Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
OK.Try me.Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
guides.ll.georgetown.edu
I'll try to ask one more time. What part of freedom of speech requires a private individual to pay to propagate someone else's speech?Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.
Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.
This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.
The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.
"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."
These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.
Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.
You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.
No.
It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.
You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.
Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.
It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?
HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.
It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.
Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.
Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.
Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.
I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.
It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.
Go away moronic troll.
Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.
Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.
Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...
Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.
These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.
What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?
Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.
Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.
It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.
Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.
I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.
There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.
But you’re dodging the question.
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.
If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.
You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.
Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.
Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.
Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.
You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.
That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.
That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.
Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.
Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.
They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.
If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.
Which is what free speech actually is.
No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.
Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.
Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.
Google marks 14 years as a public company
Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.searchengineland.com
Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!
It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.
You asked me to tell you what is public about it, and that's what I did.
Now go THE FUCK away from my thread loser. Everyone knows that banning people from a platform over their opinion is an extremist anti free-speech far left position. There is no debate to be had here. Any debate that might potentially exist you can have (most likely alone) in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. If you post one more time regarding this issue you will be reported for off-topic, it is NOT the subject of the thread.
And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
Which does not change the fact that they are against free speech, and ban users based on their opinions.
Or the fact that they are a public company.
You are reported.
What's THAT supposed to mean? You're treading close to threatening violence on the board. You just said the likes of you would do more than what we've seen so far. That's why Trump is going down. The people are starting to see who's really in his corner and they don't like it. I here Siberia is something else in November. Perhaps you'd like it better there when the inevitable happens.Oh, I agree on that. You just don't know how pissed we are. And "aren't going to take it anymore" means a whole lot more from the likes of me.
Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
I doubt he has ever been ahead in anything. But yes, he is insisting on getting more and more behind.
Now the brilliant communist is worshiping private companies and proclaiming they should have ability do absolutely anything they please. If the stance was anything else than pro far left he would be crying and moaning at the evil private companies so hard ear damage would occur to all who listened.
Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
I doubt he has ever been ahead in anything. But yes, he is insisting on getting more and more behind.
Now the brilliant communist is worshiping private companies and proclaiming they should have ability do absolutely anything they please. If the stance was anything else than pro far left he would be crying and moaning at the evil private companies so hard ear damage would occur to all who listened.
Hilarious how I'm the communist for standing up for the rights of private owners.
Negative. You are wrong. It takes character to admit that.OK.Try me.Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
.Guides: Company Research: Determining Company Status: Public v. Private
This guide identifies sources for basic business and company information, but not specific resources for broad business disciplines such as accounting, marketing or management.
a. Publicly Traded Companies
Publicly traded companies sell stock to the general public on one of the major stock exchanges. Anyone who purchases stock in a company owns part of that company. As a result, the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) requires public companies to disclose financial and other information to their owners, so that investors can determine for themselves if their company's securities are a good investment. This makes researching public companies much easier than private companies.
b. Private/Closely Held Companies
Privately or closely held businesses, are those for which there is no public ownership of its shares or assets. Although closely held businesses tend to be small, family owned or jointly owned by a small group of people, they can also be large or wholly owned subsidiaries of major publicly traded companies. It should be kept in mind that the majority of businesses in the United States are private. Because privately held companies do not sell shares to the public, they are not required by law to report financial information to the SEC. As a result, it is more difficult to locate detailed information about a private company's operations.
Publicly traded does not mean publicly owned. Even a publicly traded company is still, at heart, owned by private citizens.
The real difference here is whether the business is publicly owned, which would require it to be owned by the government.
OK.Try me.Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
.Guides: Company Research: Determining Company Status: Public v. Private
This guide identifies sources for basic business and company information, but not specific resources for broad business disciplines such as accounting, marketing or management.
a. Publicly Traded Companies
Publicly traded companies sell stock to the general public on one of the major stock exchanges. Anyone who purchases stock in a company owns part of that company. As a result, the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) requires public companies to disclose financial and other information to their owners, so that investors can determine for themselves if their company's securities are a good investment. This makes researching public companies much easier than private companies.
b. Private/Closely Held Companies
Privately or closely held businesses, are those for which there is no public ownership of its shares or assets. Although closely held businesses tend to be small, family owned or jointly owned by a small group of people, they can also be large or wholly owned subsidiaries of major publicly traded companies. It should be kept in mind that the majority of businesses in the United States are private. Because privately held companies do not sell shares to the public, they are not required by law to report financial information to the SEC. As a result, it is more difficult to locate detailed information about a private company's operations.
Publicly traded does not mean publicly owned. Even a publicly traded company is still, at heart, owned by private citizens.
The real difference here is whether the business is publicly owned, which would require it to be owned by the government.
Negative. You are wrong. It takes character to admit that.OK.Try me.Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
.Guides: Company Research: Determining Company Status: Public v. Private
This guide identifies sources for basic business and company information, but not specific resources for broad business disciplines such as accounting, marketing or management.
a. Publicly Traded Companies
Publicly traded companies sell stock to the general public on one of the major stock exchanges. Anyone who purchases stock in a company owns part of that company. As a result, the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) requires public companies to disclose financial and other information to their owners, so that investors can determine for themselves if their company's securities are a good investment. This makes researching public companies much easier than private companies.
b. Private/Closely Held Companies
Privately or closely held businesses, are those for which there is no public ownership of its shares or assets. Although closely held businesses tend to be small, family owned or jointly owned by a small group of people, they can also be large or wholly owned subsidiaries of major publicly traded companies. It should be kept in mind that the majority of businesses in the United States are private. Because privately held companies do not sell shares to the public, they are not required by law to report financial information to the SEC. As a result, it is more difficult to locate detailed information about a private company's operations.
Publicly traded does not mean publicly owned. Even a publicly traded company is still, at heart, owned by private citizens.
The real difference here is whether the business is publicly owned, which would require it to be owned by the government.
The part where it's a privately owned website with no obligation to promote anyone else's speech.I'll try to ask one more time. What part of freedom of speech requires a private individual to pay to propagate someone else's speech?Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.
Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.
This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.
The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.
"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."
These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.
Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.
You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.
No.
It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.
You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.
Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.
It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?
HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.
It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.
Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.
Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.
Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.
I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.
It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.
Go away moronic troll.
Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.
Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.
Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...
Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.
These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.
What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?
Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.
Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.
It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.
Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.
I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.
There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.
But you’re dodging the question.
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.
If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.
You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.
Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.
Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.
Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.
You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.
That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.
That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.
Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.
Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.
They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.
If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.
Which is what free speech actually is.
No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.
Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.
Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.
Google marks 14 years as a public company
Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.
Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!
It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.
You asked me to tell you what is public about it, and that's what I did.
Now go THE FUCK away from my thread loser. Everyone knows that banning people from a platform over their opinion is an extremist anti free-speech far left position. There is no debate to be had here. Any debate that might potentially exist you can have (most likely alone) in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. If you post one more time regarding this issue you will be reported for off-topic, it is NOT the subject of the thread.
And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
Which does not change the fact that they are against free speech, and ban users based on their opinions.
Or the fact that they are a public company.
You are reported.
Retards are slow learners.
Which part of getting thrown out of a platform because of ones opinion is NOT against free speech? This is the FUCKING DEFINITION OF FREE SPEECH YOU IDIOTIC MORON.
And yes, you are required to pay for any service fees that apply obviously. Now they DID THAT so your point is completely retarded and moot.
Free speech does not hinge on your ability to post videos on Youtube.
It's very relevant. If Youtube or any of these websites were publicly owned, then banning them from that website would be censorship.OK.Try me.Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
.Guides: Company Research: Determining Company Status: Public v. Private
This guide identifies sources for basic business and company information, but not specific resources for broad business disciplines such as accounting, marketing or management.
a. Publicly Traded Companies
Publicly traded companies sell stock to the general public on one of the major stock exchanges. Anyone who purchases stock in a company owns part of that company. As a result, the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) requires public companies to disclose financial and other information to their owners, so that investors can determine for themselves if their company's securities are a good investment. This makes researching public companies much easier than private companies.
b. Private/Closely Held Companies
Privately or closely held businesses, are those for which there is no public ownership of its shares or assets. Although closely held businesses tend to be small, family owned or jointly owned by a small group of people, they can also be large or wholly owned subsidiaries of major publicly traded companies. It should be kept in mind that the majority of businesses in the United States are private. Because privately held companies do not sell shares to the public, they are not required by law to report financial information to the SEC. As a result, it is more difficult to locate detailed information about a private company's operations.
Publicly traded does not mean publicly owned. Even a publicly traded company is still, at heart, owned by private citizens.
The real difference here is whether the business is publicly owned, which would require it to be owned by the government.
Go make your own thread. This is COMPLETELY irrelevant and has NOTHING to do with the far left censorship.
The part where it's a privately owned website with no obligation to promote anyone else's speech.I'll try to ask one more time. What part of freedom of speech requires a private individual to pay to propagate someone else's speech?Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.
Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.
This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.
The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.
"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."
These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.
Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.
You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.
No.
It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.
You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.
Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.
It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?
HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.
It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.
Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.
Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.
Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.
I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.
It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.
Go away moronic troll.
Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.
Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.
Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...
Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.
These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.
What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?
Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.
Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.
It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.
Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.
I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.
There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.
But you’re dodging the question.
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.
If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.
You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.
Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.
Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.
Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.
You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.
That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.
That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.
Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.
Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.
They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.
If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.
Which is what free speech actually is.
No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.
Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.
Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.
Google marks 14 years as a public company
Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.
Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!
It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.
You asked me to tell you what is public about it, and that's what I did.
Now go THE FUCK away from my thread loser. Everyone knows that banning people from a platform over their opinion is an extremist anti free-speech far left position. There is no debate to be had here. Any debate that might potentially exist you can have (most likely alone) in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. If you post one more time regarding this issue you will be reported for off-topic, it is NOT the subject of the thread.
And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
Which does not change the fact that they are against free speech, and ban users based on their opinions.
Or the fact that they are a public company.
You are reported.
Retards are slow learners.
Which part of getting thrown out of a platform because of ones opinion is NOT against free speech? This is the FUCKING DEFINITION OF FREE SPEECH YOU IDIOTIC MORON.
And yes, you are required to pay for any service fees that apply obviously. Now they DID THAT so your point is completely retarded and moot.
Free speech does not hinge on your ability to post videos on Youtube.
Who gives a SHIT what obligations they may or may not have.
They are clamping down on free speech, particularly the pro-American, pro-civilization kind which is the most important there is. These far leftists have to be destroyed.
Your definition of publicly owned and the dictionary do not mix.It's very relevant. If Youtube or any of these websites were publicly owned, then banning them from that website would be censorship.
But since they are private property, they have every right to exclude people as they see fit.
The part where it's a privately owned website with no obligation to promote anyone else's speech.I'll try to ask one more time. What part of freedom of speech requires a private individual to pay to propagate someone else's speech?Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.
Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.
This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.
The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.
"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."
These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.
Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.
You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.
No.
It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.
You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.
Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.
It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?
HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.
It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.
Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.
Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.
Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.
I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.
It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.
Go away moronic troll.
Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.
Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.
Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...
Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.
These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.
What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?
Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.
Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.
It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.
Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.
I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.
There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.
But you’re dodging the question.
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.
If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.
You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.
Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.
Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.
Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.
You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.
That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.
That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.
Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.
Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.
They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.
If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.
Which is what free speech actually is.
No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.
Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.
Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.
Google marks 14 years as a public company
Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.
Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!
It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.
You asked me to tell you what is public about it, and that's what I did.
Now go THE FUCK away from my thread loser. Everyone knows that banning people from a platform over their opinion is an extremist anti free-speech far left position. There is no debate to be had here. Any debate that might potentially exist you can have (most likely alone) in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. If you post one more time regarding this issue you will be reported for off-topic, it is NOT the subject of the thread.
And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
Which does not change the fact that they are against free speech, and ban users based on their opinions.
Or the fact that they are a public company.
You are reported.
Retards are slow learners.
Which part of getting thrown out of a platform because of ones opinion is NOT against free speech? This is the FUCKING DEFINITION OF FREE SPEECH YOU IDIOTIC MORON.
And yes, you are required to pay for any service fees that apply obviously. Now they DID THAT so your point is completely retarded and moot.
Free speech does not hinge on your ability to post videos on Youtube.
Who gives a SHIT what obligations they may or may not have.
They are clamping down on free speech, particularly the pro-American, pro-civilization kind which is the most important there is. These far leftists have to be destroyed.
The entire premise of this thread is that these websites are obligated to host their speech.
Your definition of publicly owned and the dictionary do not mix.It's very relevant. If Youtube or any of these websites were publicly owned, then banning them from that website would be censorship.
But since they are private property, they have every right to exclude people as they see fit.
Are publicly traded companies private?
In a public company, the shares are made available to the public. The shares are traded on the open market through a stock exchange. A private company is a stock corporation whose shares of stock are not publicly traded on the open market but are held internally by a few individuals.
You are wrong. It takes character. Do you have have it?
The part where it's a privately owned website with no obligation to promote anyone else's speech.I'll try to ask one more time. What part of freedom of speech requires a private individual to pay to propagate someone else's speech?Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.
Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.
This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.
The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.
"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."
These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.
Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.
You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.
No.
It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.
You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.
Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.
It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?
HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.
It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.
Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.
Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.
Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.
I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.
It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.
Go away moronic troll.
Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.
Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.
Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...
Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.
These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.
What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?
Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.
Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.
It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.
Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.
I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.
There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.
But you’re dodging the question.
So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?
If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.
If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.
You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.
Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.
Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.
Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.
You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.
That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.
That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.
Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.
Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.
They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.
If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.
Which is what free speech actually is.
No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.
Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.
Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.
Google marks 14 years as a public company
Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.
Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!
It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.
You asked me to tell you what is public about it, and that's what I did.
Now go THE FUCK away from my thread loser. Everyone knows that banning people from a platform over their opinion is an extremist anti free-speech far left position. There is no debate to be had here. Any debate that might potentially exist you can have (most likely alone) in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. If you post one more time regarding this issue you will be reported for off-topic, it is NOT the subject of the thread.
And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.
Which does not change the fact that they are against free speech, and ban users based on their opinions.
Or the fact that they are a public company.
You are reported.
Retards are slow learners.
Which part of getting thrown out of a platform because of ones opinion is NOT against free speech? This is the FUCKING DEFINITION OF FREE SPEECH YOU IDIOTIC MORON.
And yes, you are required to pay for any service fees that apply obviously. Now they DID THAT so your point is completely retarded and moot.
Free speech does not hinge on your ability to post videos on Youtube.
Who gives a SHIT what obligations they may or may not have.
They are clamping down on free speech, particularly the pro-American, pro-civilization kind which is the most important there is. These far leftists have to be destroyed.
The entire premise of this thread is that these websites are obligated to host their speech.
Obligated to be considered American and not a draconian anti free speech cabal? Yes.
Obligated by law? Perhaps, but for different reasons. But no, this is NOT the premise of the thread.
Your IQ is too low to participate in this thread. Go make your own where you can contemplate on the meaning of meaning.
Your definition of publicly owned and the dictionary do not mix.It's very relevant. If Youtube or any of these websites were publicly owned, then banning them from that website would be censorship.
But since they are private property, they have every right to exclude people as they see fit.
Are publicly traded companies private?
In a public company, the shares are made available to the public. The shares are traded on the open market through a stock exchange. A private company is a stock corporation whose shares of stock are not publicly traded on the open market but are held internally by a few individuals.
You are wrong. It takes character. Do you have have it?
It does not even matter, although of course the far left moron is wrong. Censorship is INDEPENDENT on who conducts said censorship.
Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.[1][2]
Here's the definition of publicly owned:Your definition of publicly owned and the dictionary do not mix.
dictionary.cambridge.org
Your definition of publicly owned and the dictionary do not mix.It's very relevant. If Youtube or any of these websites were publicly owned, then banning them from that website would be censorship.
But since they are private property, they have every right to exclude people as they see fit.
Are publicly traded companies private?
In a public company, the shares are made available to the public. The shares are traded on the open market through a stock exchange. A private company is a stock corporation whose shares of stock are not publicly traded on the open market but are held internally by a few individuals.
You are wrong. It takes character. Do you have have it?
It does not even matter, although of course the far left moron is wrong. Censorship is INDEPENDENT on who conducts said censorship.
Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.[1][2]
But no one is preventing Molyneux from publishing his videos. Youtube just said they don't want to do it for him.
That's not censorship.
