Well well look what we have hear

[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?

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???

.

Anti-trust laws don’t automatically apply just because a company is big, and hasn’t for about a generation. This was a seismic change in law that occurred in the 70s and 80s and lead in no small part by Robert Bork of all people. Antitrust now requires that a business engages in anti-competitive behavior rather than just size alone. The goal is to help consumers rather than competitors. I’m sure that a case can be made for anti-competitive behavior with Google but this is not one of those cases.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Which explains why Google backed down.

Only after The Federalist complied with their guidelines.

Did Google make the same demands of others who are NOT "right wing" and can you give examples?

.

 

[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???

.

Anti-trust laws don’t automatically apply just because a company is big, and hasn’t for about a generation. This was a seismic change in law that occurred in the 70s and 80s and lead in no small part by Robert Bork of all people. Antitrust now requires that a business engages in anti-competitive behavior rather than just size alone. The goal is to help consumers rather than competitors. I’m sure that a case can be made for anti-competitive behavior with Google but this is not one of those cases.

Yes. Exactly. Anti-trust would apply.

And, yes. This is one of those scenarios, because The Federalist has practically no other choice.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Which explains why Google backed down.

Only after The Federalist complied with their guidelines.

Did Google make the same demands of others who are NOT "right wing" and can you give examples?
.

I assume those demands are part of their terms of service, so the answer is yes, but I don't have specific knowledge of others.

 

[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?

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???

.

Anti-trust laws don’t automatically apply just because a company is big, and hasn’t for about a generation. This was a seismic change in law that occurred in the 70s and 80s and lead in no small part by Robert Bork of all people. Antitrust now requires that a business engages in anti-competitive behavior rather than just size alone. The goal is to help consumers rather than competitors. I’m sure that a case can be made for anti-competitive behavior with Google but this is not one of those cases.

Yes. Exactly. Anti-trust would apply.

And, yes. This is one of those scenarios, because The Federalist has practically no other choice.

.

Not sure what you mean.
The Federalist is not a competitor of Google.

 

[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?

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???

.

Anti-trust laws don’t automatically apply just because a company is big, and hasn’t for about a generation. This was a seismic change in law that occurred in the 70s and 80s and lead in no small part by Robert Bork of all people. Antitrust now requires that a business engages in anti-competitive behavior rather than just size alone. The goal is to help consumers rather than competitors. I’m sure that a case can be made for anti-competitive behavior with Google but this is not one of those cases.

i got hired by Microsoft Dec 4th, 1992.

i know better but read up and pretend you were there.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Which explains why Google backed down.

Only after The Federalist complied with their guidelines.

Did Google make the same demands of others who are NOT "right wing" and can you give examples?
.

I assume those demands are part of their terms of service, so the answer is yes, but I don't have specific knowledge of others.

Those may be the terms of service, but how is that enforced?

This is the first time I have heard of it being enforced.

.

 

[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???

.

Anti-trust laws don’t automatically apply just because a company is big, and hasn’t for about a generation. This was a seismic change in law that occurred in the 70s and 80s and lead in no small part by Robert Bork of all people. Antitrust now requires that a business engages in anti-competitive behavior rather than just size alone. The goal is to help consumers rather than competitors. I’m sure that a case can be made for anti-competitive behavior with Google but this is not one of those cases.

Yes. Exactly. Anti-trust would apply.

And, yes. This is one of those scenarios, because The Federalist has practically no other choice.

.

Not sure what you mean.
The Federalist is not a competitor of Google.

The Federalist, like many others, is only relevant in that it is a consumer with practically no alternative. Google's anti-competitive behavior is structuring AND LEVERAGING advertising via the internet, where consumers like The Federalist, has no alternative, to the point where consumers must do as Google demands or Google whips out its monopoly and shuts them 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.

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.

 

[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?

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???

.

Anti-trust laws don’t automatically apply just because a company is big, and hasn’t for about a generation. This was a seismic change in law that occurred in the 70s and 80s and lead in no small part by Robert Bork of all people. Antitrust now requires that a business engages in anti-competitive behavior rather than just size alone. The goal is to help consumers rather than competitors. I’m sure that a case can be made for anti-competitive behavior with Google but this is not one of those cases.

Yes. Exactly. Anti-trust would apply.

And, yes. This is one of those scenarios, because The Federalist has practically no other choice.

.

Not sure what you mean.
The Federalist is not a competitor of Google.

The Federalist, like many others, is only relevant in that it is a consumer with practically no alternative. Google's anti-competitive behavior is structuring AND LEVERAGING advertising via the internet, where consumers like The Federalist, has no alternative, to the point where consumers must do as Google demands or Google whips out its monopoly and shuts them down.

.

But the Federalist isn't competing with Google. Even if Google could "shut them down" (they can't), that wouldn't have any effect good or bad on Google's dominance in the advertiser space.

 

[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?

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???

.

Anti-trust laws don’t automatically apply just because a company is big, and hasn’t for about a generation. This was a seismic change in law that occurred in the 70s and 80s and lead in no small part by Robert Bork of all people. Antitrust now requires that a business engages in anti-competitive behavior rather than just size alone. The goal is to help consumers rather than competitors. I’m sure that a case can be made for anti-competitive behavior with Google but this is not one of those cases.

i got hired by Microsoft Dec 4th, 1992.

i know better but read up and pretend you were there.

Why would I pretend I was there? You're starting to take a more condescending tone.

Was there anything wrong about what I said?

 

[22lcidw]

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.

You don't look at yourselves though. That is why I believe you will be sending people to camps to be liquidated at some point.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

But, when used in the context of cake shops, where you know good and goddamn well that gay couples have options, you're okay with government forcing service.

What this really comes down to is you using government force to control actions based on thoughts/believes that you don't like.


Action: "get out of my store"

Thought A: "I have black people"
Thought B: "I hate gay people"
Thought C: "I don't like that stupid shirt you are wearing"

The action is still the same. You want to control thoughts, right?

.

 

[sakinago]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

 

[colfax_m]

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.

But, when used in the context of cake shops, where you know good and goddamn well that gay couples have options, you're okay with government forcing service.

What this really comes down to is you using government force to control actions based on thoughts/believes that you don't like.


Action: "get out of my store"

Thought A: "I have black people"
Thought B: "I hate gay people"
Thought C: "I don't like that stupid shirt you are wearing"

The action is still the same. You want to control thoughts, right?

.

Like I said earlier, we tried it your way and it nearly tore the country apart.

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

But this has nothing to do with that. The Federalist isn't publishing on their "platform". They're using Google to serve ads to maintain a revenue stream.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Like I said earlier, we tried it your way and it nearly tore the country apart.

So, that is a resounding "YES" right? You want to control thoughts you don't like, RIGHT???

(and I disagree that it nearly tore ANYTHING apart. It was more thought control, and likely would have gone away over time without the serious intrusion on liberty. It certainly is not necessary NOW).

.

 

[colfax_m]

Like I said earlier, we tried it your way and it nearly tore the country apart.

So, that is a resounding "YES" right? You want to control thoughts you don't like, RIGHT???

(and I disagree that it nearly tore ANYTHING apart. It was more thought control, and likely would have gone away over time without the serious intrusion on liberty. It certainly is not necessary NOW).

.

The civil rights movement took place 100 years after the civil war. The idea that it would have “gone away” over time defies he factual history of the matter.

I know thought crime sounds scary but motive matters in law quite a lot. Crimes based on thought is not new.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But the Federalist isn't competing with Google. Even if Google could "shut them down" (they can't), that wouldn't have any effect good or bad on Google's dominance in the advertiser space.

Right.

You are mixing the issues.

I am just saying that Google is so big and has such a stranglehold on competitiveness in the market that it has the unbridled luxury of making political demands of its consumers who have ZERO options. Any action to limit competitiveness that can be found could should be pursued, SO THAT Federalist has another realistic option. Otherwise, Federalist is pretty much irrelevant in this situation as it relates to anti-trust.

.

 

[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 ?

Not by any rational definition.

you do realize that blm and antifa describe themselves as socialist when it comes to their political views..they have stated that capitalism is a form of white supremacy .