I love you guys, but the internet could be replaced by actually keeping the manuals for things I buy and a pile of magazines and DVDs.
I love you guys, but the internet could be replaced by actually keeping the manuals for things I buy and a pile of magazines and DVDs.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Conversely, is your solution to force a company to incur costs to its business and offending some of its users by carrying content that they don't want to carry. If Google said "we are not going to carry videos of redheads, guns, or BBQ" I wouldn't like it, but that is their prerogative. A huge portion of the population who were incensed about the gay wed cake case, and defended the bakers right to not be forced to engage in speech that they disagreed with, are now going to attack Google for -wait for it- not wanting to host and disseminate speech that they don't agree with. All I am asking for is some intellectual and ideological consistency on all sides...
Damien
If a large number of people are willing to kill you for saying something, then it probably really needs to be said. .
I think there's a bit of a difference between a corner bake shop and a gigantic corporation that controls a majority of the means for hosting and transmitting information globally.
In other words, yes...If you are Facebook, Twitter, or Google, you should be forced to treat traffic equally and host all opinions. Otherwise, you are giving Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Sundar Pichai control over which ideas are acceptable and which are not.
So the government - (the US one? The EU? CHina?) should be able to make a business incur costs to itself, to provide a platform for speech with which it doesn't agree, to an audience it doesn't want? And by doing so damage its own brand with customers that it does want. Really? So much for small government, conservative, pro freedom, pro market ideas. There is nothing that prevents other companies from launching streaming video services that can cater to whatever they want to cater to. It is a free service. It is governed by a terms of use that users agree to (whether they read it or not). Their dungeon, their rules.
Question: How big does a company have to be, in terms of marketshare, market cap, or influence, before it surrenders its own property rights, IP rights, and business interests to some government functionary? Should they have to put up a PETA video for every hunting video that is offered?
Damien
If a large number of people are willing to kill you for saying something, then it probably really needs to be said. .
I dunno, man...You make many good points that I have no good answers for.
I'll just state that I disagree with internet censorship and leave it at that...
Last edited by kerplode; 08-17-17 at 16:10.
I would say the gov should force them !!!
and OUR gov should do so since they are US citizens with a US based business if they want to give up their citizenship then No we should not control it
the same reason they force Christians to do gay weddings or force a business to have trans bathrooms in some places now or force other things to make it equal like hiring and firing etc..
so yeah force them since the left gets to use the gov to force their agenda against conservatives so the same should go the other way
would prefer to say NO but sadly its not a level playing field anymore
tell some f@g you do not want him to walk in the girls room cause your 7 year old is in there and see what happens !!!
they are using the gov to push their views and values on us big time so yeah it should be level or gone and its far from gone
Last edited by Honu; 08-17-17 at 16:15.
This is a good time for Twitch (owned by Amazon). To start luring content creators away basically due the opposite of what YouTube/Google is doing.
Love you Pop. F*ck Cancer.
NRA Life Member
"WINNING" - When all of the liberal democrats and other libtards start throwing themselves off cliffs because they don't get their way...
JEDIsh: We are asked not to judge all muslims by the acts of a few extremists, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by extreme acts of the few.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
So much wrong in your post.
You have ideals that are no longer valid and are not how business and the economy works. I may not like it, it may not be right, but it is. If you want to run file sharing service open to everyone, but then restrict certain political views, get in line and start dealing with the FEC about campaign and in kind donation issues.
Owned by the guy running the WashPost. I'm not putting my eggs in that basket.
Do they post everyone's and not yours? False equivalency.
Interesting that the left is all in for net neutrality, except when it comes to content.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Bookmarks