Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2018, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,853 posts, read 17,360,513 times
Reputation: 14459

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiociolliscalves View Post
Agree completely. However, does anyone believe for a second that if these same platforms were instead targeting liberal contributors and content, they would say, "Hey, these are private businesses. They have every right to exclude our people and content."
Nope.

Liberals would be up in arms. Hypocrites just like conservatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2018, 07:52 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Why can't conservatives see the difference between a private company censoring content and the government doing so?


Hardly surprising considering they can't seem to figure out that the military whose bloated budget they continually vote to increase is part of the government they claim to favor spending less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2018, 07:53 PM
 
1,875 posts, read 2,234,897 times
Reputation: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
YouTube is a private company and they have the right to decide what kind of content is allowed on their platform. For what it's worth, they also censor pornographic content (you can still find some but it will be removed if discovered). Conservatives likely applaud that. We heard this same thing when A&E cancelled Duck Dynasty because of the Robertsons' extreme homophobia. A private company deciding what kind of content they will endorse is NOT the same as the government attempting to censor content. Phil Robertson has the Constitutional right to say that God hates f*gs but he doesn't have the right to be employed by A&E. If somebody with deep pockets wanted to start a "ConservaTube" or something and only show content that conforms to a conservative worldview, they would have the total right to do so. On the other hand, conservatives continually attack the media and 43% of them actually think Trump should have the authority to shut down the media. And yet Democrats are supposed to be the ones against the Constitution?

Why is it that conservatives can't see the difference between private companies censoring their platforms and the government censoring speech and why is it that conservatives actually tend to favor the government shutting down free speech when it benefits them?
I don't think it's exclusive to conservatives. Perhaps this is an indictment on our education system. Misinformation is peddled (intentionally and unintentionally) everywhere we go from our places of worship, schools, families, neighbors, the general media, etc. I think we often need to stop and look at the big picture and be open to the idea that we all might be wrong about things from time to time. Clearly people who think they are right all of the time must be delusional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2018, 08:03 PM
 
9,504 posts, read 4,340,821 times
Reputation: 10556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
The racists should build their own platforms for hate. YouTube, Facebook, etc. have their own right host to whatever content they chose.

Yet, YT, FB, etc., allow the worst racists, sexists, and bigots (aka leftists and Dems) to post freely. Why is that OK?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2018, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Florida
2,309 posts, read 901,747 times
Reputation: 659
I understand perfectly. Ultimately, the private sector has the right to ban whatever they want. Conversely, we have the right to disagree with the decision Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc makes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2018, 12:12 AM
 
21,474 posts, read 10,572,809 times
Reputation: 14124
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall View Post
Yet, YT, FB, etc., allow the worst racists, sexists, and bigots (aka leftists and Dems) to post freely. Why is that OK?
Louis Farrakhan is allowed on all those platforms, and he has said and done some horrendous things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2018, 12:17 AM
 
21,474 posts, read 10,572,809 times
Reputation: 14124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A View Post
I understand perfectly. Ultimately, the private sector has the right to ban whatever they want. Conversely, we have the right to disagree with the decision Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc makes.
But do we really have an alternative? These platforms are basically monopolies. Alex Jones will probably start his own channel independently, but without the numbers seeing it that would on one of those platforms. I can understand banning Jones since he’s such a nut, but they had a few democrats saying they should ban all conservative sites. That’s disturbing to me since it would be almost like NBC or CBS only allowing Democrats to advertise or interview or debate. I think that would actually be against the law, and a total disservice to our political system
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2018, 01:51 AM
 
Location: California
37,135 posts, read 42,209,520 times
Reputation: 35013
Once we trust bust and make some new utilities it won't be so much of an issue. I don't know what people think the government is censoring now though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2018, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,957 posts, read 75,183,468 times
Reputation: 66918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
They can post or not post what they want to, as long as they publicly come clean about their policies for including or excluding content. So far, they are trying to continue to pretend that they are unbiased in their stated policies, but in their practices, not so much.
Terms of Service for any website are readily available ... to anyone who can read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
There are no real alternatives to Google, MSN, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Comcast, Disney, and other Leftist tech, and media corporations.
Of course there are. If you can't find any of them, you're not looking very hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
You do know the government is telling the private companies to censor their material - and it's usually conservative material...
Aren't at least two out of three branches of government dominated by conservatives?

You're going to have to try harder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
The policy needs to be applied equally and fairly to all who use the company's resources.

Otherwise it is censorship by definition. Pretty simple. Is youtube banning people equally and fairly? No.
YouTube suspends accounts every day for TOS violations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
Louis Farrakhan is allowed on all those platforms, and he has said and done some horrendous things.
While I agree that Farrakhan can come up with some pretty hateful stuff, has he posted those "horrendous things" on YouTube? If so, you have a point. If not ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2018, 09:49 AM
 
189 posts, read 110,731 times
Reputation: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by stremba View Post
Begging the question: what makes the bakery a public accommodation and YouTube NOT a public accommodation? Besides you asserting without any evidence that YouTube does not qualify as a public accommodation, how do you know that it is not? Does not YouTube purport to allow ANYONE to post videos? Facilities need not mean physical facilities. YouTube indeed has computer servers that it allows the general public to use. Why does that not make it a public accommodation?

It's not up to you to decide. It's in the U.S. Code.

The legal definition of a public accommodation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181
If you think this ought to be changed, talk to your legislators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:25 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top