Well well look what we have hear

[bendog]

Orwell was trying to warn us about Trump.

He was warning us about both of you

"1984" warning was against totalitarianism, and political repression. "Animal Farm" was Orwell's warning against communism - All the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I've read the books. Describes you to a tee.

Well you misread Orwell then. His concern was liberalism being coopted by communism. What you're bitching about is a supposedly liberal censorship of conservatism. That's not what's happening, but that was Eagle's OP.

It "could" happen. But what twitter did was to tell the Federalist to remove Federalist content urging people to get infected, and infect others with Corvid. It's not clear what google did, but it appears they told Federalist to remove racist comments to a Federalist posting. And the zero hedge was the same thing, although zero hedge may have created the racist posting themselves … they have track record for that.

Liberals don't believe in censorship.
Communists and fascists do.
The problem here is the left isn't liberal anymore. They call themselves progressives which is another word for communists. Social Democrats are also communists.

To you, everyone who isn't a right wing radical is a "communist". RINO's are communists. Democrats are communists. Leftists are communists. COMMIES EVERYWHERE.

THERE ARE NO COMMUNISTS. COMMUNISM DIED IN 1989. A FEW SMALL OUTPOSTS REMAIN - CUBA BEING ONE, BUT THE MOVEMENT IS DEAD. NO ONE IS ADVOCATING FOR COMMUNISM. THERE ARE NO COMMUNIST REBELLIONS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

Robert Gates said that the Republican Party, and America in general, are failing because they spent 40 years fighting communism, and having won the Cold War, they don't know how to stop fighting it.

He also said that America is being really badly governed at the moment, and that is why your Covid19. There is a total lack of leadership on the Republican side. Republicans haven't legislated since Mitch McConnell became Senate Majority Leader. McConnell's only interest is appointing conservative judges.

3 of the last 4 Republican Presidents have crashed the economy, leaving Americans weaker, sicker, and poorer than before the crash.

And you're here natterging about communists night and day.

They still run China and North Korea. McConnell legislates, he just does not ask how with Pelosi says jump. And to a number of left wingers conservatives are Nazis or KKK members, neither of which is true.

Neither NK nor China is Marxist. They are totalitarian states where a single party (or clique) uses state power to retain power

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Yep, not attacking...eliminating, dumbass.

How? Who is preventing anyone from speaking here?

Alrighty then, you want to play stupid.

The answer is no one is preventing them from speaking. Google just doesn’t necessarily want to facilitate their speech. The Federalist depends on Google ads for a revenue source. They don’t want to be cut off from that service. Problem is that The Federalist doesn’t have a right to that service.

This isn’t a matter of free speech. The Federalist always has the right to speak as they wish. The issue is that the Federalist is demanding the right to a revenue stream.

no it's not about free speech but we are now into encroaching on someones right to conduct business online. to say google has the power to decide who can sell what is bullshit. to deny they have that "power" is bigger bullshit.

google amazon and the rest get massive tax breaks so yes, we are paying for their ability to put all this together and they should NOT be able to use that power to silence people they don't like.

it's not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

It doesn't need to be more complicated.

The Federalist is more than welcome to produce whatever speech they want. Google can't stop them. Google also can't stop them from selling their advertising space to whoever they want. But Google doesn't have to facilitate that sale.

You made a vague allusion to tax breaks. What tax break do they get that requires them to do something of this nature?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

NBC does not have the ability to attack free speech.

No....they just get their buds in Google to do it.

Google isn’t stopping any speech.

Cake shops aren't stopping marriage.

.

 

[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.

 

[Dragonlady]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Yep, not attacking...eliminating, dumbass.

How? Who is preventing anyone from speaking here?

Alrighty then, you want to play stupid.

The answer is no one is preventing them from speaking. Google just doesn’t necessarily want to facilitate their speech. The Federalist depends on Google ads for a revenue source. They don’t want to be cut off from that service. Problem is that The Federalist doesn’t have a right to that service.

This isn’t a matter of free speech. The Federalist always has the right to speak as they wish. The issue is that the Federalist is demanding the right to a revenue stream.

no it's not about free speech but we are now into encroaching on someones right to conduct business online. to say google has the power to decide who can sell what is bullshit. to deny they have that "power" is bigger bullshit.

google amazon and the rest get massive tax breaks so yes, we are paying for their ability to put all this together and they should NOT be able to use that power to silence people they don't like.

it's not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

They are not "silencing people they don't like". They are removing false, misleading and dangerous information from their platform.

Posting false information about a pandemic is not posting a political opinion covered under freedom of speech, it's promoting a false and misleading narrative which could endanger the public health and national safety.

I know that conservatives are trying to politicize the virus, and to sell a false narrative about the pandemic, but that false narrative is coming from the White House, and stands in direct opposition to what the CDC is telling the public, and violates the White House's own guidelines for Americans living in a pandemic. All media platforms have a public responsibility not to participate in the dissemination of information which will result in more Americans dying.

FOX News and the rest of the American Billionaire Media have little interest to telling Americans the truth. But even Rupert Murdoch is turning on Trump as the body count mounts, and the polls show that Americans have lost confidence in Trump's ability to manage this crisis.

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

NBC does not have the ability to attack free speech.

No....they just get their buds in Google to do it.

Google isn’t stopping any speech.

Cake shops aren't stopping marriage.

.

Whether they did or not was irrelevant to the issue.

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Bullshit!!!

Do you know what deplatforming is?

Deplatforming - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, is a form of political activism or prior restraint by an individual, group, or organization with the goal of shutting down controversial speakers or speech, or denying them access to a venue in which to express their opinion. Tactics used to achieve this goal among community groups include direct action, and Internet activism. It is also a method used by social media and other technology companies to selectively suspend, ban, or otherwise restrict access to their platform by users who have allegedly violated the platform's terms of service, particularly terms regarding hate speech.

Banking and financial service providers, among other companies, have also denied services to controversial activists or organizations, a practice known as financial deplatforming. The term deplatforming also refers generally to tactics, often organized using social media, for preventing controversial speakers or speech from being heard. Deplatforming tactics have included disruption of speeches, attempts to have speakers disinvited to a venue or event, and various forms of personal harassment including efforts to have an individual fired or blacklisted.

Little problem here. The Federalist is it’s own website. They don’t publish on Google’s platform.

have you ever tried to publish a website? on google or otherwise?

you won't get ANYWHERE on the internet w/o google analytics and them doing ANYTHING to keep you from being seen.

hit google and look for "the federalist" and you're saying google can just never show it.

you really don't want to live in the world you are advocating. esp when obama ran around saying whatever people build today only get there from the people before them building it.

kinda a contradiction isnt it? but that's no surprise. the lefts logic runs into itself all the time. it's only out for instant gratification and can never see the road ahead that takes them.

I’m sure it’s challenging to run a website without the products that Google has created by their own effort and funding. However, that fact does not give anyone a right to those products.

The right to free speech does not equal the right to an audience. It definitely does not give you the right to someone else’s services to promote and fund that speech.

You have the right to them if you paid for them.

Sometimes, depends on the details of the agreement.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

No we have not decided. BULLSHIT!!!

You love your double standards.

.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

No we have not decided. BULLSHIT!!!

You love your double standards.

.

Oregon did. Colorado did. Lots of states have. See here.

State Public Accommodation Laws

All states with a public accommodation law prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, ancestry and religion.

www.ncsl.org

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

NBC does not have the ability to attack free speech.

No....they just get their buds in Google to do it.

Google isn’t stopping any speech.

Cake shops aren't stopping marriage.

.

Whether they did or not was irrelevant to the issue.

Why irrelevant?

One business wants to completely stop speech. They other does not want to participate in making a cake for a marriage they don't support.

In both cases, they are in some way inhibiting the free exercise of the rights of another by refusing to provide service. Neither is GOVERNMENT action.

You are okay with Google shutting down speech because Google is not government and Google has free will, but you have no problem forcing cake shop to comply.

You are completely hypocritical and unreasonable.

And I don't even like cake shops who discriminate against gay people. But, I am a true liberal, and you are not.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

No we have not decided. BULLSHIT!!!

You love your double standards.

.

Oregon did. Colorado did. Lots of states have. See here.

State Public Accommodation Laws

All states with a public accommodation law prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, ancestry and religion.

www.ncsl.org

Half the states made slavery legal.

Look, quit making your bullshit arguments to hide your double standard and your totalitarian tendencies.

.

 

[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?

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Yep, not attacking...eliminating, dumbass.

How? Who is preventing anyone from speaking here?

Alrighty then, you want to play stupid.

The answer is no one is preventing them from speaking. Google just doesn’t necessarily want to facilitate their speech. The Federalist depends on Google ads for a revenue source. They don’t want to be cut off from that service. Problem is that The Federalist doesn’t have a right to that service.

This isn’t a matter of free speech. The Federalist always has the right to speak as they wish. The issue is that the Federalist is demanding the right to a revenue stream.

no it's not about free speech but we are now into encroaching on someones right to conduct business online. to say google has the power to decide who can sell what is bullshit. to deny they have that "power" is bigger bullshit.

google amazon and the rest get massive tax breaks so yes, we are paying for their ability to put all this together and they should NOT be able to use that power to silence people they don't like.

it's not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

They are not "silencing people they don't like". They are removing false, misleading and dangerous information from their platform.

Posting false information about a pandemic is not posting a political opinion covered under freedom of speech, it's promoting a false and misleading narrative which could endanger the public health and national safety.

I know that conservatives are trying to politicize the virus, and to sell a false narrative about the pandemic, but that false narrative is coming from the White House, and stands in direct opposition to what the CDC is telling the public, and violates the White House's own guidelines for Americans living in a pandemic. All media platforms have a public responsibility not to participate in the dissemination of information which will result in more Americans dying.

FOX News and the rest of the American Billionaire Media have little interest to telling Americans the truth. But even Rupert Murdoch is turning on Trump as the body count mounts, and the polls show that Americans have lost confidence in Trump's ability to manage this crisis.

and how did they arrive at what is true and what isn't? simply calling someone a liar does not make them one.

not listening to the rest of your fucktardedness.

 

[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.

 

[colfax_m]

One business wants to completely stop speech.

Stopping right there.

That's abjectly not true.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

Oh, but that would be bad because gay is correct and anti-gay is wrong, and we can force anti-gay to do business with gay, because rights can get bent if an incorrect goes up against a correct.

It's literally that childish and simplistic of a double standard.

.

 

[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.

 

[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?

Oh, but that would be bad because gay is correct and anti-gay is wrong, and we can force anti-gay to do business with gay, because rights can get bent if an incorrect goes up against a correct.

It's literally that childish and simplistic of a double standard.

.

i'm not going to get into the emotional aspect of it - i'm just staying with the straight play of "Google owns it they can do what they want".

i know that to not be true so it's now a matter of working to find the root of the disagreement. convos like this are a bitch and can go bad quick. big reason why so many don't do it but we need to relearn how to talk through issues. not scream at the overall lack of understanding in the world.

 

[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?

Oh, but that would be bad because gay is correct and anti-gay is wrong, and we can force anti-gay to do business with gay, because rights can get bent if an incorrect goes up against a correct.

It's literally that childish and simplistic of a double standard.

.

Preventing discrimination on account of sexual orientation doesn't just protect gay people from being discriminated against. It also protects straight people, or bisexual people or asexual people (I suppose, not sure if that's been tested in court).

 

[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?