothing but blatant censorship, hiding behind the fig leaf of corporate rights.
Corporations are not beholden to the Constitution, and neither are you.
When Jehovah's Witnesses come round, do you listen patiently, or do you censor them and send them packing?
The technical term would be an editorial retraction. The editor removed the content.
Um, that's not what an "editorial retraction" is, either.
Add that to the list ... !
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Removing a channel, is different than letting the open public choose what channel.
You are no longer an open public communications platform, You just determined you are the same as CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYT, WaPO, Buzzfeed, INFOwars. Same as, means competitor.
More words to add to the list:
Competitor
"open public communications platform" ( )
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
And what period of time is "the allotted time under federal protections a licensed Media Corporation is afforded" to retract comments and in what specific statute is that set forth? I would like to see a precise citation so we can all see for ourselves.
I'm still trying to get BentBow to define what exactly a "licensed media corporation" is, and under which "licensing" do YouTube and InfoWars fall?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
You want me to go do your homework for you again.
I don't think you guys knew INFOwars is a Licensed Media Corporation.
Which license does InfoWars have, again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Now you have service provider, confused with content provider, confused with content publisher.
You're the one who's confused, hon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
It doen't work like that. Individual publishers, v. Corporate providers.
This is what is being debated. They want it both ways. They want to be provider & publisher, without the liability that comes along with being the publisher.
This is getting better and better ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Hate speech is not a crime on an open public communication platform. It is free and protected speech.
Once again ... Violating a website's TOS is not necessarily a "crime", and if a privately owned website wants to prevent hate speech from appearing on its site, it has that right.
Quote:
They are governed by federal rules, until they start, being their own publisher and not just a protected provider.
Once they start editorial publishing, deciding what is legally posted but their rules now and what is not, they can be held liable for what is published.
Come again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
There was a lot of discussion about Net Neutrality recently. I'd say we need an expanded version of net neutrality to mandate non-discrimination on the entire Internet by all entities. At least virtual monopolies and mega-corporations like Google, Apple, Twitter and the like should be banned from favoring and/or discriminating against anybody's content.
That's not what net neutrality provides, but ... whatever.
Quote:
Net Neutrality as it existed wouldn't have made any difference in this case
Gee, I wonder why? LMAO ...
By your logic, I should be able to walk into my neighborhood grocery store and shout out whatever opinions I have with no repercussions. Google and Twitter are private organizations, just as is my neighborhood grocery store. The owners of these private organizations have every right to prevent random people from using their website and grocery aisles however they wish.
There was a lot of discussion about Net Neutrality recently. I'd say we need an expanded version of net neutrality to mandate non-discrimination on the entire Internet by all entities. At least virtual monopolies and mega-corporations like Google, Apple, Twitter and the like should be banned from favoring and/or discriminating against anybody's content. Net Neutrality as it existed wouldn't have made any difference in this case, but I think it's time we put something in place that would cover that and everything good that Net Neutrality did cover. The Internet needs to remain a zone of absolute freedom where coordinated takedowns and unpersonings are not allowed and not possible.
I wouldn't support expanding net neutrality beyond the ISP as you have a choice to use a platform and websites unlike utilities the end user doesn't have a choice of the interim infrastructure to establish end to end communication. Doing so, would set a precident that removes the private entities ability to make business decisions.
Example... Godtube would not be able to establish a community friendly for the religious because they would require to host LGBTQ content.
The Bakery would be required to bake a cake for the same.sex couple despite it being counter to their beliefs.
Christian forums wouldn't be able to establish a religious friendly community without also catering to people of other faiths.
Etc...
It would truly be a socialist system of business because the precieved social would be held higher than private property rights... Meaning it implies that private property is actually the property of the community.
This would be bad for business and simply drive them to host outside the country as many already have post SESTA and FOSTA legislation.
Think of a Bible store who would have to cater to atheists, Muslims etc... Think of a women only gym that would be forced to let men in... Etc. The internet has the same ramifications as reality but it is a lot harder to imagine or predict because of the sheer accessibility. This is why people need to think really long and consult the technology community before making such decisions. This is why legislators are illequipped to make laws regarding the internet... And most are too ego driven to ask for advice from "liberal" centers that created much of the virtual real estate to begin with. Yes... This means asking Silicon Valley for help rather than attack them for their liberal leanings.
I am consider myself a moderate not affiliated with either parties. My views are probably more liberal than most are willing to accept. Even I would find it extremely disconcerting that any government intervention cam result in the violation of private property rights... Either in the physical world or virtual. If I paid for the server and bandwidth, I should be allowed to manage it... No government should tell me what I can and cannot do. Just like if I have a store, no government should be able to take control of my store.
Any conservative who is for bigger government intervention and less property rights shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a conservative. It is hypocritical
Yeah, I kinda do. Managing traffic on large-scale IP-based networks is my field of professional expertise, and I have been nicely compensated by several Fortune 500 companies whose products you've used to put my skills and knowledge to use.
I posted the layman explanation. You can learn, or stay ignorant. Your call.
Neither of you can provide a government document to support your claims.
Net neutrality is about band-with, not content.
The FCC under the Obama Administration imposed 1930s regulations designed for radio onto ISPs. You can find those regulations in Title II United States Code. Those regulations caused a nearly 6% decrease in investment in broad-band, and seriously hampered small and local ISP providers, who now had to pay several $Million annually in compliance fees, and that's just for the army of attorneys, paralegals and legal secretaries, it doesn't include the actual cost of compliance, which is tens of $Millions more.
Your reading comprehension is incredibly poor.
Corporations are not beholden to the Constitution, and neither are you.
When Jehovah's Witnesses come round, do you listen patiently, or do you censor them and send them packing?
It's proof InfoWars engages in censorship, too.
So, pot-kettle-black.
He is technically correct. FacePuke is not privately owned. FacePuke is a publicly-traded corporation.
There are major significant differences financially, legally and otherwise between private companies and publicly-traded corporations.
"No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business."
"No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences."
The Deep State, Globalists, and Soros are trying to shut down free speech and damage the re-election of Donald Trump!!
Trump does enough of that on his own accord.
YouTube is now the deep state? I didn’t get the memo......
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.
)
