Youtube Being Censored, We Can't Question the Government on Youtube

[Syriusly]

aaaaaand enter the fake news-pologists. No doubt dizzy from all the 180s they have to spin depending on whose fake news it is. Fake news bad. No, fake news good. No, fake news bad. Etc etc ad nauseum and having it both ways: Priceless.

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

It's completely justified. The videos being censored are discussing the Florida shooting, suggesting that the survivors are being led by the leftists on their crusade to disarm America, and some of those in the government may have staged the shooting. Most of the channels getting strikes and being banned are Anarcho-Capitalist channels, which question the government with nearly every video they make.

And your second paragraph includes examples of rightwing misinformation, fake news, and lies - such as the lie that 'the left' is seeking to 'disarm' America.

It's perfectly appropriate for YouTube to refuse to propagate those lies.

S548

^You can read one example of the bill here, recently proposed by politicians in New Jersey. Not to mention the left has jumped on every mass shooting, blaming the gun used and stating that they shouldn't have been able to get one.

So is Youtube preventing any video's that mention S548?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

It's completely justified. The videos being censored are discussing the Florida shooting, suggesting that the survivors are being led by the leftists on their crusade to disarm America, and some of those in the government may have staged the shooting. Most of the channels getting strikes and being banned are Anarcho-Capitalist channels, which question the government with nearly every video they make.

You realize that Youtube has always censored its content.

Always.

You just object to Youtube now censoring loony content that you want them to post.

I don't object to it. I pointed out that they're losing more viewers and content creators this way.

The fact that they censored content already doesn't mean censoring it more won't lose them viewers and content creators. It also doesn't mean that this isn't news. In fact, your point here is completely meaningless.

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out.

Again, having more content doesn't chase off viewers. People can choose not to watch the content they disagree with. On the other hand, people can not bring back censored content.

Again- we have yet to see whether Youtube's decision to censor additional content based upon its accuracy will chase away viewers- or bring in more viewers.

But in the meanwhile- there are plenty of sites on the internet that you can post any kind of fake news you want to.

It's how business works. There are other options for the content creators they're censoring. In fact, the Liberty Network is already encouraging its members and viewers to move. Meanwhile, having less content doesn't bring in new viewers, they already could have ignored the content they don't like.

Of course, if you understood business and economics, you wouldn't be a Socialist. Surprisingly, when you upset your customers, they'll go elsewhere.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

It's completely justified. The videos being censored are discussing the Florida shooting, suggesting that the survivors are being led by the leftists on their crusade to disarm America, and some of those in the government may have staged the shooting. Most of the channels getting strikes and being banned are Anarcho-Capitalist channels, which question the government with nearly every video they make.

And your second paragraph includes examples of rightwing misinformation, fake news, and lies - such as the lie that 'the left' is seeking to 'disarm' America.

It's perfectly appropriate for YouTube to refuse to propagate those lies.

S548

^You can read one example of the bill here, recently proposed by politicians in New Jersey. Not to mention the left has jumped on every mass shooting, blaming the gun used and stating that they shouldn't have been able to get one.

So is Youtube preventing any video's that mention S548?

I was debunking his example of a lie. Leave it to you to miss the point entirely because back-reading confuses you.

 

[jillian]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Well lets talk about those shall we?

a) What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed?
It was part of the Steele dossier that was presented to the government for review- should the news ignore that? Even Fox reported on that. Is there any evidence that the report is true? Not that we know of.
b) Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia?
Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree
Actually the news reported that the intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia had tried to interfere in the election- and got the number of agencies wrong- Trump of course has repeatedly claimed Russia didn't try to interfere.
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.

The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin.

The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign. The rest were doing other work.

c) Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it

Once again- you are playing fast and furious with the facts. Here are Trump's actual comments:

There is absolutely no evidence that President Obama- or anyone else 'tapped' Trump's phones- either during the election- or after the election.

since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission..

I will be glad to compare the record of the NY Times accuracy to that of Donald Trump tweets. Trump has a record of lying- and lying by omission that is quite comprehensive.

Actually, this is the full transcript of GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to congress. There is a great deal of evidence that the dossier is true. They did not draw an ultimate conclusion as to the more lewd aspects because congress had questions as to sourcing, not as to veracity.

Read the full transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder's House intel panel testimony on the Trump dossier

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

It's completely justified. The videos being censored are discussing the Florida shooting, suggesting that the survivors are being led by the leftists on their crusade to disarm America, and some of those in the government may have staged the shooting. Most of the channels getting strikes and being banned are Anarcho-Capitalist channels, which question the government with nearly every video they make.

And your second paragraph includes examples of rightwing misinformation, fake news, and lies - such as the lie that 'the left' is seeking to 'disarm' America.

It's perfectly appropriate for YouTube to refuse to propagate those lies.

S548

^You can read one example of the bill here, recently proposed by politicians in New Jersey. Not to mention the left has jumped on every mass shooting, blaming the gun used and stating that they shouldn't have been able to get one.

So is Youtube preventing any video's that mention S548?

She responded to Jones' outright lie. You struggle at keeping up as the convo switches gears.

 

[flacaltenn]

Censorship is nothing new. The Nazis did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it.
Orwell was trying to warn us about today's Democrats.

Funny thing about Orwell and 1984, in it he writes of using children and tragedies to promote an agenda.

The man was a visionary LOL

And he foresaw the NSA Big Brother Domestic spying system as well didn't he? We're hosed. The 2 parties are tanking my country and Dem/Rep partisans in the media/content biz are screwing with my ability to speak..

What can't you speak about on the internet?

Specifically.

Ask Google. They tell US at USMB what content we can't allow if we want their ad service. And it's CLEAR (if you read the OP) that they are acting against folks that don't follow THEIR political advocacy. Like I said theres a diff between content rules and CENSORSHIP based on political biases.

IN FACT --- since Google is NOT "the media" or journal or political advocacy group, it's not THEIR SPEECH that's being restrained. It's different because they are USING political advocacy to restrain the speech of others.

At SOME POINT -- they should be required to register as a political advocacy organization or acted on as monopolizing the available marketplace of ideas..

 

[ptbw forever]

In reality, my exposure to Google is much larger than most. Because my electronic product design biz has suffered thru a NUMBER of Android developments for our customers. Experience with Google micromanaging their development tools and developers convinced me to tell everyone here we're not doing Android ANYTHING ever again. They'd change the rules and tools MONTHLY.. Not giving a damn about developers on their platforms.

THEN -- there's the matter of website advertising. Reason for a LOT of USMB "free speech" restraint is because of Google MONITORING the "quality" of this site and all others that Google serves ads to... They have 80% of the web by the "short and curlies"...

While THEY index porn, violence, and all KINDS of offensive material -- they DENY the rights of ad clients...

Slow down.

You are going WAY over the Democrat posters’ heads with this stuff.

The same retards who believe it is somehow illegal for Christian private companies to deny service to gays and have now forced the Christian companies to appeal to the Supreme Court now want to claim google is a private company that can do what it wants.

The same dipshits who claim to hate monopolies and claim to support anti-trust laws support the biggest monopolies in human history.

WAY over their heads.

 

[del]

lol

 

[ptbw forever]

It is an attack on free speech, leftard idiots think it's great but they won't when it comes for them too.

It has exactly nothing to do with free speech. A private company can't violate free speech.

The internet is a private tool used by the vast majority of the public(many of which are given access to it for free), so it has become a public service.

 

[flacaltenn]

In reality, my exposure to Google is much larger than most. Because my electronic product design biz has suffered thru a NUMBER of Android developments for our customers. Experience with Google micromanaging their development tools and developers convinced me to tell everyone here we're not doing Android ANYTHING ever again. They'd change the rules and tools MONTHLY.. Not giving a damn about developers on their platforms.

THEN -- there's the matter of website advertising. Reason for a LOT of USMB "free speech" restraint is because of Google MONITORING the "quality" of this site and all others that Google serves ads to... They have 80% of the web by the "short and curlies"...

While THEY index porn, violence, and all KINDS of offensive material -- they DENY the rights of ad clients...

Slow down.

You are going WAY over the Democrat posters’ heads with this stuff.

The same retards who believe it is somehow illegal for Christian private companies to deny service to gays and have now forced the Christian companies to appeal to the Supreme Court now want to claim google is a private company that can do what it wants.

The same dipshits who claim to hate monopolies and claim to support anti-trust laws support the biggest monopolies in human history.

WAY over their heads.

Gays are a protected class. Political views are more tricky.. There is this word CREED in STATE level anti-discrimination labor laws. Politics would qualify under some conditions.. So it's a distraction to look at this ONLY from a Federal law standpoint.

I'm not getting into the general partisan war. It's not MY conflict. But the danger to Civil Liberties is there -- and that IS my battle. If Google becomes a monopoly oppressor to political expression --- there ARE remedies for that...

 

[flacaltenn]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Well lets talk about those shall we?

a) What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed?
It was part of the Steele dossier that was presented to the government for review- should the news ignore that? Even Fox reported on that. Is there any evidence that the report is true? Not that we know of.
b) Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia?
Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree
Actually the news reported that the intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia had tried to interfere in the election- and got the number of agencies wrong- Trump of course has repeatedly claimed Russia didn't try to interfere.
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.

The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin.

The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign. The rest were doing other work.

c) Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it

Once again- you are playing fast and furious with the facts. Here are Trump's actual comments:

There is absolutely no evidence that President Obama- or anyone else 'tapped' Trump's phones- either during the election- or after the election.

since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission..

I will be glad to compare the record of the NY Times accuracy to that of Donald Trump tweets. Trump has a record of lying- and lying by omission that is quite comprehensive.

Actually, this is the full transcript of GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to congress. There is a great deal of evidence that the dossier is true. They did not draw an ultimate conclusion as to the more lewd aspects because congress had questions as to sourcing, not as to veracity.

Read the full transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder's House intel panel testimony on the Trump dossier

Now that he's being sued and under oath in Britain -- the moron has changed his tune. He was passing stories to press CONFIRMING his OWN SHIT -- before the FBI stopped him. And the media obediently did not mention the connection between that source and the AUTHOR of the total fiction. Then the FBI neglects to tell the FISA court the same important connection NOR the funding source by name and association..

ONE FACT appears in there. That Page had business relations in Russia. Started out by opening a Merrill Lynch office in Moscow and then as a consultant on bringing energy cases to WTC for Russian energy companies. The rest -- is NOW - thanks to the complicit lying media --- fake news..

 

[flacaltenn]

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Are we unclear on what the word "link" means?

You made a quantitative comparison, to wit: "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission". Where are your data?

Just beat you into the ground with it.. You need LINKS to anything I mentioned -- then you're too slow and stupid..

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news and useless conspiracies. They are all MORE then adequately documented. Even here on USMB. Stop trolling me...

I just checked- you have posted 16 times in this thread- I saw no post with an 'extensive list of fake news and useless conspiracies'

Like I said before- I would be glad to compare the accuracy of the NY Times to Trump's tweets.

The greatest purveyor of fake news within the United States is our President.

Your loss -- it's there. Search for WashPo with my name on the post... Fake news? Thy name is WashPo/CNN/NYTimes... AND their fucking "fact checkers"...

 

[skye]

It is an attack on free speech, leftard idiots think it's great but they won't when it comes for them too.

The Left hates ALL of the Bill of Rights

Exactly right!

That's why people need and Internet Bill of Rights.

 

[Syriusly]

You realize that Youtube has always censored its content.

Always.

You just object to Youtube now censoring loony content that you want them to post.

I don't object to it. I pointed out that they're losing more viewers and content creators this way.

The fact that they censored content already doesn't mean censoring it more won't lose them viewers and content creators. It also doesn't mean that this isn't news. In fact, your point here is completely meaningless.

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out.

Again, having more content doesn't chase off viewers. People can choose not to watch the content they disagree with. On the other hand, people can not bring back censored content.

Again- we have yet to see whether Youtube's decision to censor additional content based upon its accuracy will chase away viewers- or bring in more viewers.

But in the meanwhile- there are plenty of sites on the internet that you can post any kind of fake news you want to.

It's how business works. There are other options for the content creators they're censoring. In fact, the Liberty Network is already encouraging its members and viewers to move. Meanwhile, having less content doesn't bring in new viewers, they already could have ignored the content they don't like.

Of course, if you understood business and economics, you wouldn't be a Socialist. Surprisingly, when you upset your customers, they'll go elsewhere.

LOL- I can't figure out which part is more ignorant about your post.

That I am a 'socialist'?
That I don't understand business and an economics?
Or that you do.

Everything I have posted is in support of Youtube's capitalist decision to add additional censorship to its private property.

Quoting myself

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out

I admit that either could happen- you are so blinded by your partisanship to Konspiracy Kookiness that you presume you know what the net effect of Youtube's policy will be.

 

[Syriusly]

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

It's completely justified. The videos being censored are discussing the Florida shooting, suggesting that the survivors are being led by the leftists on their crusade to disarm America, and some of those in the government may have staged the shooting. Most of the channels getting strikes and being banned are Anarcho-Capitalist channels, which question the government with nearly every video they make.

And your second paragraph includes examples of rightwing misinformation, fake news, and lies - such as the lie that 'the left' is seeking to 'disarm' America.

It's perfectly appropriate for YouTube to refuse to propagate those lies.

S548

^You can read one example of the bill here, recently proposed by politicians in New Jersey. Not to mention the left has jumped on every mass shooting, blaming the gun used and stating that they shouldn't have been able to get one.

So is Youtube preventing any video's that mention S548?

I was debunking his example of a lie. Leave it to you to miss the point entirely because back-reading confuses you.

LOL is that what you think you were doing?

 

[Syriusly]

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

It's completely justified. The videos being censored are discussing the Florida shooting, suggesting that the survivors are being led by the leftists on their crusade to disarm America, and some of those in the government may have staged the shooting. Most of the channels getting strikes and being banned are Anarcho-Capitalist channels, which question the government with nearly every video they make.

And your second paragraph includes examples of rightwing misinformation, fake news, and lies - such as the lie that 'the left' is seeking to 'disarm' America.

It's perfectly appropriate for YouTube to refuse to propagate those lies.

S548

^You can read one example of the bill here, recently proposed by politicians in New Jersey. Not to mention the left has jumped on every mass shooting, blaming the gun used and stating that they shouldn't have been able to get one.

So is Youtube preventing any video's that mention S548?

She responded to Jones' outright lie. You struggle at keeping up as the convo switches gears.

Still looking for the lie.

- such as the lie that 'the left' is seeking to 'disarm' America.

It's completely justified. The videos being censored are discussing the Florida shooting, suggesting that the survivors are being led by the leftists on their crusade to disarm America, and some of those in the government may have staged the shooting. Most of the channels getting strikes and being banned are Anarcho-Capitalist channels, which question the government with nearly every video they make.

So what does S548 say? Does S548 seek to 'disarm America'?

No. The bill as it says- would 'strengthen' a ban currently in place in New Jersey. It doesn't call for the banning of all hand guns or all shotguns or all semi-automatic weapons.

This bill would strengthen the State’s current assault weapons ban by revising the definition of an assault weapon to include: rifles with detachable magazines and one military style feature; semi-automatic shotguns with one military style feature; and semi-automatic pistols with one military style feature. The current definition of an assault weapon sets forth a list of prohibited firearms and specifically includes any firearm that is “substantially identical” to any of the enumerated firearms. Under State regulations, a semi-automatic firearm is to be considered substantially identical to an enumerated firearm if it meets certain criteria. This bill codifies these regulations while expanding the number of firearms that would be considered assault weapons by adding criteria and reducing the number of criteria that must be met from two to one.

While I am certain you can find some person who claims to be on the 'left' who actually does want all guns banned- we can also find some person who claims to be on the right who actually thinks everyone should own machine guns.

 

[Syriusly]

Censorship is nothing new. The Nazis did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it.
Orwell was trying to warn us about today's Democrats.

Funny thing about Orwell and 1984, in it he writes of using children and tragedies to promote an agenda.

The man was a visionary LOL

And he foresaw the NSA Big Brother Domestic spying system as well didn't he? We're hosed. The 2 parties are tanking my country and Dem/Rep partisans in the media/content biz are screwing with my ability to speak..

What can't you speak about on the internet?

Specifically.

Ask Google. They tell US at USMB what content we can't allow if we want their ad service. And it's CLEAR (if you read the OP) that they are acting against folks that don't follow THEIR political advocacy. Like I said theres a diff between content rules and CENSORSHIP based on political biases.

IN FACT --- since Google is NOT "the media" or journal or political advocacy group, it's not THEIR SPEECH that's being restrained. It's different because they are USING political advocacy to restrain the speech of others.

At SOME POINT -- they should be required to register as a political advocacy organization or acted on as monopolizing the available marketplace of ideas..

So you can't actually name a single thing you can't talk about on the internet.

Not one single thing.

 

[Syriusly]

In reality, my exposure to Google is much larger than most. Because my electronic product design biz has suffered thru a NUMBER of Android developments for our customers. Experience with Google micromanaging their development tools and developers convinced me to tell everyone here we're not doing Android ANYTHING ever again. They'd change the rules and tools MONTHLY.. Not giving a damn about developers on their platforms.

THEN -- there's the matter of website advertising. Reason for a LOT of USMB "free speech" restraint is because of Google MONITORING the "quality" of this site and all others that Google serves ads to... They have 80% of the web by the "short and curlies"...

While THEY index porn, violence, and all KINDS of offensive material -- they DENY the rights of ad clients...

Slow down.

You are going WAY over the Democrat posters’ heads with this stuff.

The same retards who believe it is somehow illegal for Christian private companies to deny service to gays and have now forced the Christian companies to appeal to the Supreme Court now want to claim google is a private company that can do what it wants.

The same dipshits who claim to hate monopolies and claim to support anti-trust laws support the biggest monopolies in human history.

WAY over their heads.

Slow down.

You are going way over the head of Republican posters heads with this stuff.

The same retards who think that Christian private companies don't have to follow the law when it comes to gays now want to claim that Google and Youtube are violating "Free Speech" and shouldn't be able to censor their own content.....

The same dipshits who claim to be for business's being able to do as they please until of course....well they 'censor' their loony Konspiracy Klaims.

Way over their heads.

 

[Syriusly]

In reality, my exposure to Google is much larger than most. Because my electronic product design biz has suffered thru a NUMBER of Android developments for our customers. Experience with Google micromanaging their development tools and developers convinced me to tell everyone here we're not doing Android ANYTHING ever again. They'd change the rules and tools MONTHLY.. Not giving a damn about developers on their platforms.

THEN -- there's the matter of website advertising. Reason for a LOT of USMB "free speech" restraint is because of Google MONITORING the "quality" of this site and all others that Google serves ads to... They have 80% of the web by the "short and curlies"...

While THEY index porn, violence, and all KINDS of offensive material -- they DENY the rights of ad clients...

Slow down.

You are going WAY over the Democrat posters’ heads with this stuff.

The same retards who believe it is somehow illegal for Christian private companies to deny service to gays and have now forced the Christian companies to appeal to the Supreme Court now want to claim google is a private company that can do what it wants.

The same dipshits who claim to hate monopolies and claim to support anti-trust laws support the biggest monopolies in human history.

WAY over their heads.

Gays are a protected class. Political views are more tricky.. There is this word CREED in STATE level anti-discrimination labor laws. Politics would qualify under some conditions.. So it's a distraction to look at this ONLY from a Federal law standpoint.

I'm not getting into the general partisan war. It's not MY conflict. But the danger to Civil Liberties is there -- and that IS my battle. If Google becomes a monopoly oppressor to political expression --- there ARE remedies for that...

Hey I am no defender of Google- as a company. I think that Google does many, many things to stifle competition.

I would be fine with the government looking at Google for possible anti-trust violations.

But that has little to do with Youtube's decision to censor content on the Internet.

 

[Syriusly]

Are we unclear on what the word "link" means?

You made a quantitative comparison, to wit: "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission". Where are your data?

Just beat you into the ground with it.. You need LINKS to anything I mentioned -- then you're too slow and stupid..

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news and useless conspiracies. They are all MORE then adequately documented. Even here on USMB. Stop trolling me...

I just checked- you have posted 16 times in this thread- I saw no post with an 'extensive list of fake news and useless conspiracies'

Like I said before- I would be glad to compare the accuracy of the NY Times to Trump's tweets.

The greatest purveyor of fake news within the United States is our President.

Your loss -- it's there. Search for WashPo with my name on the post... Fake news? Thy name is WashPo/CNN/NYTimes... AND their fucking "fact checkers"...

As I said at the time I checked you had posted 16 times in this thread- I saw no post with an 'extensive list of fake news and useless conspiracies'. Want to prove me wrong- show us the post number of the post in this thread with that 'extensive list'

Like I said before- I would be glad to compare the accuracy of the NY Times to Trump's tweets.

The greatest purveyor of fake news within the United States is our President