what would you prefer, state-run media?
The point is, who is going to decide what is allowed? As soon as you say “no censorship” someone will be running the nazi channel or barbequing puppies. So who is to decide?
As for private companies creating “public communications infrastructure” would you have Free Republic included in that definition? Or is censorship OK in some cases and not in others?
Again: who decides?
Free Republic resembles Google/Youtube in the manner that a lightning bug resembles lightning, and it is dishonest to even float such a comparison.
Secondly, I don't give a sh*t if "Nazis" are posting stuff on a video posting website. I am far more frightened of Real Nazis controlling public content, which is what we are getting now.
Bullshit. It is not a “private company”. It was started with CIA venture capital money. It has thrived with special government rules. Google has massive government data and information contracts.
They are pure fascist, classic Mussolini fascist. The Government wants to suppress speech and spy on every move American’s make, but cannot. They call google who does it for them. In return, Google gets lucrative contracts, tax breaks, favorable domestic and foreign policy, and protection from litigation and competition.
Strip away their legal protection and make them the same as a newspaper.
They are anything but a “private company”. And I’d rather have a nazi channel and some jerk bbqing puppies than this communist China approved internet and a complete moratorium on our ability to organize and spread information.
Lay down and lick the hand that feeds you, may your chains set lightly upon you.
“The point is, who is going to decide what is allowed?”
The free market and the marketplace of ideas. Or do you prefer a bunch of guys like homo Tim Cook, Zuckerberg the freak, or foreigners like Sundar Pinchai to decide what is allowed?