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.
Just because someone is introducing a bill doesn't mean it is constitutionally valid. I wager this congressman doesn't fully understand the Internet, ISPs, content providers on the Internet, Terms of Services (TOS) that we all agree to when we use these sites and web services, and how all of the above come together in relation to these cases like Jones'.
People keep harping on how "they" can be legally regulated...but that would change nothing. Just as Fox News is not mandated to carry any and every message on their platform, YouTube cannot be mandated to do that, either.
Yup. They can also vote this congressperson out. So many options. Him saying this does not mean it will come to be.
Its highly strange to me that more people are not asking why we need a federal govt agency like the FCC, who monitors popular media for content, heck, they will still fine someone for using certain language on network tv or showing too much skin. Very strange that we need the morality police in 2018, especially a govt agency, telling us what is appropriate and what is not, anyone else see a problem with this?
I somewhat agree with you, but that is not what the poster was taking about.
That is, if ISPs don't ban his site (which they can do now thanks to Trump)... But that has nothing to do with this thread.
Net neutrality as designed by the Obama administration is simply a trojan horse to restrict political free speech on the Internet. - Alex Jones
If the ISP restricts or throttles traffic to his website, I am going to laugh.... Smirk... And laugh more. Those in the Whitehouse failed to understand internet.
....you do realize that no one is compelled to use YouTube, right? Yes, it's big. So is Target. You don't have to shop at Target.
So if you (general) dont like their practices, dont use them. You can help a content provider you like grow, start your own, etc.
And no, I wouldn't expect you to allow millions of people onto your lawn just because there are millions. That's a weird argument. They may be missing out on revenue somehow if they decline, but that's their choice.
This property (YouTube) is operating within the current laws of the government when they do this. Lobby to get those laws changed, go find a content provider, create one, etc.
You have many choices for shopping but if you want your videos to be seen by millions of people there is only one website. That is not to say there aren't video hosting site, but when compared to youtube they are insignificant. Your comparison is again, not to the point.
It was you who brought up a weird argument about you in my lawn. If I was selling something, yes I would want millions of people in my lawn, in that case I wouldn't mind if you are ALSO there.
The system is rigged, the purpose of the law is to benefits corporations and rich people, not everyday joe trying to create an original video and "make it" as a youtuber.
I'm having a hard time taking seriously anything written by someone named "Grant J Kidney".
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadicDrifter
Technically, not a violation of freedom of speech since FB, google (youtube), and apple are private companies. Also, alex jones is a real slimeball.
And if he weren't such a slimeball, he wouldn't be violating the YouTube TOS. Solving the issue is simple - read the rules, and abide by them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Communications, is a federally regulated industry.
Some of it is, some of it isn't. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the "industry" before commenting on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadicDrifter
America also regulates companies that have essentially cornered the market. In this case, a few giant social media companies control almost all of the pie. They essentially make an oligopoly. You may want to ask yourself if it was a coincidence that Alex Jones was banned almost immediately from Youtube, FB, and Spotify? It was not. These companies coordinated and colluded to do this. This sets a bad precedence and if existing regulations are not sufficient to deal with them, new regulations need to be passed.
Alex Jones being banned from YouTube has nothing to do with any federal regulations covering communications corporations, "cornering the market" or otherwise. Surely, YouTube isn't "cornering the market" anyway; there are plenty of other user-generated video platforms out there for Alex Jones to spew his nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelogo
The Internet is a private company, just find another one.
"The Internet" is not a private company. LMAO.
The lack of understanding about the issue is astounding!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelogo
It is not hard, they have the right to kick him out. This doesn't change the fact that it is censorship.
Why is this so hard to understand?
No one is being censored. Why is that so hard to understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelogo
The confusion here is that people relate censorship with the government violation.
That is what is covered by the First Amendment. Private companies are not bound by the First Amendment. They may prevent anyone from saying or printing anything they please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Its highly strange to me that more people are not asking why we need a federal govt agency like the FCC, who monitors popular media for content, heck, they will still fine someone for using certain language on network tv or showing too much skin. Very strange that we need the morality police in 2018, especially a govt agency, telling us what is appropriate and what is not, anyone else see a problem with this?
The FCC responds to consumer complaints. It does not "monitor" media for content. Good grief! Educate yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Another way to look at it, if that govt aggressively tries to silence censor someone...well, they must be a pretty big threat!
What government has tried to silence which someone?
I meant Internet providers. And yes, censorship can be legal, and that's what is under discussion.
Again, please explain how it's illegal for YouTube to remove Alex Jones' channel from its platform, and how that constitutes censorship.
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.
