Posted on 06/26/2019 3:11:29 PM PDT by tcrlaf
BREAKING @Vimeo has REMOVED Project Veritas saying: "You cannot upload videos that are hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory."
Perhaps we embarrassed @Google but NOTHING we said was hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory. They're trying to erase us from the internet.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Just looked at it.
There are a lot of things he's wrong about (Kleenex, Q-tips and ChapStick are nowhere near to monopolies and not even dominant in the market, for instance), but my biggest issue is his propensity to make bold claims without backing it up.
He says it's been "proven without question" that Google and FB results are biased against conservatives. He's wrong, it's vociferously questioned.
He claims their actions are "criminal". Where are the prosecutions?
He also claims fraudulent business practices. Great. Sue.
If there's one thing the Conservative movement has it's lawyers and legal foundations willing to take up this kind of fight.
Why haven't they? They know the claims won't hold up.
His real issue comes out when he sneers at the "arrogant, elitist" people up in Mountain View.
Resentment isn't a good basis for making public policy.
Friendly question.
If these platforms lose their 203 protection who do you think will carry Bill Whittle’s videos?
What do you think it will do to his revenue model?
They took it down pretty quickly.
“...hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory.”
sounds just like language out of Orwell’s “1984”.
We are going to need alternatives to facebook, vimeo,google and before long FNC. All are controlled by the hard left.We need to start up our own media and the sooner the better.
Of course the best bet is just to buy these left wing productions out like they did to us and then turn them right.
Big companies,banks,other institutions are set up so that the worst they ever get is a fine,even in the millions it wont slow them down.We need to figure out how to buy them out.
And now you have the Steven Crowder case where Google/YouTube told Crowder that he did not break any rules or guidelines but was being demonitized anyway because a gay guy on Vox channel was offended. Crowder is fighting them.
Whittle is correct about the snot-nosed elitists in Moutanview. Progressive elitists control the flow of internet ideas and information and they are restricting Conservative speech for political reasons.
If these platforms lose their 203 protection who do you think will carry Bill Whittle’s videos?
What do you think it will do to his revenue model?
I'm not trying to be insulting but I see now that you lack key information. Whittle has paying subscribers. That's not the question to be asked.
The question is what will happen to YouTube if they lose their 230 protection. The answer is they'd be sued out of existence in a month. I'd say that's incentive enough to stop censoring Conservatives and actually become what they claim to be, a platform.
He has 130k YouTube subscribers and who knows how many views.
He's monetized his content there and I suspect it's a big chunk of the revenue he earns.
If you take away 230 and can now sue YouTube for anything Whittle says he'll be dropped.
The fact that he has billwhittle.com also totally obviates the arguments about Google/YouTube's monopoly as well as censorship complaints.
No one is threatening his ability to speak via his own infrastructure.
The question is what will happen to YouTube if they lose their 230 protection. The answer is they'd be sued out of existence in a month.
And this benefits anyone how, exactly?
I'd say that's incentive enough to stop censoring Conservatives and actually become what they claim to be, a platform.
Wouldn't that be great? But it's much more likely that they would begin to tightly curate their content and only broadcast stuff that they can control and deem safe.
People have this naive notion that we can take away Google's private property but they'll still maintain and operate it so we can harvest ad dollars from our content.
What about the fact that they've invested billions of dollars of private investor's money in a platform based on terms of service that all the users have agreed to?
You want to nationalize the company because you don't like their politics?
What's the principle that says YouTube has to carry everything but Jim can still zot people?
Don't tell me YouTube is a monopoly - it's not even close (see billwhittle.com).
He has addressed that and that's not a video platform. His income is from subscribers that support him. Steven Crowder also received more subscribers after YouTube demonetized him. People will pay for content until YouTube bans them for specious reasons from the platform and as we have seen, Vimeo isn't an alternative as it is also owned by a screaming liberal.
Wouldn't that be great? But it's much more likely that they would begin to tightly curate their content and only broadcast stuff that they can control and deem safe.
That's what they are doing now, based on political views.
The bottom line here is that these tech giants either play by the rules or suffer the consequences.
Jim isn't claiming to be a 230 platform and has been sued.
Looks like Section 230 pretty clearly applies to FR.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".
Has Jim been sued for libel for the content of a Freeper's post?
Is he really claiming to be legally responsible for the content of everyone's posts?
His videos on YouTube have ads.
The question is what will happen to YouTube if they lose their 230 protection. The answer is they’d be sued out of existence in a month
************
I don’t see a problem with that... Goog/Alphabet/YT dies , are replaced by others... in the meantime they lose 203 protection and the gov’t appoints administrators that have full access to all controls so that only truly unprotected speech is kept off (porn) and all ad revenue except that paid to the creators is confiscated and put in a trust for future lawsuit payouts.
Q: The question is what will happen to YouTube if they lose their 230 protection. The answer is they’d be sued out of existence in a month.
A: And this benefits anyone how, exactly?
**************
I don’t believe that you’re that stupid so you must be a troll.
So you can't say either?
Free Republic, LLC is a non-commercial, limited liability company founded and operated by Jim Robinson
Free Republic is not a for profit commercial enterprise in the sense of a traditional business selling a product or service at a profit for its shareholders. We sell no product or service. We have no clients, customers or employees. We do not accept paid advertising. Free Republic is not affiliated with any political party, group, news source, government agency or anyone else.
Opinions expressed on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Free Republic or its operators.
If you mean Crowder, yes, he does. Walthers is a sponsor. You know, guns.
I don’t either as they have become a monoply. I agree that they need to be broken up or just broken. They, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest etc, have become too powerful and controlling.
I mean Bill Whittle.
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.