Well well look what we have hear

[yidnar]

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

Nope. NBC is not stopping anyone from engaging in speech.

NBC does not like the Federalist on google, so they are trying to force the issue.

So what? The Federalist can still engage in free speech. No one is stopping them.

We need to treat Google and Twitter like they were Christian owned bakeries

It wouldn’t make any difference if you did. They’d still have every right to refuse to help the Federalist.

No, they don't have that right! They can't refuse service

There’s a million reasons that someone can refuse service that’s completely consistent with public accommodation laws and a handful of reasons why you can’t refuse service.

like when the baker refused to bake a cake for a homosexual marriage ? the truth is the left has successfully called for the firing of people and the boycotting of companies they disagree with ! the democrats have once again started a civil war ... and the fact that you have to lie about the obvious should inform you that you are on the wrong side ....but to scum like you the ends justify the means.

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

Nope. NBC is not stopping anyone from engaging in speech.

NBC does not like the Federalist on google, so they are trying to force the issue.

So what? The Federalist can still engage in free speech. No one is stopping them.

We need to treat Google and Twitter like they were Christian owned bakeries

It wouldn’t make any difference if you did. They’d still have every right to refuse to help the Federalist.

No, they don't have that right! They can't refuse service

There’s a million reasons that someone can refuse service that’s completely consistent with public accommodation laws and a handful of reasons why you can’t refuse service.

like when the baker refused to bake a cake for a homosexual marriage ? the truth is the left has successfully called for the firing and the boycotting of companies they disagree with ! the democrats have once again started a civil war ... and the fact that you have to lie about the obvious should inform you that you are on the wrong side ....but to scum like you the ends justify the means.

By all means, boycott Google. See if I care.

 

[yidnar]

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

Nope. NBC is not stopping anyone from engaging in speech.

NBC does not like the Federalist on google, so they are trying to force the issue.

So what? The Federalist can still engage in free speech. No one is stopping them.

We need to treat Google and Twitter like they were Christian owned bakeries

It wouldn’t make any difference if you did. They’d still have every right to refuse to help the Federalist.

No, they don't have that right! They can't refuse service

There’s a million reasons that someone can refuse service that’s completely consistent with public accommodation laws and a handful of reasons why you can’t refuse service.

like when the baker refused to bake a cake for a homosexual marriage ? the truth is the left has successfully called for the firing and the boycotting of companies they disagree with ! the democrats have once again started a civil war ... and the fact that you have to lie about the obvious should inform you that you are on the wrong side ....but to scum like you the ends justify the means.

By all means, boycott Google. See if I care.

are you a socialist ?

 

[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?

 

[Dale Smith]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Really, you little commie piece of shit? No "shadow banning" or "de-monetization" or using community standards to declare content is not advertiser friendly and having channels deleted of conservative voices? Do tell? As usual, leftards lie then deny and proven wrong.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Exactly.

Which explains why Google backed down.

 

[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.

 

[colfax_m]

Which explains why Google backed down.

Only after The Federalist complied with their guidelines.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

One business wants to completely stop speech.

Stopping right there.

That's abjectly not true.

Really?

I think you just painted yourself in a corner.

The cake people are not stopping gay marriage.

.

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

No one is attacking their free speech.

NBC seems to be.

Nope. NBC is not stopping anyone from engaging in speech.

NBC does not like the Federalist on google, so they are trying to force the issue.

So what? The Federalist can still engage in free speech. No one is stopping them.

We need to treat Google and Twitter like they were Christian owned bakeries

It wouldn’t make any difference if you did. They’d still have every right to refuse to help the Federalist.

No, they don't have that right! They can't refuse service

There’s a million reasons that someone can refuse service that’s completely consistent with public accommodation laws and a handful of reasons why you can’t refuse service.

like when the baker refused to bake a cake for a homosexual marriage ? the truth is the left has successfully called for the firing and the boycotting of companies they disagree with ! the democrats have once again started a civil war ... and the fact that you have to lie about the obvious should inform you that you are on the wrong side ....but to scum like you the ends justify the means.

By all means, boycott Google. See if I care.

are you a socialist ?

Not by any rational definition.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

What if identity is based solely on behavior?

.

 

[colfax_m]

One business wants to completely stop speech.

Stopping right there.

That's abjectly not true.

Really?

I think you just painted yourself in a corner.

The cake people are not stopping gay marriage.

.

I never said the “cake people” were stopping gay marriage. I don’t know who did believe that. I don’t believe it was part of any legal case against any baker in violation of public accommodation laws.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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).

That is completely, entirely, and in all other ways (if any) FALSE both in theory and in open practice.

It certainly and absolutely does not protect straight white males between the ages of 18-49.


.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

What if identity is based solely on behavior?

.

Good question. Identity such as race/ethnicity, national origin and age aren’t based on behavior. But religion and sexual orientation may be. That being said, is a Christian who doesn’t go to church, still a Christian? Does behavior determine your religion? Or is it belief? Same with sexual orientation. You can be gay as the day is long and not have any sexual relations with any other person. I would have identified as straight before I ever had a girlfriend, but not because I engaged in any specific behavior.

 

[colfax_m]

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).

That is completely, entirely, and in all other ways (if any) FALSE both in theory and in open practice.

It certainly and absolutely does not protect straight white males between the ages of 18-49.


.

Well, okay. But to demonstrate that, can you show me the straight person who was discriminated against based on their sexual orientation in a place of public accommodation that wasn’t protected?

Maybe straight peolle aren’t subject to discrimination like you think?

 

[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?

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?

Not that I like or support anti-trust laws, but if we are going to have them, there is no better example than Google. I suspect the justice department has been considering it for a long time.

I would prefer that we didn't use government to fix problems like this, but again, since we are already forcing businesses to do as you demand government force them to do, we may as well use the same government force against Google. RIGHT?

Or, we could stop bringing the government into our petty squabbles in ALL circumstances, and everybody can just GET OVER IT. But, that can't happen unless it is universal.



I would support a universal get government out of our business position, because WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT???

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

What if identity is based solely on behavior?

.

Good question. Identity such as race/ethnicity, national origin and age aren’t based on behavior. But religion and sexual orientation may be. That being said, is a Christian who doesn’t go to church, still a Christian? Does behavior determine your religion? Or is it belief? Same with sexual orientation. You can be gay as the day is long and not have any sexual relations with any other person. I would have identified as straight before I ever had a girlfriend, but not because I engaged in any specific behavior.

And, who gets to decide if I am gay/straight/christian/transgender, etc.? And can I change my mind?

If it is "belief" that governs, what if a person believes that god will punish him if he bakes a cake for gay people, or serves black folks, or does anything leftists/righties believe?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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).

That is completely, entirely, and in all other ways (if any) FALSE both in theory and in open practice.

It certainly and absolutely does not protect straight white males between the ages of 18-49.


.

Well, okay. But to demonstrate that, can you show me the straight person who was discriminated against based on their sexual orientation in a place of public accommodation that wasn’t protected?

Maybe straight peolle aren’t subject to discrimination like you think?

My comment was about general discrimination against one "class" of people that is acceptable to you and others, for some reason.

Do I really need to show you examples of hate crimes committed against white males that goes UNIVERSALLY unprosecuted?

The better course is to allow assholes to reveal themselves.

I want racist fucktards to discriminate so I can avoid them. I want gay haters to project their inner gayness, so I can take my business elsewhere. The current method drives these idiots underground, so you are giving them your money without knowing it.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Liberty is the only fair standard.

.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

What if identity is based solely on behavior?

.

Good question. Identity such as race/ethnicity, national origin and age aren’t based on behavior. But religion and sexual orientation may be. That being said, is a Christian who doesn’t go to church, still a Christian? Does behavior determine your religion? Or is it belief? Same with sexual orientation. You can be gay as the day is long and not have any sexual relations with any other person. I would have identified as straight before I ever had a girlfriend, but not because I engaged in any specific behavior.

And, who gets to decide if I am gay/straight/christian/transgender, etc.? And can I change my mind?

If it is "belief" that governs, what if a person believes that god will punish him if he bakes a cake for gay people, or serves black folks, or does anything leftists/righties believe?

.

Same person who decides if you’re Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist.

People believed God would also punish them if they gave a hotel room to an interracial couple. If that belief is going to prevent you from complying with the law, my only suggestion is to find a different line of work.

 

[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.