Posted on 08/14/2018 6:17:21 PM PDT by OddLane
Hot off the wires. It turns out that they're not going to stop at purging Alex Jones. Who would've thought?
And your answer is to abandon the Constitution and the rule of law. Laws that apply equally to Alphabet and Free Republic, LLC.
In your vision who determines when a site gets so large that they lose the protections of the Constitution?
There is some more dishonesty. No one, and I mean absolutely *NO ONE* has suggested the government "take over" their private business.
The topic on the table is requiring censorous bastards to provide service equally to everybody.
So long as they obey the intent of the 1rst amendment, they can do whatever they like with their business, but what they cannot be allowed to do is to control a significant portion of the public's communications, and censor it.
“The left are unencumbered by ethics or morality, and this is something that should never be forgotten. “
Unencumbered by reason, too. The only thing they understand is force. Good post.
Ha. No shoes, no shirt, no service.
Happens every day and it’s perfectly legal.
When will you accept that political viewpoint isn’t a protected class under our laws?
I hope other platforms emerge.
Going in the direction you advocate will lose us both. As i've said before, you will trade a lesser principle (absolute property rights for communications companies) for a greater principle. (Freedom of Speech, by which the public can hear both sides and chose the best path.)
With a communications monopoly such as you advocate, and *YES*, what you advocate is clearly going to lead to such an outcome, it will be impossible to educate the public on the dangers of socialism, and they will embrace it, as they have this foolish idea preached at them daily through every media system in America.
You would throw away our only means of stopping revolution. The communications systems of America cannot be allowed to be under the left's complete control. We should destroy it before we allow that to happen.
The topic on the table is requiring censorous bastards to provide service equally to everybody.
I see the problem. You don’t think the government forcing me to publish anything at all on my private platform, regardless of my values, is the government “taking over my business”.
Good night.
I don't believe in protected classes, I believe in protecting everybody, and an absolute necessity to accomplishing this goal is to insure that no one party controls the power of communications in the nation.
I fear that if the government isn't used to smash them, they cannot be smashed.
More dishonesty. Google/YouTube isn't doing the publishing. Individuals are doing that. Google/YouTube is merely an infrastructure on which other people imprint their work.
And no, making them serve everybody equally is not taking over their business.
It’s frightening that whenever I mention the censorship of Alex Jones, the other person says something like “Oh well. Him!” Or they just make that face.
They don’t get it.
This is our fight now. They have come right out and said it. They will sacrifice some free speech for the “cause” of “social justice.”
Ben Shapiro: “’Social justice’ is the opposite of justice. Justice doesn’t need an adjective.”
Michael Rectenwald: To deconstructionists, the definition of “fact” is “something that is extremely difficult to deconstruct.”
Gab was already threatened, by MSN.
I’m repeating myself, but Bradbury did say (one “fireman” tells another) that censorship began with the people, not the government. Corporations, he would say today.
Yet Microsoft threatened Gab because of anti-Semitism.
We shouldn’t go by what is being censored. Censorship is censorship, although I can’t keep food down when I read some sites.
I could tell you some of what Facebook does. They don’t give you a sequential feed when you sign on, but something they call “Top Stories,” which of course they get to select, even though it sounds like it’s the most clicked-on ones.
Then when you manually switch to your sequential feed, the page won’t scroll down.
They pick the people that you will see on your feed. Some have said you only see 7% of your friends at any one time. It’s supposed to depend on how often you “like,” share, or comment, but since it’s hidden, who knows what other factors come into it.
There’s more that I don’t know, including some that I suspect.
On YouTube, they silently cancel your subscriptions or edit your videos that come up on the first page that you see, trying to tempt you with the most harmless of your interests and steer you away from what they don’t like. And of course demonetize. I also find the search function less and less useful. It doesn’t seem to bring up exactly what you’re looking for, as it used to in the past.
#23. Pam’s life has been in danger a number of times, esp. at the Garland, Texas affair. Two dead jihadist hitmen!!
It’s been tried. Nobody wants to start over again gathering a nice slate of “friends.” It’s a network. Hard to duplicate a thriving network.
The Left seems to have waited until everyone was hooked on these addictions and then started inching the gate closed.
We’re probably all going to have to go cold turkey to get off these things. I keep being tripped up socially by not having a smartphone. People assume I can get their emails wherever I am, and then the signals are crossed if something changes. Even those who know forget, because it’s become something we take so much for granted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.