Googles Censorship of Wrong Think

**FromMyColdDeadHand** · 08-17-17, 14:24

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.

**KTR03** · 08-17-17, 14:50

Originally Posted by kerplode

What are you going to do when only progressive ideals are deemed inoffensive and everything else is removed...Create your own internet?

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...

**kerplode** · 08-17-17, 15:01

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.

**KTR03** · 08-17-17, 15:27

Originally Posted by kerplode

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?

**kerplode** · 08-17-17, 15:42

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...

**Honu** · 08-17-17, 16:11

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

**Voodoochild** · 08-17-17, 16:21

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.

**Singlestack Wonder** · 08-17-17, 16:31

Originally Posted by Voodoochild

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.

Agree......there's a tremendous opportunity for more video posting sites to flourish.......

**SteyrAUG** · 08-17-17, 16:40

Originally Posted by Big A

Hard to call it freedom when a Monopoly controls the methods of dissemination of ideas.

Find an alternate video host or start one. I don't bitch about the local paper refusing to run my letters to the editor.

**FromMyColdDeadHand** · 08-17-17, 17:41

So much wrong in your post.

Originally Posted by KTR03

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? You are open for business, you take who comes through the door. That is the standard now. 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. It's been decades since we had this. Your argument stopped being valid when smoking was banned in resturants. 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. Do you participate in the US economy? Who, where, how doesn't the govt dictate anymore.

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? Down to the smallest corner bakery.Should they have to put up a PETA video for every hunting video that is offered? Straw man. Who said anything about parity? You have a hosting site if someone posts something legal, that is the way it is.

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.

Originally Posted by Voodoochild

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.

Owned by the guy running the WashPost. I'm not putting my eggs in that basket.

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

Find an alternate video host or start one. I don't bitch about the local paper refusing to run my letters to the editor.

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.