Yes, I'm sure you are well aware of what is actually going on inside of Google, and your perspective of such has not been filtered through the rage-filled visors of long-hair internet rightwing virgins broadcasting through the derpnet.
Youtube has become a vital means of communication much like the post office/library was in the past. Censorship should be taken very seriously and they should be liable for censoring based on ideologies that fit a political agenda. They should at least give warnings. It seems like they raged out and starting censoring what they didn't like. This doesn't surprise me since Google can't get control of the hate generated inside their own company around women or political beliefs.
And this country hasn't been the same since. Thanks Fox.Actually, they once were (or rather, would have been):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
FCC once required news media to provide ample air time for, well, "both sides" to keep their broadcast licenses. Of course, this was eventually overturned by a Reagan stooge at the FCC, c. 1985-1987, when SCOTUS eventually agreed that FCC no longer needed to enforce a "diversity of opinion" in the news. ....Then FOX news network came into being. And despite them being unable to operate in a pre-Fairness Doctrine world, they took on the Orwellian label of "fair and balanced," basically because they knew that their general audience would be complete morons and believe these claims without ever having the desire of wherewithal to investigate such claims. For modern conservatives, then, information is not about truth, but about feels. It's right there codified in this SCOTUS decision and FCC law.
Yes, I'm sure you are well aware of what is actually going on inside of Google, and your perspective of such has not been filtered through the rage-filled visors of long-hair internet rightwing virgins broadcasting through the derpnet.
To quickly reiterate: Facebook, Google, Twitter et. al. don't actually own key internet infrastructure. The closest you get is cloud services like Google Cloud or Amazon Web Services, but they're not the ones giving people the boot, are they?
And it's pretty simple: private publishers are not obligated to host views they don't like. Do you think Fox News should be legally obligated to guarantee a major show for a left-wing host, like Shepard Smith? Of course you don't. Telling YouTube or Twitter that it "must" host some conspiracy-floating racist piece of shit is the exact same thing. If you value free speech, you also value the freedom of publishers to choose what they publish.
So anyone that has ever been in a picture with you has influence over you? Every celebrity that ever takes a picture with a fan is now influenced by that fan? Is this what passes for logic in your world? Haha, yes, I know the answer to that last one.
What do you think the barrier of entry is into the market of building data centers, deploying thousands of miles of fiber cable, and switching networks? I'll run down to my local credit union and get a loan to pay for that setup. You do understand that those large tech companies own large portions of the physical structure for the internet? What is to stop them from controlling any and all bits of information?
They actually do own and operate hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber cabling and have an significant impact on internet traffic in general. Granted most is dedicated to internal usage but they do sell capacity out to others and companies do ultimately use cloud infrastructure as part of their business. What is to stop Google Cloud, Azure, or AWS from saying they have to monitor all traffic and ensure that "unacceptable" information can't live on their equipment or influencing search engine results to only return what is deemed relevant?
Are you saying that the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan have zero influence and basically carry the same political clout as I do?
Ironic and sad to see more and more Liberals who would fight tooth and nail for free speech in the past even defending nazi's and KKK types setting up the stage for corporations to control speech by using the same "it's a private business conservative argument" .
Using that logic Microsoft should have been able to force you to use Internet Explorer, if you don't like their terms just wipe your harddrive and install Linux since they don't own the computer.
The hilarity here? I am a true free market conservative, and the only conservative in this thread arguing for businesses to have the right to not carry material they, or the majority of their customers find objectionable.
The fact is, the only material being removed is racist, sexist, bigoted or slanderous. Period. Social media has looser standards than this very forum, and yet these people are still posting here.
The REAL reasons for the latest outcry reaching such a fever pitch?
In the last few weeks social media removed Russian bot accounts and took down videos and posts claiming the Florida shooting was a false flag.
Recognize why they are complaining. Don't be led on by selected dubious stories but look at the big picture. Alex Jones and other are having a shit fit because their false flag posts are quite rightfully being removed.
Source for your ownership claim please.
To be specific you are claiming google, microsoft, and amazon own hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber in the ground. Your evidence is?
Leasing dark fiber from other companies doesn't count.
This is a strange thread.
People on the Right want government to stop private companies from discrimination.
People on the Left think the government needs to stay out and let companies discriminate.
What a weird world.
Er, no. Antitrust is not the same as free speech; the open web is not the same as your computer.
Facebook, Google and Twitter may be dominant, but they don't actively prevent you from sharing your ideas on Gab, Voat or other self-proclaimed anything-goes sites. You just don't like that those sites aren't as popular.
Consider the implications of what you're asking. If Twitter has to be forced to carry some hatemonger's bogus conspiracy theory, that means all major publications must be obligated to carry contrary views, no matter how wrong those views are or how much you disagree with them. Imagine if Fox News was required to have one Maddow-like host for every Hannity or Carlson. Viewers would be livid.
You want to make it mandatory for social networks and streaming sites to host differing views? Declare them to be public utilities. But of course, that would require a degree of strong regulation (including net neutrality), and you're not going to get that from modern Republicans.
Long haul or local? Yes there is google fiber which is an ISP. That isn't what Brandonbull is talking about.Google buried fiber in front of my parent's house, they are definitely in the business.
That is simply not true and it shows you do not know what you are talking about. You may want to look into this more. Yes, that is part of what is being removed, but not all and not a trivial amount either.
They actually do own and operate hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber cabling and have an significant impact on internet traffic in general. Granted most is dedicated to internal usage but they do sell capacity out to others and companies do ultimately use cloud infrastructure as part of their business. What is to stop Google Cloud, Azure, or AWS from saying they have to monitor all traffic and ensure that "unacceptable" information can't live on their equipment or influencing search engine results to only return what is deemed relevant?
Yes yes yes, I've read the conspiracy nutters stories about this, and when ever I check out whoever claims to have had innocent stuff removed, they have a racist, sexist, copyright infringement, slander or bigoted history behind them.
Not buying it. At all.
Just look at who's screaming loudest. Alex Jones and alt-right nutters screaming about how the SLPC is evil.
That's all I need to fscking know right there. When you go on an anti-Jew tirade when your video is pulled I have a pretty damn good idea why your video was pulled.
Youtube has become a vital means of communication much like the post office/library was in the past. Censorship should be taken very seriously and they should be liable for censoring based on ideologies that fit a political agenda. They should at least give warnings. It seems like they raged out and starting censoring what they didn't like. This doesn't surprise me since Google can't get control of the hate generated inside their own company around women or political beliefs.
I don't think your comparisons are valid. Facebook, Google and Twitter provide public/open access to services. The media outlets as you described them are not freely accessible to the public in the same way.
At the risk of taking anything in this thread seriously, if that is true then what do you propose we do about it? Are you seriously talking about institutionalizing Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook as formal communication platforms, in essence moving them from private companies to public utilities, which in turn would have the effect of basically saying that the internet is finished, since the government would now be protecting their market share? They don't have a natural monopoly like the electric grid, there have been, and are other competitors, the very forum you are saying it this on is one, and remember MySpace?
So then tell me, if it were just about those things, why are so many now getting banned for bullying from these new censors?
As for SPLC, they have gotten things wrong. Maajid Nawaz is probably the most absurd example. I don't think they are evil or part of some conspiracy, I just think they are wrong because of how they see the world sometimes.
I remember that. As much as I think Fox News is a joke, policies like the Fairness Doctrine are also problematic because they both get the government into the business of policing content for reasons beyond protecting other civil rights, and treat all opinions as equally valid. Someone might think climate science is fake, for instance, but that doesn't mean their view holds water. If we believe in facts, we have to accept that some differing views are just... well, wrong.
Maybe you should step outside your echo chamber to understand why he was added to SPLC's list:
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...ajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/
In the list sent to a top British security official in 2010, headlined “Preventing Terrorism: Where Next for Britain?” Quilliam wrote, “The ideology of non-violent Islamists is broadly the same as that of violent Islamists; they disagree only on tactics.” An official with Scotland Yard’s Muslim Contact Unit told The Guardian that “[t]he list demonises a whole range of groups that in my experience have made valuable contributions to counter-terrorism.”He Earned a spot rightfully for unfairly lumping all Muslims together.
Mark Potok, a senior fellow at SPLC who wrote the report (and has a long resume of similar work on extremists), told me that Quilliam’s list of groups was the linchpin of the case for Nawaz as an anti-Muslim extremist. (Potok also noted that the list was compiled in collaboration with Media Matters for America, the Center for New Community, and ReThink Media.)
Islam is a faith. Like all other faiths it has a vibrant array of progressives, conservatives and everything in between fighting over which interpretation suits current times. In this regard, Islam is nothing exceptional.
Islamism, on the other hand, is the desire to impose any one of these interpretations over everyone else through state law.