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.
I'm asking whether this is ok - i.e, I'm asking you a moral not a legal question.
But, of course, it's morally okay. However, it would be a poor business decision. If Duke Energy started curtailing service because of political views, the only thing that would happen is customers would switch to First Energy.
Then Duke risks being Zenithed.
First Energy might amass more profits than Duke, and then use those profits to buy stock in Duke Energy, until First Energy had a controlling interest in Duke Energy, and then First Energy would ride Duke into the ground, and buy Duke for pennies-on-the-dollar while Duke was in bankruptcy.
step 1- google "protected class" step 2- demand refund from constitutional law class?? Step 3- change "black people" to "gays" step 4- post exact opposite thought on CD.
There are no protected classes of people in the constitution. Those come from federal regulations. There is nothing magical about them. They can be repealed, or we can expend them to include political party/affiliation/opinion.
Google makes money on the info in collects from your online activity as well as other services it sells like advertising. They are not doing it as some favor. Come on. Who thinks that. But if they were to delete your account just because they did not like your ideology that is a problem.
Verizon makes money on its services and you use their cell towers to make calls and send texts. You are totally missing what I am saying. These social media giants have supplanted previous forms of communications for many people. A virtual town square. So to give them the power as to who can communicate and who can not is dangerous. Just as ma bell having the control of deciding who could have a telephone.
I know how google makes money, thanks.
How long should google be forced to keep data they don't want on the hard drives they paid for? Indefinitely? 5 years?
Should they create a devoted warehouse that holds server racks of data they wish they could delete off of their property that they paid for but are not allowed to?
They're welcome to sue, but yes, the agreement to TOS will keep anyone from winning.
No, not necessarily. Contracts get thrown out in court all the time. For example pre-nuptials. A written agreement is not 100% full proof. This is elementary my dear watson.
No, not necessarily. Contracts get thrown out in court all the time. For example pre-nuptials. A written agreement is not 100% full proof. This is elementary my dear watson.
So go try it and let us know how it works out, Sherlock.
Alex Jones has as much right to spew his hate as much as CNN, FOX, and all the rest of MSM to spew their fake, war pushing news.
You ignore a major distinction.
CNN, FOX, and the rest of the MSM own and operate the platforms on which they operate.
Alex Jones does not own You-Tube. He merely uploads videos there, and he does so for free.
It says something that Jones is too damn lazy to operate and maintain his own platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
Another one who has it completely backwards.
Net neutrality prevented ISPs from blocking access to content that they don't like or approve of.
You have it completely backwards.
Net neutrality is about all customers paying the same fees for service, meaning a data hog pays the same as someone who doesn't use the internet very much, and whose pages load slowly, because data hogs are hogging all the band-width.
The elimination of net neutrality permits ISPs to charge customers based on their usage, so that data hogs pay their fare share. In the alternative, it allows ISPs to reduce the bit rate of data hogs.
If CNN were taken off the air tomorrow, would you be happy about that? Would you be saying, "Cry me a river CNN! Suck it up butter-cup!! Pull yourself up and quit your crying!!"
If somebody shutdown the New York Times, Huffington Post, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC or any other Left-biased entity, would your reaction be the same?
Political content creators on these platforms will definitely see Alex Jones as the canary in the coal mine. Most have already mirrored their channels on Steam It, Minds, Gab.ai, Bitchute, Daily Motion and many other sites. As more and more voices on the Right are pushed off of these platforms, these alternative sites will be the only places where free speech online actually exists. That fact alone will turn Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Apple and your other big players into what My Space is today: A ghost town. Anyone sticking around will do so because they wish to remain inside the increasingly narrow-minded echo chamber. Meanwhile, the bulk of Americans will go wherever free speech still lives. I'm not a big fan of Alex Jones, but I can tell you that he and the Republicans will milk this move for all it's worth carrying right into the Mid-Term Elections.
Because you are comparing apples to oranges indicates you don't quite understand the situation.
If CNN used a platform like youtube and violated their TOS, I fully would accept the end result. You tube is a private entity and I respect their authority over their resources.
I also was OK with the final court decision over the Bakery.... It too is a win for business rights.
Conservatives need to learn what has happened here and understand this is a win for you... You simply cannot pick and choose what laws apply to whom. Educate yourselves.
You also. Mistake. Me for a liberal. This is pathetic people.... The conservatives here are suppose to be more probusiness than I. I am a software engineer by trade.... If some day I grow to be large I don't want anyone... Including the government... Thinking they have entitlements to my property... Simply because they don't like how I run my business.
Entitlements... Huh... Thought conservatives where against entitlements... Hypocrites
CNN, FOX, and the rest of the MSM own and operate the platforms on which they operate.
Alex Jones does not own You-Tube. He merely uploads videos there, and he does so for free.
It says something that Jones is too damn lazy to operate and maintain his own platform.
This is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You have it completely backwards.
Net neutrality is about all customers paying the same fees for service, meaning a data hog pays the same as someone who doesn't use the internet very much, and whose pages load slowly, because data hogs are hogging all the band-width.
The elimination of net neutrality permits ISPs to charge customers based on their usage, so that data hogs pay their fare share. In the alternative, it allows ISPs to reduce the bit rate of data hogs.
This is not. Net neutrality means that the ISP's are not allowed to discriminate in throttling or blocking packets based on the content, source, or destinations of the packets sent.
There was nothing in net neutrality stopping ISPs from offering different tiers of service speeds. Which should be obvious since almost ALL ISPs DID offer different tiers of service while net neutrality was in effect.
What it DID say, was that if you pay for 100 MBPS, and the ISP doesn't like say... INFOwars - then they are not allowed to throttle you down to 1 MBPS when you are consuming packets sourced from INFOwars. Now, they can if they want to.
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.
