This isn't politics - Better pay attention

[Shaps]

https://www.rt.com/usa/521456-youtube-ceo-free-expression-award/

The height of hypocrisy.

"Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of Google’s video platform YouTube, was awarded the Freedom Forum Institute’s ‘Free Expression Award’ on Friday in a ceremony sponsored by her own company – despite YouTube’s track record of censorship."

“The freedoms we have, we really can’t take for granted,” Wojcicki declared, adding that “we really have to make sure we’re protecting them in every way possible.”

Wojcicki, however, went on to argue that “we also need to make sure there are limits,” and revealed that the company removed nine million videos in the last quarter, 90% of which were taken down by machines.

She also said there is “a lot of content that technically meets the spirit of what we’re trying to do, but it is borderline, and so for that content we will just reduce – meaning we’re not going to recommend it to our users.”

****Understand yet? They know best. They will decide for you. They determine what you should be allowed to say or not say.

[drauz]

****Understand yet? They know best. They will decide for you. They determine what you should be allowed to say or not say.

They decide what is acceptable on their platform, seems about right to me. They aren't the gov't, you don't have free speech on their platform.

[~Rocktar~]

They decide what is acceptable on their platform, seems about right to me. They aren't the gov't, you don't have free speech on their platform.

The phone company isn't the government but you DO have free speech on their platform because they are a medium based on the same protections granted to Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and so on. Yet simpletons like you and others argue this same retarded point every time. And then you go whole hog on persecuting a baker or florist when they choose to refuse service to people based on their faith.

Get it yet? You are the Left are hypocrites and do not believe in free speech and you are defending your bastions of control at every turn. It's ok when they censor conservatives because they are mean. Just remember Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you. They see themselves as a government and that needs to stop.

[Gelston]

It is business. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Just like Kranar could pop back in here and stop you from spamming 35646435 threads about whatever article you come across every day.

[Seran]

https://www.rt.com/usa/521456-youtube-ceo-free-expression-award/

The height of hypocrisy.

"Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of Google’s video platform YouTube, was awarded the Freedom Forum Institute’s ‘Free Expression Award’ on Friday in a ceremony sponsored by her own company – despite YouTube’s track record of censorship."

“The freedoms we have, we really can’t take for granted,” Wojcicki declared, adding that “we really have to make sure we’re protecting them in every way possible.”

Wojcicki, however, went on to argue that “we also need to make sure there are limits,” and revealed that the company removed nine million videos in the last quarter, 90% of which were taken down by machines.

She also said there is “a lot of content that technically meets the spirit of what we’re trying to do, but it is borderline, and so for that content we will just reduce – meaning we’re not going to recommend it to our users.”

****Understand yet? They know best. They will decide for you. They determine what you should be allowed to say or not say.

Everytime you're listening to Breitbart, Carlson, Mark Levin, etc, you're listening to content they assembled or wish to convey. You're not guaranteed an equal opportunity to hear contrarian views. In fact you listen to them because they make you little e-peen tingle.

[Candor]

I wonder what would happen if some liberal cause was censored by Youtube. I expect the cries for free speech would be quite loud.

[~Rocktar~]

I wonder what would happen if some liberal cause was censored by Youtube. I expect the cries for free speech would be quite loud.

You are correct.

[drauz]

The phone company isn't the government but you DO have free speech on their platform because they are a medium based on the same protections granted to Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and so on.

Except that it's not, and the courts have upheld that.


Recent Supreme Court precedent—in Manhattan Community Access Corp v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019)—has weighed against this argument, holding that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”

https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/prager-university-v-youtube-ninth-circuit-dismissal-affirms-youtubes-status-as-private-forum


And then you go whole hog on persecuting a baker or florist when they choose to refuse service to people based on their faith.

Pretty sure the Supreme Court upheld their right to do this, unfortunately they couldn't force people to continue using their service.

Care to reply and be wrong again?

[Gelston]

I wonder what would happen if some liberal cause was censored by Youtube. I expect the cries for free speech would be quite loud.

Yes, and the same people who are complaining about free speech and censorship from Google are the exact same people that would turn around tell these liberals that private businesses can set their own rules and that the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government. Both sides are hypocrites when something goes against them. Just be fucking consistent for once.

[Shaps]

Yes, and the same people who are complaining about free speech and censorship from Google are the exact same people that would turn around tell these liberals that private businesses can set their own rules and that the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government. Both sides are hypocrites when something goes against them. Just be fucking consistent for once.

I'm not being hypocritical at all. I don't think social media sites should censor anyone - unless they specifically are stating something that is already against established law.

Amazon (with AWS); Google (with their Cloud services); Twitter (read any "news" article these days- all they do is link Twitter posts); Microsoft (and all of their control of many systems); Apple (and all of their control of many systems); etc. are no longer just "private businesses".

They are the mechanism and services that the majority of the world, through personal, business, and government work is processed.

The owners of those companies determining the discourse allowed on those platforms - outside of what we consider protected speech under the 1st Amendment - is broken at this point.

If they are going to edit their content - then 230 protections should not apply.

If they want to remain a "public forum" and not censor content - then 230 protections should remain in place.

I don't think the CEO of YouTube, which is owned by Google, should determine what you, I, or anyone else says on their platform - so long as we are within the law with regards to the 1st Amendment. That is not what they are doing. To think otherwise is to be ignorant.

[Shaps]

It is business. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Just like Kranar could pop back in here and stop you from spamming 35646435 threads about whatever article you come across every day.

These forums don't control the majority of communications in this world.

And ouch, you trying to be all edgy all of a sudden? Didn't think you were so passive aggressive.

[Gelston]

You don't think a business should beable to control what happens on their platform? You think the Government should control it all? Sounds like communism to me.

[Shaps]

You don't think a business should beable to control what happens on their platform? You think the Government should control it all? Sounds like communism to me.

Actually what the YouTube CEO said they are doing is, but you must have woke up and been on your "I'm just going to be right no matter how shallow an analysis it is" kick today.

I said - if the business remains a "public forum" they should retain their 230 protections.

If they are not, and are going to censor content based on their personal beliefs and not on the basis of the First Amendment, then they should lose their 230 protections.

That is not communism. That is ensuring a company doesn't stifle your, mine, or anyone else right to freely express ideas, while still earning government benefits from censoring you.

Drink your coffee Gelston and wake up this morning. Your better than this shallow drivel you're spouting.

[Gelston]

Actually what the YouTube CEO said they are doing is, but you must have woke up and been on your "I'm just going to be right no matter how shallow an analysis it is" kick today.

I said - if the business remains a "public forum" they should retain their 230 protections.

If they are not, and are going to censor content based on their personal beliefs and not on the basis of the First Amendment, then they should lose their 230 protections.

That is not communism. That is ensuring a company doesn't stifle your, mine, or anyone else right to freely express ideas, while still earning government benefits from censoring you.

Drink your coffee Gelston and wake up this morning. Your better than this shallow drivel you're spouting this morning.

Nope. I amin favor of as little Government control as possible. You want more. I don't know how to explain this to you in any simpler terms.

[Shaps]

Nope. I amin favor of as little Government control as possible. You want more. I don't know how to explain this to you in any simpler terms.

You can't be that ignorant. Maybe you are though. Never thought that before with things you've said, but that is by far the stupidest analysis of a situation you've ever given.

[Seran]

I'm not being hypocritical at all. I don't think social media sites should censor anyone - unless they specifically are stating something that is already against established law.

Amazon (with AWS); Google (with their Cloud services); Twitter (read any "news" article these days- all they do is link Twitter posts); Microsoft (and all of their control of many systems); Apple (and all of their control of many systems); etc. are no longer just "private businesses".

They are the mechanism and services that the majority of the world, through personal, business, and government work is processed.

The owners of those companies determining the discourse allowed on those platforms - outside of what we consider protected speech under the 1st Amendment - is broken at this point.

If they are going to edit their content - then 230 protections should not apply.

If they want to remain a "public forum" and not censor content - then 230 protections should remain in place.

I don't think the CEO of YouTube, which is owned by Google, should determine what you, I, or anyone else says on their platform - so long as we are within the law with regards to the 1st Amendment. That is not what they are doing. To think otherwise is to be ignorant.

You're literally a broken record on this topic. The private sector dictates the terms and conditions of the use of its service, including the ability to moderate violent and objectionable material, if you don't like it you're free to use any one of hundreds of competing platforms. Most of them have the same standards, so good luck.

What you and your conspiracy theorist cronies want is unfettered access to the massive subscriber base of YouTube, for the hope of monetizing your hate speech and tinfoil had causes. This is a pipe dream and instead of spamming all of us with your alt squad, why don't you apply your energy to making a sympathetic content hosting service the next YouTube. You can call it WhiteTube or FreedomForum and you and all of your buddies can bask in your echo chamber all day long.

[Gelston]

You can't be that ignorant. Maybe you are though. Never thought that before with things you've said, but that is by far the stupidest analysis of a situation you've ever given.

ok boomer.

[Tgo01]

They decide what is acceptable on their platform, seems about right to me. They aren't the gov't, you don't have free speech on their platform.

"Just build your own multibillion dollar company!"

[drauz]

"Just build your own multibillion dollar company!"

Just pull yourself up by the bootstraps and do it.

[Gelston]

"Just build your own multibillion dollar company!"

They didn't start as multibillion dollar companies. Maybe the MyPillow guy will invest if you decide to start something.

[Tgo01]

They didn't start as multibillion dollar companies.

They used government protection to become the behemoth they are today and now they crush any competition that even tries to emerge. Same with Facebook. Facebook now just buys anything that might compete with Facebook.

When the government offered these protections to internet companies I don't think they envisioned just a handful of internet companies running everything, they wanted a lot of competition.

[Gelston]

They used government protection to become the behemoth they are today and now they crush any competition that even tries to emerge. Same with Facebook. Facebook now just buys anything that might compete with Facebook.

When the government offered these protections to internet companies I don't think they envisioned just a handful of internet companies running everything, they wanted a lot of competition.

You mean like Standard Oil did? Like AT&T did? Like Disney did? Like Microsoft did?

[Tgo01]

You mean like Standard Oil did? Like AT&T did? Like Disney did? Like Microsoft did?

And AT&T was broken up and is regulated like a son of a bitch.

Microsoft was so afraid of government intervention that Bill Gates invested heavily in Apple when they were about to go bankrupt just so they would have competition.

Facebook, Google, and Reddit continue to do whatever they want and don't seem to fear the government in the slightest bit.

I also would have no problem with this thinking of "Just build your own platform!" if Democrats actually allowed that shit to happen. Look what happened when someone dared to compete with Twitter; talking heads on MSNBC and CNN told everyone Parler was a threat to democracy itself, Democrat politicians lambasted Parler as a platform for white supremacists and Nazis, Democrats demanded their hosting company cut ties with them which they did. Look what happened to sites like Gab, just about every payment processor refused to do business with them, making it almost impossible to conduct business.

"Just build your own internet and banking system!"

This idea doesn't work when the players who control everything bend at the whim of one major political party.

[Gelston]

And AT&T was broken up and is regulated like a son of a bitch.

Microsoft was so afraid of government intervention they invested heavily in Apple just so they would have competition.

Facebook, Google, and Reddit continue to do whatever they want and don't seem to fear the government in the slightest bit.

I also would have no problem with this thinking of "Just build your own platform!" if Democrats actually allowed that shit to happen. Look what happened when someone dared to compete with Twitter; talking heads on MSNBC and CNN told everyone Parler was a threat to democracy itself, Democrat politicians lambasted Parler as a platform for white supremacists and Nazis, Democrats demanded their hosting company cut ties with them which they did. Look what happened to sites like Gab, just about every payment processor refused to do business with them, making it almost impossible to conduct business.

"Just build your own internet and banking system!"

This idea doesn't work when the players who control everything bend at the whim of one major political party.

No, really. There is a market for it. Twitter wasn't shit until the Arab Spring popularized it. It took google over a decade to get big.

PornHub doesn't moderate comments, so you can go post there too.

[Tgo01]

And AT&T was broken up and is regulated like a son of a bitch.

Microsoft was so afraid of government intervention that Bill Gates invested heavily in Apple when they were about to go bankrupt just so they would have competition.

Facebook, Google, and Reddit continue to do whatever they want and don't seem to fear the government in the slightest bit.

I also would have no problem with this thinking of "Just build your own platform!" if Democrats actually allowed that shit to happen. Look what happened when someone dared to compete with Twitter; talking heads on MSNBC and CNN told everyone Parler was a threat to democracy itself, Democrat politicians lambasted Parler as a platform for white supremacists and Nazis, Democrats demanded their hosting company cut ties with them which they did. Look what happened to sites like Gab, just about every payment processor refused to do business with them, making it almost impossible to conduct business.

"Just build your own internet and banking system!"

This idea doesn't work when the players who control everything bend at the whim of one major political party.

For more examples of the left just completely dominating the narrative in the way I just described look no further than Wikipedia.

Parler's summary:


Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.

Gab:


Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right userbase.[8] Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, and QAnon conspiracy theorists,[12] it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms.[22] Gab says it promotes free speech, individual liberty, and "the free flow of information online", though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.[25] Antisemitism is prominent in the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[27][32] Researchers note that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".

Competition to Twitter? "Nazis! White supremacists! EEEEVVVVVIIIILLLL! Don't go there!"

Oh but surely they mention Twitter's left wing tilt so I'm being totally unfair here.

Twitter:


Twitter is an American microblogging and social networking service on which users post and interact with messages known as "tweets". Registered users can post, like and retweet tweets, but unregistered users can only read them. Users access Twitter through its website interface or its mobile-device application software ("app"), though the service could also be accessed via SMS before April 2020.[13] Twitter, Inc. is based in San Francisco, California, and has more than 25 offices around the world.[14] Tweets were originally restricted to 140 characters, but was doubled to 280 for non-CJK languages in November 2017.[15] Audio and video tweets remain limited to 140 seconds for most accounts.

Oh wait, shit, not a single mention of their "moderation" being heavily left leaning. Weird.

Surely Wikipedia doesn't do this for news papers too.

NYPost:


The New York Post (sometimes abbreviated as NY Post) is a conservative-leaning[3] daily tabloid newspaper in New York City. The Post also operates NYPost.com, the celebrity gossip site PageSix.com and the entertainment site Decider.com.

NYPst is a "conservative-leaning" "tabloid" newspaper.

NYT is obviously far left leaning, surely this is noted.

NYT:

The New York Times (NYT or NY Times) is an American daily newspaper based in New York City with a worldwide readership.[7][8] Founded in 1851, the Times has since won 130 Pulitzer Prizes (the most of any newspaper),[9] and has long been regarded within the industry as a national "newspaper of record".[10] It is ranked 18th in the world by circulation and 3rd in the U.S.[11]

Hmm. Guess not.

[Gelston]

OH wow, companies talk shit about each other. Amazing detective work.

[Tgo01]

No, really. There is a market for it. Twitter wasn't shit until the Arab Spring popularized it. It took google over a decade to get big.

And these companies can't hope to compete in a market where Democrats tell them to shut someone down and they do exactly that.

Do you think Twitter or Google would still be a thing if when they were just starting out Republicans could have demanded everyone stop doing business with them and the companies were so afraid of Republicans that they did just that? Of course not.

Democrats have found a way to control speech, they just hide behind "private businesses" now.

So important was free speech and access to free speech platforms to politicians back in the day that they forbid telecommunication companies from discriminating against anyone and forbid them from censoring anyone using their platform, in exchange for these limitations they protected telecommunication companies from lawsuits and criminal charges if someone used their service to plan a murder or something.

Fast forward to the internet era and now congress is like "Eh, go ahead and discriminate, you can decide who can and cannot use your platform, you can censor free speech all you want, AND we'll even provide some protection from lawsuits."

What happened here? Why are we suddenly okay with this? The biggest difference is Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Reddit are MUCH more powerful in terms of providing a free speech platform than telecommunication companies ever were.

[Tgo01]

OH wow, companies talk shit about each other. Amazing detective work.

That would be fine if Wikipedia described themselves as "The free gossip rag that anyone can edit."

Instead they describe themselves as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I'm just asking for a bit of honesty here.

[Gelston]

That would be fine if Wikipedia described themselves as "The free gossip rag that anyone can edit."

Instead they describe themselves as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I'm just asking for a bit of honesty here.

You can go in and edit that out if you want, though.

[Tgo01]

You can go in and edit that out if you want, though.

The "super editors" or whatever they are called will just change it back and will eventually lock the section.

It's a whole thing over at Wikipedia now.

[Gelston]

The "super editors" or whatever they are called will just change it back and will eventually lock the section.

It's a whole thing over at Wikipedia now.

Then escalate it to moderation and review.

[Methais]

Everytime you're listening to Breitbart, Carlson, Mark Levin, etc, you're listening to content they assembled or wish to convey. You're not guaranteed an equal opportunity to hear contrarian views. In fact you listen to them because they make you little e-peen tingle.

I bet you think left wing outlets aren't like that all though, right?

[Gelston]

I bet you think left wing outlets aren't like that all though, right?

If you aren't reading your news from Politico, is it worth reading?

[drauz]

And these companies can't hope to compete in a market where Democrats tell them to shut someone down and they do exactly that.

Do you think Twitter or Google would still be a thing if when they were just starting out Republicans could have demanded everyone stop doing business with them and the companies were so afraid of Republicans that they did just that? Of course not.

Democrats have found a way to control speech, they just hide behind "private businesses" now.

So important was free speech and access to free speech platforms to politicians back in the day that they forbid telecommunication companies from discriminating against anyone and forbid them from censoring anyone using their platform, in exchange for these limitations they protected telecommunication companies from lawsuits and criminal charges if someone used their service to plan a murder or something.

Fast forward to the internet era and now congress is like "Eh, go ahead and discriminate, you can decide who can and cannot use your platform, you can censor free speech all you want, AND we'll even provide some protection from lawsuits."

What happened here? Why are we suddenly okay with this? The biggest difference is Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Reddit are MUCH more powerful in terms of providing a free speech platform than telecommunication companies ever were.

Parler banned leftist users. Didn't hear you crying about that.

[Gelston]

Parler banned leftist users. Didn't hear you crying about that.

A buddy of mine that isn't a leftist by any means disputed one of the Qanon rumours and they booted him.

[Methais]

No, really. There is a market for it. Twitter wasn't shit until the Arab Spring popularized it. It took google over a decade to get big.

PornHub doesn't moderate comments, so you can go post there too.

Unrelated: For what it's worth, PornHub only took 9 days to get 50 million users IIRC.

[Tgo01]

Parler banned leftist users. Didn't hear you crying about that.

Sounds like you're in favor of regulation to stop the madness of Democrats censoring free speech.

[Seran]

I bet you think left wing outlets aren't like that all though, right?

Lefty commentators, blogs and Podcasters all present the information relevant to their platform, if it's informed debate, then sure you'll see opposing viewpoints. If not, then their audience could care less about the view from across the ideological standpoint.

All of the content hosting services you're lambasting are moderating hate speech and topics fomenting sedition. You don't like it, join another platform. Want to expand Constitutional provisions to private enterprise? Start pushing for an Article V convention to consider new amendments.

[drauz]

Sounds like you're in favor of regulation to stop the madness of Democrats censoring free speech.

Maybe it's against their religion to host those views.

[Methais]

If you aren't reading your news from Politico, is it worth reading?

I only read Newsweek because it says "News" right there in the name so I know it's real news.

[Tgo01]

Maybe it's against their religion to host those views.

I don't think you're seeing the difference here.

Forcing a baker to write something = removing the baker's freedom of speech
Removing free speech Twitter doesn't approve of = removing said user's free speech

In both cases it is an attack on free speech, yet you somehow equate forcing a baker to do something against his will to a supposed "free speech platform" censoring speech the platform doesn't like.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed//001/067/362/f3c.gif

[Neveragain]

Unrelated: For what it's worth, PornHub only took 9 days to get 50 million users IIRC.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/l0MYB9BKgIAQyc2Mo/giphy.gif

[drauz]

I don't think you're seeing the difference here.

Forcing a baker to write something = removing the baker's freedom of speech
Removing free speech Twitter doesn't approve of = removing said user's free speech

In both cases it is an attack on free speech, yet you somehow equate forcing a baker to do something against his will to a supposed "free speech platform" censoring speech the platform doesn't like.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed//001/067/362/f3c.gif

I mean you only have freedom of speech against the gov't, they can't do anything to stop or retaliate against it. Literally everyone else in the world can do whatever they want to in response to what you say, just has to be legal.

Youtube saying "your ideas are dangerous" and stopping your ability to share those ideas on their platform is a pretty close approximation of that baker.

[Methais]

I mean you only have freedom of speech against the gov't, they can't do anything to stop or retaliate against it. Literally everyone else in the world can do whatever they want to in response to what you say, just has to be legal.

Youtube saying "your ideas are dangerous" and stopping your ability to share those ideas on their platform is a pretty close approximation of that baker.

This is correct.

It's also correct that they're giant hypocrites about it.

[Tgo01]

Youtube saying "your ideas are dangerous" and stopping your ability to share those ideas on their platform is a pretty close approximation of that baker.

Not really. In the case of the baker the government wants to force the baker to say something he doesn't agree with.

In the case of YouTube, a supposed PLATFORM, the "platform" decides who can and cannot engage in free speech.

[drauz]

Not really. In the case of the baker the government wants to force the baker to say something he doesn't agree with.

In the case of YouTube, a supposed PLATFORM, the "platform" decides who can and cannot engage in free speech.

And you are wanting the government to force Youtube to do exactly that. You want your cake and to eat it too.

[Tgo01]

And you are wanting the government to force Youtube to do exactly that.

A) You're wrong. I don't want the government to force Google to say something they don't agree with, I want them to allow people on their "platform" to say what they want without censorship.
B) I'm not even asking the government to force Google to allow people to say what they want without censorship, I want Google to be treated like a publisher if they want to censor people. Newspapers censor people all the time because they are a publisher and are thusly held liable for anything written in their newspaper. Google needs to be treated the same; they are either a platform which allows people to freely express their opinions and are afforded protection from lawsuits, or they are a publisher which can freely censor whoever they want but they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Why do you think any company should be treated differently than the rest? Is it because you agree with their politics and censorship?

[Gelston]

A) You're wrong. I don't want the government to force Google to say something they don't agree with, I want them to allow people on their "platform" to say what they want without censorship.
B) I'm not even asking the government to force Google to allow people to say what they want without censorship, I want Google to be treated like a publisher if they want to censor people. Newspapers censor people all the time because they are a publisher and are thusly held liable for anything written in their newspaper. Google needs to be treated the same; they are either a platform which allows people to freely express their opinions and are afforded protection from lawsuits, or they are a publisher which can freely censor whoever they want but they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Why do you think any company should be treated differently than the rest? Is it because you agree with their politics and censorship?

A newspaper has an editor and filters every single thing that is posted by them. When a newspaper goes out, they know every single thing that is in the newspaper. Do you want every single thing you ever say on Facebook, Youtube, etc to have to be watched or monitored by a person before they allow it to be posted?

[Tgo01]

Do you want every single thing you ever say on Facebook, Youtube, etc to have to be watched or monitored by a person before they allow it to be posted?

That's exactly what I don't want, I want them to be an actual platform and stop censoring everything, but if they insist on acting like a publisher then yes I expect them to be treated like a publisher.

[kutter]

No, really. There is a market for it. Twitter wasn't shit until the Arab Spring popularized it. It took google over a decade to get big.

PornHub doesn't moderate comments, so you can go post there too.

It did not take anything close to a decade for google to take over, they jumped into the top 10 in Feb of 2001 and were the number one most visited website in June of 2006, at that time youtube was number 8 or 9, and google bought them 4 months later, making them the clear behemoth in the group, yet no one said anything about anti-trust then.

[Gelston]

It did not take anything close to a decade for google to take over, they jumped into the top 10 in Feb of 2001 and were the number one most visited website in June of 2006, at that time youtube was number 8 or 9, and google bought them 4 months later, making them the clear behemoth in the group, yet no one said anything about anti-trust then.

You're talking about their search engine popularity. I'm talking about everything else. Their YouTube acquisition was in 2006, about 8 years after Google was founded. Sorry it wasn't an exact number.

To the point of what I was saying, which you apparently missed, shit doesn't just get going overnight.

[drauz]

That's exactly what I don't want, I want them to be an actual platform and stop censoring everything, but if they insist on acting like a publisher then yes I expect them to be treated like a publisher.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)

What you want are the laws changed because it sounds like they are doing exactly what is allowed under the law.

[Tgo01]

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)

What you want are the laws changed because it sounds like they are doing exactly what is allowed under the law.

Read the whole section, particularly these parts:


The Congress finds the following:

...

The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.


But apparently you think while writing this section two paragraphs later Congress was like "HA! Just kidding! Go ahead and censor people for their political opinions! LOL!"

Also the part you quoted here falls under the header of: Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

Blocking and screening of OFFENSIVE material. Twitter reached so hard when they banned Trump for "encouraging violence" because his Tweet said something like "I won't be attending Biden's inauguration" which they took as a specific threat of violence, and your ass here buying that? Really?

Clear as day they banned him from their site because they don't like his political views, just because they fed everyone some premium grade A bullshit will never change this fact.

If they want to act like a publisher then make them act like a publisher and all of the drawbacks that come with it. You never answered why you're okay with certain companies such as Google and Twitter being treated differently (better) than the rest of the companies? It's because overall you agree with their politics and their censoring decisions, right?

[Gelston]

That's exactly what I don't want, I want them to be an actual platform and stop censoring everything, but if they insist on acting like a publisher then yes I expect them to be treated like a publisher.

Except they are a private company, not a public utility. Do you want them to be a public utility?

[Tgo01]

Except they are a private company, not a public utility. Do you want them to be a public utility?

Newspapers, bookstores, and book publishers are private companies yet they are still held to these standards.

Bookstores aren't held liable for any defamation in books they might sell because they are a platform, book publishers are held liable for defamation they print because they are publishers.

[Gelston]

Newspapers, bookstores, and book publishers are private companies yet they are still held to these standards.

Bookstores aren't held liable for any defamation in books they might sell because they are a platform, book publishers are held liable for defamation they print because they are publishers.

Yes, because it goes through editors and takes days, weeks, months depending on the medium. And it isn't random Joe Blow writing for them. It is generally paid journalists and authors. Google could do exactly what you want, but then guess what? No more instant content.

[Tgo01]

No more instant content.

I know. Like I said I don't want them to be a publisher and have to do all of that, I want them to be the bookstore; a platform. But if they insist on acting like a publisher then they should have to fully act like one.

[Seran]

I know. Like I said I don't want them to be a publisher and have to do all of that, I want them to be the bookstore; a platform. But if they insist on acting like a publisher then they should have to fully act like one.

Publishers decide what content to print. Bookstores decide which books to carry. Both make a choice what material to disseminate.

Social media sites don't pre-screen user material, yet reserve the right to do so according to the terms and conditions that all users are subject to. They're different than publishers for this reason and yet you want to force them to host hate speech, propaganda and conspiracy theories meant to destabilize our country for no other reason than you lack a fundamental understanding of federal law.

[drauz]

Read the whole section, particularly these parts:



But apparently you think while writing this section two paragraphs later Congress was like "HA! Just kidding! Go ahead and censor people for their political opinions! LOL!"

Also the part you quoted here falls under the header of: Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

Blocking and screening of OFFENSIVE material. Twitter reached so hard when they banned Trump for "encouraging violence" because his Tweet said something like "I won't be attending Biden's inauguration" which they took as a specific threat of violence, and your ass here buying that? Really?

Clear as day they banned him from their site because they don't like his political views, just because they fed everyone some premium grade A bullshit will never change this fact.

If they want to act like a publisher then make them act like a publisher and all of the drawbacks that come with it. You never answered why you're okay with certain companies such as Google and Twitter being treated differently (better) than the rest of the companies? It's because overall you agree with their politics and their censoring decisions, right?

How are they treated differently? Parler did the exact same thing, but of course you've forgotten about that because it was done the other way around. Still don't hear you complaining about them.

In the wording of the law they are entitled to and I quote "remove material that the provider considers to be objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". There are plenty of republicans that aren't banned from twitter or youtube.

It makes sense for a company to be allowed to regulate their own platform because if they can't well then it's not really their platform. It could also negatively impact their bottom line if advertisers pull out because of the content some people are putting out. So, yes I do think they have every right to regulate what is put out on their platform and for now the law says they can in explicit terms. That's what you don't seem to get, it's their platform. They just loan it to you, at the end of the day it's still theirs and they can take it back whenever they please.

The truth comes out though, you're just mad that your god king Trump got banned. LOL. Don't worry it's probably for the better, the sooner the GOP gets past Trump the better off you'll be.

[~Rocktar~]

And you are wanting the government to force Youtube to do exactly that. You want your cake and to eat it too.

No dumbass, I and others want them to meet the same standard that others who have the protections as a medium have to meet. Don't edit content, don't change content and convey it without interference. You know, like the phone company, the mail, television and radio. The companies that transmit the message are not held responsible for the message as long as they don't control, manipulate or otherwise editorialize the message.

I am perfectly FINE with letting Google, YouTube, Twitter and so on limit the message. As long as you remove their protections that specifically say they can't limit the message. Right now, they have their cake and get to eat it too acting as publishers and as mediums. You can't have it both ways while getting the protections that specifically say you can't have it both ways.

Gods you Leftist hypocrites just won't see the facts and sooner or later, they WILL be coming for you too but since right now it's against the Right, you are ok with it.

Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

[Tgo01]

Publishers decide what content to print. Bookstores decide which books to carry. Both make a choice what material to disseminate.

Yes, clearly bookstores don't have to sell every book that has ever existed, nor have I even came close to suggesting such a thing. My entire point is bookstores aren't held liable because they aren't editorializing what is sold in their stores, e.g. they aren't saying "We don't like Trump or Republicans so we are going to scan every book before we sell it to make sure Republicans aren't cast in a good light." If they started doing that chances are it would quickly hit the courts because at that point they are acting like publishers.

Just go to Barnes & Nobles' website and search for "Trump", you'll get dozens of hits, some written by Trump himself, some written by others that are praising Trump, and some highly critical of Trump. They clearly aren't picking a side, they aren't acting like a publisher.

I was about to make a comment like "Just because you can't find a copy of 'Mein Kampf' at Barnes and Noble doesn't mean they are acting like a publisher." But shit I checked their site and sure enough; you can buy 'Mein Kampf' at Barnes & Noble so really you're just making my point for me.


Parler did the exact same thing, but of course you've forgotten about that because it was done the other way around.

I haven't forgotten about it, I just don't care because the best way to go through life is to treat everyone by their own standards. The second you allow someone else to get away with double standards you might as well just give up.


The truth comes out though, you're just mad that your god king Trump got banned.

That's a weird take on what I said but aight.

Like I have said at least half a dozen times so far: I am perfectly fine if Twitter and Google and Reddit and the rest want to act like publishers (that includes banning Trump and every single conservative if they want to) IF they have to play by the same publisher rules literally every other publisher has to play by.

Remind me again why you're okay with these internet companies being granted special privileges? It's because you generally agree with their politics and their censorship rules right? Just admit it, you'll feel a lot better.

[Shaps]

What's insane to me watching the back and forth in this... people used to rail against being censored, about ANYONE being censored.

It wasn't a right/left/moderate thing.. it was a "don't fuck with us" attitude that said let all people talk and express their ideas.

Somehow in the past 10+ years that's shifted to acceptance of people being censored. It's regressive and pathetic to see it occur. It's sad to see people defend censorship.

It's sad to see people with such distorted political ideologies now, that the fact I post an article arguing AGAINST censorship is somehow controversial. Sad fucking days are ahead.

[Tgo01]

Somehow in the past 10+ years that's shifted to acceptance of people being censored. It's regressive and pathetic to see it occur. It's sad to see people defend censorship.

It happened shortly after Trump ran for president. I'm not even joking. A year before that everyone on Reddit, Facebook, YouTube, etc were all against that one bill that was being floated around congress that would have supposedly censored the internet. Everyone was losing their shit over it. Everyone thought it was bullshit.

Take a look at those sites now and it's full of Democrats demanding these sites and more censor every little thing they don't like.

[Parkbandit]

Everytime you're listening to Breitbart, Carlson, Mark Levin, etc, you're listening to content they assembled or wish to convey. You're not guaranteed an equal opportunity to hear contrarian views. In fact you listen to them because they make you little e-peen tingle.

Isn't that the same for every.single."news".channel.ever?

[Parkbandit]

Publishers decide what content to print. Bookstores decide which books to carry. Both make a choice what material to disseminate.

Social media sites do the same exact things. They decide who to ban, who to shadowban, who to censor, who to "factcheck", etc...

End the special protections they receive and let the free market / court system hash it out.

[drauz]

Remind me again why you're okay with these internet companies being granted special privileges? It's because you generally agree with their politics and their censorship rules right? Just admit it, you'll feel a lot better.

Because the internet wouldn't be the internet without it. I don't want a shitty internet, I love the content on Youtube...twitter I really don't give a fuck about. The amount of petty lawsuits that would immediately get filed would be staggering. If you want more censoring then by all means, require Youtube to personally be liable for what is on their platform. I won't support it but I guess that's just me.

[drauz]

What's insane to me watching the back and forth in this... people used to rail against being censored, about ANYONE being censored.

It wasn't a right/left/moderate thing.. it was a "don't fuck with us" attitude that said let all people talk and express their ideas.

Somehow in the past 10+ years that's shifted to acceptance of people being censored. It's regressive and pathetic to see it occur. It's sad to see people defend censorship.

It's sad to see people with such distorted political ideologies now, that the fact I post an article arguing AGAINST censorship is somehow controversial. Sad fucking days are ahead.

Who are the people you feel were unjustly banned/censored from these platforms?

[drauz]

No dumbass, I and others want them to meet the same standard that others who have the protections as a medium have to meet. Don't edit content, don't change content and convey it without interference. You know, like the phone company, the mail, television and radio. The companies that transmit the message are not held responsible for the message as long as they don't control, manipulate or otherwise editorialize the message.

I am perfectly FINE with letting Google, YouTube, Twitter and so on limit the message. As long as you remove their protections that specifically say they can't limit the message. Right now, they have their cake and get to eat it too acting as publishers and as mediums. You can't have it both ways while getting the protections that specifically say you can't have it both ways.

Gods you Leftist hypocrites just won't see the facts and sooner or later, they WILL be coming for you too but since right now it's against the Right, you are ok with it.

Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

I can't take you seriously when you compare the internet to the phone company and the fucking mail.

Who am I kidding, I can't take you seriously anyways.

[Neveragain]

Who are the people you feel were unjustly banned/censored from these platforms?

Though I agree with the private business argument. Blocking the leader of the free world on multiple platforms was an extremely stupid thing to do.

[Ashliana]

Right now, they have their cake and get to eat it too acting as publishers and as mediums. You can't have it both ways while getting the protections that specifically say you can't have it both ways.

Ah, the inevitable part of the discussion where you think your willful ignorance of what §230 says means anything other than you lying out of your ass. Since, y'know, you've been corrected on this issue before, but you just emotionally wish so gosh-darned badly that the law somehow included tests and restrictions on tech companies -- rather than being a simple transfer of liability for content from the company to their end users. I'm sure your misrepresentations are very convincing to the comically ill-informed, like Dreaven or Neveragain here, but alas, your suppositions aren't supported by either the plain text of the law, relevant case law, or expert legal analysis of the topic. Which, of course, you haven't read.


Though I agree with the private business argument. Blocking the leader of the free world on multiple platforms was an extremely stupid thing to do.

You're free to start your own alternative to Twitter, Facebook, etc. I'm sure it'll be as successful as Parler was or the MyPillow guy's "Free Speech, but no, not taking the Lord's name in vain, or..." site will be.

And Trump wasn't the "leader of the free world," as you should've known when he started touting his generally stupid "America First" rhetoric. He damaged America's role in that regard by attacking the institutions that made America so by:


questioning whether we'd fulfil our treaty obligations to NATO if another signator were attacked
pulling out of the JCPOA that America signed in good faith (why would any other nation sign an agreement with us now giving up any concessions on their end, knowing there's a 4 year expiration date on any agreement?)
pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, effectively ceding ground in Asia to China
pulling out of the Paris accord for completely nonsensical reasons, as our participation was already completely optional and had no enforcement mechanism whatsoever
gutting the State Department, etc.
Two seconds of cursory research would show you that Trump significantly reduced America's soft power. Even the UK's right-wing prime minister commented "America is unreservedly back as the leader of the free world and that is a fantastic thing (https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1362847942311370756)" as Biden took over.

[Neveragain]

Ah, the inevitable part of the discussion where you think your willful ignorance of what §230 says means anything other than you lying out of your ass. Since, y'know, you've been corrected on this issue before, but you just emotionally wish so gosh-darned badly that the law somehow included tests and restrictions on tech companies -- rather than being a simple transfer of liability for content from the company to their end users. I'm sure your misrepresentations are very convincing to the comically ill-informed, like Dreaven or Neveragain here, but alas, your suppositions aren't supported by either the plain text of the law, relevant case law, or expert legal analysis of the topic. Which, of course, you haven't read.



You're free to start your own alternative to Twitter, Facebook, etc. I'm sure it'll be as successful as Parler was or the MyPillow guy's "Free Speech, but no, not taking the Lord's name in vain, or..." site will be.

And Trump wasn't the "leader of the free world," as you should've known when he started touting his generally stupid "America First" rhetoric. He damaged America's role in that regard by attacking the institutions that made America so by:


questioning whether we'd fulfil our treaty obligations to NATO if another signator were attacked
pulling out of the JCPOA that America signed in good faith (why would any other nation sign an agreement with us now giving up any concessions on their end, knowing there's a 4 year expiration date on any agreement?)
pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, effectively ceding ground in Asia to China
pulling out of the Paris accord for completely nonsensical reasons, as our participation was already completely optional and had no enforcement mechanism whatsoever
gutting the State Department, etc.
Two seconds of cursory research would show you that Trump significantly reduced America's soft power. Even the UK's right-wing prime minister commented "America is unreservedly back as the leader of the free world and that is a fantastic thing (https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1362847942311370756)" as Biden took over.

You must be the dumbest motherfucker on the face of the planet. You don't even know when someone is on your side of the argument.

[Ashliana]

You must be the dumbest motherfucker on the face of the planet. You don't even know when someone is on your side of the argument.

Translation: You didn't have anything substantive to say on the point that your statement about Trump being the "leader of the free world" was profoundly retarded. Your logic about it "not being wise," similarly, extends carte blanche to someone in that role to do whatever they want with someone else's private, corporate platform, which is a batshit insane argument.

[Neveragain]

Translation: You didn't have anything substantive to say on the point that your statement about Trump being the "leader of the free world" was profoundly retarded. Your logic about it "not being wise," similarly, extends carte blanche to someone in that role to do whatever they want with someone else's private, corporate platform, which is a batshit insane argument.

I did not read anything past
You're free to start your own alternative to Twitter, Facebook, etc. because it's all your opinion and I don't take the opinion of retards seriously.

[Ashliana]

Your mental gymnastics about why your position was retarded -- but you can't defend it -- are your issue. Best of luck burying your head in the sand and just wishing the criticism away. :)

[Gelston]

Lol, so apparently the MyPillow guy is making his own social network.

[Tgo01]

Lol, so apparently the MyPillow guy is making his own social network.

And now we'll see CNN, MSNBC, Democrats, and the far left all accuse the new network of being a haven for white supremacists and therefore we all need to stick to Twitter and Facebook.