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.
How are 230 and antitrust related? Wth does it have to do with Youtubes right to control content on their private resources
They have demonstrated a political bias.
Clearly!
It isn't what INFOwars has said.
It is all about what INFOwars might say, leading up to the 2018 Mid-terms.
Jones is too effective.
People are drawn to the truth, with a little comedy, so you don't get bored.
Reason Steven Crowder and Paul Joseph Watson are so powerful, too.
There is anti-trust
There have been violations of 230, to create the anti-trust. Those are one in the same.
Get this, Twitters TOS is identical of those that scrubbed Jones & INFOwars.
Jones Tweets out all his content. None of it has violated Twitters TOS.
That alone is very telling.
They should have gotten a consensus. Twitters statement that Jones has not violated any of their TOS is key evidence.
And yes, I can easily prove political parties are different forms of religion. The parallels are all there, identically.
So....the YouTube TOS said that they decide what violates and MAY remove you (May, not absolutely will every single time). It's a pretty broad TOS overall.
If Twitter has the same TOS, then....they also decide what violates and may remove you. Different companies, not the same monolith. Different decisions on what violates and if they want to act.
It's still odd that this is so hard to understand.
There are sites like Vimeo and DailyMotion who have millions of views. Not the billions like YT, but not teeny tiny. Twitch is also not just gaming anymore...there is a wide variety of content from knitting to NFL. I dont know about first 2, but you can monetize on Twitch. New sites or methods of monetization can pop up. But it's hard if you (general) just stay with YouTube.
It isn't easy to change, sure. But there's the saying "if you keep doing what you're doing you'll keep getting what you're getting". It's not really much different than if a physical business has a problem with a supplier. They have to adapt and find a new one or die.
GAB TV is the new big thing.
People are flocking there and putting all there Youtube libraries content up, as a back-up.
the irony being that the Trump lemmings cheered the death of new neutrality, which in turn created a situation where Alex Jones's site could actually be banned by ISP.
Even more hilarious is that the Trump lemmings are incapable of understanding that irony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
If Duke Energy started curtailing service because of political views, the only thing that would happen is customers would switch to First Energy.
Bad analogy, because Duke and First Energy are regulated public utilities, where YouTube is nothing close to being a public utility.
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.
Nope, you're the one who has it backwards. Net neutrality prohibits ISPs from throttling speed or altering access to websites.
A U.S. Senator calling for social media to ban more sites he doesn't like or agree with. That is different than a private company stating a user violated their TOS.
Not really. One Senator who doesn't understand his own nation's laws isn't going to change squat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
They just got the entire Gen Z and 1/2 of Millennials to tune in to his show
Got stats?
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
But silencing Jones for having the wrong opinions looks really bad, just as Trump ordering the CNN be taken off the air would look really bad.
Jones hasn't been silenced. He's free to spout his nonsense on any other platform that will have him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Get this... Apple, Windows, and the app Stores, refuse to have the GAB app.
Are you incapable of accessing that site via an internet browser?
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
First they came for Alex Jones. Eventually they'll come for you.
False analogy. No government has "come" for Alex Jones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyy
If there was ever a POC thread Hall of Fame this should be the first thread to be enshrined. I have read the entire thread and the hysteria over this nut job is remarkable. He repeatedly violated Youtube's TOS. If I had my way I would have banned him from the beginning for spreading misinformation that is misleading to his gullible and impressionable audience. People should be embarrassed to admit they listen to his rhetoric.
I hope the elimination of net neutrality takes him down completely. He deserves it especially after the damage he has done to the families of Sandy Hook and the false claims of a child sex abuse ring in the basement of a DC pizza parlor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound
No bad analogy.
Facebook, youtube and all the other social media are like a public square. In some cases even like a protest. People give their opinions. People should be afforded the same first amendment rights that they would out in public. Its the same thing just a different medium. Just because google is a public corporation instead of a public square should not give them special powers that others entities do not have.
Yours is the bad analogy. hon.
Facebook YouTube and other social media are like a gathering on private property - the local mall, for instance. The owner of the mall is free to allow people to gather, but is also free to require them to leave. The fact that the mall - and YouTube - are private companies does indeed give them special powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound
Verizon for example sells phones to everyone. They don't delete phone accounts from people that might be using the phones to talk and text things that Verizon does not agree with. And its Verizon's network you are using. Social media needs to be grouped as communications not data storage or just a tech company and treated as such.
Verizon is a public utility. YouTube is not. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.
Quote:
On top of that you have monopolies with some of these companies like Google with youtube. They dominate the video content online.
"Dominate" does not equal "monopoly".
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelogo
Or maybe your IPS will refuse to give you service because you spend too much time on websites they don't like.
LMAO -- the end of net neutrality will indeed allow my "IPS" to throttle service on any websites it chooses. Oh, the irony ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
Thanks to the repeal of Net Neutrailty, your ISPs can absolutely throttle service to a particular site.
Again: Oh, the irony ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound
So you go from 100% to 15% That is a huge hit.
I believe your math is faulty ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
This is a dangerous path we are on. Censorship in any form threatens freedom.
No one has been censored. Alex Jones has been removed from a privately owned website. He's free to spout his nonsense elsewhere. How many times do we have to say that before it sinks in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Shows a pervasive pattern of political bias.
Are the social media giants exercising their 1st amendment, by censorship and banning?
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Quote:
Just like when CNN defames and libel someone in the content they publish, they can be sued.
Anybody can sue anyone else for anything they choose.
Quote:
The Social Media Giants want the protections, but do not want to abide by the regulations that come with it
.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Jones being Licensed Media, has the protection of the retraction and editorial corrections. Just like CNN, MSNBC, Fox.....
InfoWars is "licensed media"? Licensed by whom, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Your e-mail provider does not read your mail edit and and censor it.
Ya, it is like you cannot be charged for bank robbery, because you are already charged with stealing the get away car.
And for those that went along with this forum cannot be sued, like a led you right where I wanted you. You agreed because that is what you wanted to hear.
The truth is City Data can be sued for what is on these here forums.
People in control of things, have not hidden their bias. It is the reason Personal attacks are not tolerated. Even typing out a users name in a post can be taken the wrong way. Hit the report post, before filing the lawsuit!
Now you're just spouting nonsensical gibberish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Licensed Media has the protections of the retraction, redaction, and editorial corrections, to correct what was wrong in the original articles, stories, and postings. There is a measure of time placed on incorrect published, being corrected. Miss that time limit and the media can be sued for defamation & libel.
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.
