Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 76

Thread: This isn't politics - Better pay attention

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,104
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kutter View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Gelston; 04-19-2021 at 05:36 PM.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    PWC, VA
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    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.
    No, I am not Drauz in game.

  3. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drauz View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Tgo01; 04-19-2021 at 07:05 PM.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,104
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    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?
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tgo01; 04-19-2021 at 07:45 PM.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,104
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Gelston; 04-19-2021 at 08:07 PM.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    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.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    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.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    PWC, VA
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by drauz; 04-19-2021 at 08:53 PM.
    No, I am not Drauz in game.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In amazement
    Posts
    5,247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drauz View Post
    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.
    I asked for neither your Opinion,
    your Acceptance
    nor your Permission.

    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." Dante Alighieri 3

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •