Well well look what we have hear

[colfax_m]

but Google has a monopoly...

Stop right there.

No. They don’t.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

but Google has a monopoly...

Stop right there.

No. They don’t.

They have enough of a market share that there is no viable alternative. All anyone would need to prove is behavior that kills competition or controls pricing. When I say "monopoly" that is what I mean.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

but Google has a monopoly...

Stop right there.

No. They don’t.

...and I WANT anti-trust gone. Texas will be the richest place in the world.

.

 

[colfax_m]

but Google has a monopoly...

Stop right there.

No. They don’t.

They have enough of a market share that there is no viable alternative. All anyone would need to prove is behavior that kills competition or controls pricing. When I say "monopoly" that is what I mean.

.

Market share doesn’t make it illegal. If they’ve had uncompetitive behavior, then that’s a different story. But implying that’s sometime simple to prove is ridiculous.

 

[bripat9643]

but Google has a monopoly...

Stop right there.

No. They don’t.

They have enough of a market share that there is no viable alternative. All anyone would need to prove is behavior that kills competition or controls pricing. When I say "monopoly" that is what I mean.

.

Market share doesn’t make it illegal. If they’ve had uncompetitive behavior, then that’s a different story. But implying that’s sometime simple to prove is ridiculous.

You're wrong about that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

but Google has a monopoly...

Stop right there.

No. They don’t.

They have enough of a market share that there is no viable alternative. All anyone would need to prove is behavior that kills competition or controls pricing. When I say "monopoly" that is what I mean.

.

Market share doesn’t make it illegal. If they’ve had uncompetitive behavior, then that’s a different story. But implying that’s sometime simple to prove is ridiculous.

You are correct. I never claimed that market share was illegal. I simply said that market share indicates a need to investigate for noncompetitive/price influencing behavior (and I could see an argument that behavior toward certain groups is price fixing, as it makes their value lower in the market, but that's another discussion).

.

 

[colfax_m]

but Google has a monopoly...

Stop right there.

No. They don’t.

They have enough of a market share that there is no viable alternative. All anyone would need to prove is behavior that kills competition or controls pricing. When I say "monopoly" that is what I mean.

.

Market share doesn’t make it illegal. If they’ve had uncompetitive behavior, then that’s a different story. But implying that’s sometime simple to prove is ridiculous.

You are correct. I never claimed that market share was illegal. I simply said that market share indicates a need to investigate for noncompetitive/price influencing behavior (and I could see an argument that behavior toward certain groups is price fixing, as it makes their value lower in the market, but that's another discussion).

.

Well that was a successful retreat on your part. Now you’ve walked it back to “let’s investigate” because you don’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

It protects Google, which has a monopoly, so....

I hate using anti-trust, but if anybody needs such an investigation, it is Google. I am certain there will be more that one acts by Google affecting the market and stifling competition. You don't gain 70% of the market share without something going on, and Google shined a big spotlight up its own ass by being political like a motherfucker.

.

It protects everyone with a website that lets people post their own content.

I agree.

We're just saying that Google does not deserve such protections, based on their behavior.


.

The way I see it, it’s basically extortion. Do what we want to help our party or else the government will punish you.

so you are saying the dems are googles party?

you just flew over the edge if so.

but the analogy is more stop keeping us down and give us the same treatment as the rest.

You don't seem for equal treatment under the law.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

it protects platforms from that.

not publishers.

and social media while not a publisher have gone beyond platform.

you can, and likely will, argue til you're blue in the face google should be able to do what it wants as long as you agree. you've yet to answer why google wouldn't be allowed to ban gays but conservatives are ok. you want to put some pre approved social stigma on it and pretend that's enough.

not its not enough. in fact, it's the core of our divide.

It prevents websites from being considered publishers of other people’s information. End of story.

You’re creating an apples and oranges comparison that is both hypothetical and irrelevant.

Serious question, does Google ban conservative websites from using Adsense? The honest answer is now. This is manufactured victimhood.

and are you saying Facebook and Twitter are simply websites?

Google can and does limit conservative traffic. adsense would ride on top of the underlying traffic. so, if google limits your traffic, it does impact adsense. so it's a pointless sideshow bob to me whether you mean to do that or not. it makes zero difference how you monetize your site if google keeps the bulk of the world from seeing you to begin with.

your "argument" is putting the cart after the horse and saying "there, i gave you 3 city blocks in the entire world, now sell your ads there" vs. opening up all traffic and letting their adsense build revenue from fair traffic and searches.

you have zero idea how SEO works that much is painfully obvious and you still have not said why google can't ban gays, just conservatives.

other than your FEELZ and i really hope you have more than that.

AND you continue to ignore the fact BOTH SIDES what that protection from social media gone. just for very different reasons. your denial is amazing but misplaced at me. i'm just saying where this is headed whether any of us like it or not.

Where did I say google can or can’t ban “gays”? I don’t know if they can or can’t. It depends if public accommodation laws apply to them and I don’t think that’s been decided in court.

I haven’t seen evidence that Google is banning conservatives for being conservative. I doubt you have such evidence.

You have not answered the question and keep ignoring it

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

it protects platforms from that.

not publishers.

and social media while not a publisher have gone beyond platform.

you can, and likely will, argue til you're blue in the face google should be able to do what it wants as long as you agree. you've yet to answer why google wouldn't be allowed to ban gays but conservatives are ok. you want to put some pre approved social stigma on it and pretend that's enough.

not its not enough. in fact, it's the core of our divide.

It prevents websites from being considered publishers of other people’s information. End of story.

You’re creating an apples and oranges comparison that is both hypothetical and irrelevant.

Serious question, does Google ban conservative websites from using Adsense? The honest answer is now. This is manufactured victimhood.

and are you saying Facebook and Twitter are simply websites?

Google can and does limit conservative traffic. adsense would ride on top of the underlying traffic. so, if google limits your traffic, it does impact adsense. so it's a pointless sideshow bob to me whether you mean to do that or not. it makes zero difference how you monetize your site if google keeps the bulk of the world from seeing you to begin with.

your "argument" is putting the cart after the horse and saying "there, i gave you 3 city blocks in the entire world, now sell your ads there" vs. opening up all traffic and letting their adsense build revenue from fair traffic and searches.

you have zero idea how SEO works that much is painfully obvious and you still have not said why google can't ban gays, just conservatives.

other than your FEELZ and i really hope you have more than that.

AND you continue to ignore the fact BOTH SIDES what that protection from social media gone. just for very different reasons. your denial is amazing but misplaced at me. i'm just saying where this is headed whether any of us like it or not.

Where did I say google can or can’t ban “gays”? I don’t know if they can or can’t. It depends if public accommodation laws apply to them and I don’t think that’s been decided in court.

I haven’t seen evidence that Google is banning conservatives for being conservative. I doubt you have such evidence.

You have not answered the question and keep ignoring it

I thought i did but could you rephrase the question as simply as possible so I can directly respond?

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

It protects Google, which has a monopoly, so....

I hate using anti-trust, but if anybody needs such an investigation, it is Google. I am certain there will be more that one acts by Google affecting the market and stifling competition. You don't gain 70% of the market share without something going on, and Google shined a big spotlight up its own ass by being political like a motherfucker.

.

It protects everyone with a website that lets people post their own content.

I agree.

We're just saying that Google does not deserve such protections, based on their behavior.


.

The way I see it, it’s basically extortion. Do what we want to help our party or else the government will punish you.

so you are saying the dems are googles party?

you just flew over the edge if so.

but the analogy is more stop keeping us down and give us the same treatment as the rest.

You don't seem for equal treatment under the law.

What? I have no idea where you got they and don’t know why you are saying I’m not for equal treatment under the law.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

it protects platforms from that.

not publishers.

and social media while not a publisher have gone beyond platform.

you can, and likely will, argue til you're blue in the face google should be able to do what it wants as long as you agree. you've yet to answer why google wouldn't be allowed to ban gays but conservatives are ok. you want to put some pre approved social stigma on it and pretend that's enough.

not its not enough. in fact, it's the core of our divide.

It prevents websites from being considered publishers of other people’s information. End of story.

You’re creating an apples and oranges comparison that is both hypothetical and irrelevant.

Serious question, does Google ban conservative websites from using Adsense? The honest answer is now. This is manufactured victimhood.

and are you saying Facebook and Twitter are simply websites?

Google can and does limit conservative traffic. adsense would ride on top of the underlying traffic. so, if google limits your traffic, it does impact adsense. so it's a pointless sideshow bob to me whether you mean to do that or not. it makes zero difference how you monetize your site if google keeps the bulk of the world from seeing you to begin with.

your "argument" is putting the cart after the horse and saying "there, i gave you 3 city blocks in the entire world, now sell your ads there" vs. opening up all traffic and letting their adsense build revenue from fair traffic and searches.

you have zero idea how SEO works that much is painfully obvious and you still have not said why google can't ban gays, just conservatives.

other than your FEELZ and i really hope you have more than that.

AND you continue to ignore the fact BOTH SIDES what that protection from social media gone. just for very different reasons. your denial is amazing but misplaced at me. i'm just saying where this is headed whether any of us like it or not.

Where did I say google can or can’t ban “gays”? I don’t know if they can or can’t. It depends if public accommodation laws apply to them and I don’t think that’s been decided in court.

I haven’t seen evidence that Google is banning conservatives for being conservative. I doubt you have such evidence.

You have not answered the question and keep ignoring it

I thought i did but could you rephrase the question as simply as possible so I can directly respond?

You mean "why can Google deny conservatives their platform but not gays" wasn't clear? Since you never answered the "can Google ban gays" feel to answer that one too.

They were complex questions, I know.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

It protects Google, which has a monopoly, so....

I hate using anti-trust, but if anybody needs such an investigation, it is Google. I am certain there will be more that one acts by Google affecting the market and stifling competition. You don't gain 70% of the market share without something going on, and Google shined a big spotlight up its own ass by being political like a motherfucker.

.

It protects everyone with a website that lets people post their own content.

I agree.

We're just saying that Google does not deserve such protections, based on their behavior.


.

The way I see it, it’s basically extortion. Do what we want to help our party or else the government will punish you.

so you are saying the dems are googles party?

you just flew over the edge if so.

but the analogy is more stop keeping us down and give us the same treatment as the rest.

You don't seem for equal treatment under the law.

What? I have no idea where you got they and don’t know why you are saying I’m not for equal treatment under the law.

Not playing your game anymore.

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

it protects platforms from that.

not publishers.

and social media while not a publisher have gone beyond platform.

you can, and likely will, argue til you're blue in the face google should be able to do what it wants as long as you agree. you've yet to answer why google wouldn't be allowed to ban gays but conservatives are ok. you want to put some pre approved social stigma on it and pretend that's enough.

not its not enough. in fact, it's the core of our divide.

It prevents websites from being considered publishers of other people’s information. End of story.

You’re creating an apples and oranges comparison that is both hypothetical and irrelevant.

Serious question, does Google ban conservative websites from using Adsense? The honest answer is now. This is manufactured victimhood.

and are you saying Facebook and Twitter are simply websites?

Google can and does limit conservative traffic. adsense would ride on top of the underlying traffic. so, if google limits your traffic, it does impact adsense. so it's a pointless sideshow bob to me whether you mean to do that or not. it makes zero difference how you monetize your site if google keeps the bulk of the world from seeing you to begin with.

your "argument" is putting the cart after the horse and saying "there, i gave you 3 city blocks in the entire world, now sell your ads there" vs. opening up all traffic and letting their adsense build revenue from fair traffic and searches.

you have zero idea how SEO works that much is painfully obvious and you still have not said why google can't ban gays, just conservatives.

other than your FEELZ and i really hope you have more than that.

AND you continue to ignore the fact BOTH SIDES what that protection from social media gone. just for very different reasons. your denial is amazing but misplaced at me. i'm just saying where this is headed whether any of us like it or not.

Where did I say google can or can’t ban “gays”? I don’t know if they can or can’t. It depends if public accommodation laws apply to them and I don’t think that’s been decided in court.

I haven’t seen evidence that Google is banning conservatives for being conservative. I doubt you have such evidence.

You have not answered the question and keep ignoring it

I thought i did but could you rephrase the question as simply as possible so I can directly respond?

You mean "why can Google deny conservatives their platform but not gays" wasn't clear? Since you never answered the "can Google ban gays" feel to answer that one too.

They were complex questions, I know.

I don’t know.
I think that’s the third time I said that. Was that unclear?

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

It protects Google, which has a monopoly, so....

I hate using anti-trust, but if anybody needs such an investigation, it is Google. I am certain there will be more that one acts by Google affecting the market and stifling competition. You don't gain 70% of the market share without something going on, and Google shined a big spotlight up its own ass by being political like a motherfucker.

.

It protects everyone with a website that lets people post their own content.

I agree.

We're just saying that Google does not deserve such protections, based on their behavior.


.

The way I see it, it’s basically extortion. Do what we want to help our party or else the government will punish you.

so you are saying the dems are googles party?

you just flew over the edge if so.

but the analogy is more stop keeping us down and give us the same treatment as the rest.

You don't seem for equal treatment under the law.

What? I have no idea where you got they and don’t know why you are saying I’m not for equal treatment under the law.

Not playing your game anymore.

Honestly, trying to understand what you write is challenging. Not playing games, but I feel that you’re constantly jumping from one argument to another, making unfounded assumptions, and building an army of straw men.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

it protects platforms from that.

not publishers.

and social media while not a publisher have gone beyond platform.

you can, and likely will, argue til you're blue in the face google should be able to do what it wants as long as you agree. you've yet to answer why google wouldn't be allowed to ban gays but conservatives are ok. you want to put some pre approved social stigma on it and pretend that's enough.

not its not enough. in fact, it's the core of our divide.

It prevents websites from being considered publishers of other people’s information. End of story.

You’re creating an apples and oranges comparison that is both hypothetical and irrelevant.

Serious question, does Google ban conservative websites from using Adsense? The honest answer is now. This is manufactured victimhood.

and are you saying Facebook and Twitter are simply websites?

Google can and does limit conservative traffic. adsense would ride on top of the underlying traffic. so, if google limits your traffic, it does impact adsense. so it's a pointless sideshow bob to me whether you mean to do that or not. it makes zero difference how you monetize your site if google keeps the bulk of the world from seeing you to begin with.

your "argument" is putting the cart after the horse and saying "there, i gave you 3 city blocks in the entire world, now sell your ads there" vs. opening up all traffic and letting their adsense build revenue from fair traffic and searches.

you have zero idea how SEO works that much is painfully obvious and you still have not said why google can't ban gays, just conservatives.

other than your FEELZ and i really hope you have more than that.

AND you continue to ignore the fact BOTH SIDES what that protection from social media gone. just for very different reasons. your denial is amazing but misplaced at me. i'm just saying where this is headed whether any of us like it or not.

Where did I say google can or can’t ban “gays”? I don’t know if they can or can’t. It depends if public accommodation laws apply to them and I don’t think that’s been decided in court.

I haven’t seen evidence that Google is banning conservatives for being conservative. I doubt you have such evidence.

You have not answered the question and keep ignoring it

I thought i did but could you rephrase the question as simply as possible so I can directly respond?

You mean "why can Google deny conservatives their platform but not gays" wasn't clear? Since you never answered the "can Google ban gays" feel to answer that one too.

They were complex questions, I know.

I don’t know.
I think that’s the third time I said that. Was that unclear?

well considering that this is a large part of the core argument -

can google deny their services to groups they do not like?

you seem to say "Conservatives" - fuck 'em. they can use adsense somewhere else (which is ironic as hell as that is like putting up a toll bridge to collect fees then having the road commission never let traffic come your way) but anyone else it's "i don't know".

which comes back to the simple question - Can google dictate who can use their services and who cannot? who that applies to in my mind is irrelevant as long as you're not breaking federal laws.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

It protects Google, which has a monopoly, so....

I hate using anti-trust, but if anybody needs such an investigation, it is Google. I am certain there will be more that one acts by Google affecting the market and stifling competition. You don't gain 70% of the market share without something going on, and Google shined a big spotlight up its own ass by being political like a motherfucker.

.

It protects everyone with a website that lets people post their own content.

I agree.

We're just saying that Google does not deserve such protections, based on their behavior.


.

The way I see it, it’s basically extortion. Do what we want to help our party or else the government will punish you.

so you are saying the dems are googles party?

you just flew over the edge if so.

but the analogy is more stop keeping us down and give us the same treatment as the rest.

You don't seem for equal treatment under the law.

What? I have no idea where you got they and don’t know why you are saying I’m not for equal treatment under the law.

Not playing your game anymore.

Honestly, trying to understand what you write is challenging. Not playing games, but I feel that you’re constantly jumping from one argument to another, making unfounded assumptions, and building an army of straw men.

cause i have a hard time following you also. i work pretty hard to stay on target and yes - maybe we get lost trying to build an analogy so apologies on my part for the frustration there. we just seem to go in circles.

what i think i have so far is:

your view:
google/twitter and social media should be able to use their platforms however they wish. even if that means they pick sides and silence the other.

is this more or less correct?

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

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?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

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.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

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.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

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.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

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?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

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.

no. it's not.

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.

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.

Total nonsense. Google is not a government protected monopoly.

It sure as hell is. The government protects it from lawsuits. That's going to end.

That law applies to every website including this one.

It does not protect a monopoly if it literally applies to everyone.

It protects Google, which has a monopoly, so....

I hate using anti-trust, but if anybody needs such an investigation, it is Google. I am certain there will be more that one acts by Google affecting the market and stifling competition. You don't gain 70% of the market share without something going on, and Google shined a big spotlight up its own ass by being political like a motherfucker.

.

It protects everyone with a website that lets people post their own content.

I agree.

We're just saying that Google does not deserve such protections, based on their behavior.


.

The way I see it, it’s basically extortion. Do what we want to help our party or else the government will punish you.

so you are saying the dems are googles party?

you just flew over the edge if so.

but the analogy is more stop keeping us down and give us the same treatment as the rest.

You don't seem for equal treatment under the law.

What? I have no idea where you got they and don’t know why you are saying I’m not for equal treatment under the law.

Not playing your game anymore.

Honestly, trying to understand what you write is challenging. Not playing games, but I feel that you’re constantly jumping from one argument to another, making unfounded assumptions, and building an army of straw men.

cause i have a hard time following you also. i work pretty hard to stay on target and yes - maybe we get lost trying to build an analogy so apologies on my part for the frustration there. we just seem to go in circles.

what i think i have so far is:

your view:
google/twitter and social media should be able to use their platforms however they wish. even if that means they pick sides and silence the other.

is this more or less correct?

I don't know. It depends if public accommodation laws apply. I can't tell if they do or not. This depends not only on federal laws, which enumerate the types of businesses that they apply to, but also state laws. I'm not a lawyer, I can't figure this one out.

That being said, I don't think this issue is even relevant to the topic. Some people are kicked off platforms not for who they are, but because they're assholes. Milo Yiannopoulos was kicked off Twitter years ago. No one thought it was because he was gay, but because he's a jerk who was leading waves of harassment against other people, specifically Leslie Jones that was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.

I don't think there's evidence that Google is targeting Conservatives because they're conservative. I think that some conservatives who are jerks are getting treated like jerks.

Personally, I support platforms trying to keep some baseline of common decency. I don't think there is systemic discrimination that conservatives like to claim.

Finally, I would not support any platform kicking a person off simply for being a conservative. It may well be legal, but I would not support it just based on their identity as a conservative. I don't think public accommodation laws should apply to political opinion, however. It may sound like a good idea superficially, but then you realize that such a protection would also protect abhorrent political ideologies. We protect on account of religion (for example) because there aren't religions that are abhorrent. I have no problem with anyone simply because they're a Muslim or Christian or even a Scientologist god forbid. But I do have a problem with a person for the simple fact that they would identify with some political ideologies.