colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.Google is a government protected monopoly. That's the bottom line. As such it has an obligation to treat customers fairly. It appears likely that the feds will give Google customers the right to sue, and that's as it should be.no. it's not.great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.Interesting question. I looked a while ago and not sure if public accommodation laws applied to websites and didn't get much of a conclusive answer so I'm not entirely sure.and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.Wrong. Someone is.No one is attacking their free speech.
It's just not government doing it.
At the same time, government was not discriminating against black folks looking for a hotel or a restaurant.
Do you see your own hypocrisy?
.
Again, your hypocrisy is showing.
.
A cake shop isn't integral to freedom of marriage, but we have decided that as a society we do not allow some types of business to refuse service based on some characteristics such as sexual orientation.
Now, if a gay couple walks into a cake shop asking for a wedding cake while acting incredibly rude to everyone that works there, I'd have no problem with the shop tossing them on their behavior. Because that decision would be rooted in a behavior, but not their identity as a gay individual.
for the baker - if no other bakery was available then i would say he has less of a case. however, there are 50 bakeries around his and he wasn't even in the top 10. he was like 14 at the time. so if you can get the same services elsewhere i see it as less of an issue.
but you have no other option if google says "fuck off". you're fucked. gonna count on duck duck go to carry you through?
the laws are going to change to meet the times. while trump and biden both want S230 protection gone they want it for different reasons. but they both want it gone and it is picking up bipartisan support. we'll see what they choose to do in their infinate wisdom.
Again, this has nothing to do with section 230.
You have plenty of options without Google. In this instance, The Federalist could sell ad space directly to advertisers. Google just make the transaction easier, but in no way is necessary. Are we to force Google to serve ads to The Federalist because they're too lazy to do it themselves?
and your statement is telling me you've never tried to sell online advertising. give it a shot w/o google in the mix. not going to happen. almost every utility is google centric for stats, traffic, and if you don't follow googles SEO rules you're fucked in searched already.
your method would work in on a limited scale but again google's SEO would then start blocking linkbacks and other ways to even be found via any searches at all. most other search engines just use googles shit vs. recreate it.
so no. you won't get far w/o google in the mix.
but now tell - do you or do you not have an issue if google decides no gayness can be on their "platform" or service? you've given them total power to tell one scenario to fuck off - so where does that "power" end?
Public accommodation laws may be a victim of their own success. But these are still laws that prevent discrimination based on identity, not behavior. So it’s a rather apples and oranges.
The fact that Google’s product is superior in no way changes the root of the issue. But you seem to be bouncing between search and Adsense which is two different products.
google can either dictate who uses their services or they can't. if you let them do it to one group do you think they will stop there? does ANYONE ever stop at just silencing ONE group? if you say google can silence a websites content then they can silence a websites content.
you can't say ONLY CONSERVATIVE websites. well what i'm it's a conservative gay one?
you think you can keep pandora in the box but you can't. bitch is out and hungry. she's not going to stop until she's eaten her own and that includes anything that gets in their way and that is subject to change with the wind.
and lobbing out a key word you "googled" doesn't mean you understand SEO and search engine placement. but if you wish to go into heavy debate on it let me know.
Again, Google isn't silencing a website. The Federalist website does not require Google to exist.
At the end of the day, Google has a product they produced and some people feel they have a right to that product. They don't. This entire issue boils down to some people (conservatives it would seem in large part) think that they can force someone else to promote and facilitate their speech no matter what that speech contains. Sorry, that's just not going to work and attempting to force that upon the country is going to ruin the internet.