(697) Tucker defends Steven Crowder in spat with YouTube

Posted by  $  nickursis 2 months, 2 weeks ago to Government
121 comments | Share | Flag

An excelent point, and remeber, Google own YouTube, and are protected under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (brought to you by Bill Clinton). Still believe there is no deep state?

SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86qD8CINGM


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Sinking deeper and deeper into Gestapo and KGB methods.

    Google, YouTube, FB, are not there to uphold First Amendment rights.

    It is the same censorship as banning speakers from campus who have a different view that the left espouses.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    "Control and censorship"
    Typical hypocritical statist and neo-liberal actions by the digital elite.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Tech companies cannot engage in any "statist," "control," or "censorship" activities. Only the government can do that.
      We may disagree with YouTube but their rights to do so must be protected.
      Anyone failing to do so, is the one on the side of statist, censorship and control. Among numerous other rights violations.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ycandrea 2 months, 1 week ago
        Peter, I totally agree. These are privately own companies. Do we really want the gov't to step in and control them? Or do we consumers simply stop being their customers? I choose the latter.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          A valid tactic, IF there is not a controlled market. Since Google controls 80% of what you get on the net through all their storage services, and search services (which are embedded in 80% or more of the web sites), you DONT get a choice. Go try to find a platform with a10th of the traffic of YouTube.....you won't find it, even if it exists. it's call "monopoly".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ycandrea 2 months, 1 week ago
            Consumer created monopolies are fine with me.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ycandrea 2 months, 1 week ago
              You always have a choice.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                So, if every store in the country got together and decided to sell all meat for 50.00 a lb you would...? Go to a farmer? Have you ever bough meat that way, get it butchered? Do you know a butcher? These people are in the same position, where they wer led by the nose to set up the system of communications used by 80-90% of Americans, and have their message to get out, and have been shut down because the company does not want that message out, in Germany WW2, that was called censorship. In the US in Vietnam it was called censorship, now you folks call it "business"? So, the media has a right to lie to you, not tell the facts, and still claim to be journalistic and you are ok with that? What a strange world...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ycandrea 2 months, 1 week ago
                  You sound just like Tucker Carlson. Your whole premise is that all monopolies are corrupt. I do not believe they are. I believe that some companies, like Amazon, got so big because they are so in tune with what consumers want, and they have business savy. Google obviously is that way too. If you introduce gov't control into the mix, then game over for free enterprise. Just my opinion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                    Uh, you cannot have a good business atmosphere and monopolies, that is just counterintuitive. They are like the big fish, and what do they do? Eat the little ones. So, there will be NO business if monopolies are allowed. Innovation is only stimulated by competition, I do believe that was one of Ayn Rands basic tenants.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ycandrea 2 months, 1 week ago
                      That's not true. Ayn Rand differenciates by cohersive and consumer created monopolies. Cohersive monopolies can only be created by gov't and are bad and anti-consumer and anti business. Consumer created monopolies are good and should never be penalized for being better than other businesses. They should not be brought done to mediocrity. You need to read Ayn Rand Lexicon on Anti-Trust.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                      That was not "one of Ayn Rand's basic tenets" and is not true. Ayn Rand's principles are not whatever bromides conservatives happened to believe before they found Atlas Shrugged, usually based on a hodge podge of 'traditional' beliefs echoed as "intuitive", i.e. uncritically accepted, from both conservative and liberal mixed economy statists.

                      If you want to understand what Ayn Rand said about anti-trust read "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

                      You should read Ayn Rand's non-fiction to understand the philosophy that made Atlas Shrugged possible.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Economics and moral arguments are not based on imagining "every store in the country getting together" in a national price fixing scheme. Private companies deciding what they choose to publish are not "Germany WWII censorship".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            Google cannot and does not prevent you from using the internet in other ways. You get the "traffic" that you attract. Google does not owe you "traffic".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 1 week ago
        They have been funded in the past by DARPA.
        Taking my tax dollars to help develope the business. Their censorship should be illegal.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          This is not a matter of censorship, which is a political/legal concept. Only government, not private individuals or companies, can engage in censorship. There is no 'freedom of speech' right to use someone else's property to broadcast ideas that the owner does not support. This has been recently discussed here, despite populist conservative 'downvoting' of Ayn Rand, at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

          "Funding by DARPA" is irrelevant. DARPA is not responsible for google. If any technology that received government funding at some point in its development were grounds for denying all subsequent private ownership then government would be in complete control and there would be no freedom of speech left for anyone.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 1 week ago
            I am sorry but you are not completely correct. While it is true that governments can censor so can companies also sensor. From Merriam -Webster Dictionary
            Definition of censor (Entry 2 of 2)
            transitive verb
            : to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
            censor the news
            also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
            censor out indecent passages
            Examples of censor in a Sentence
            Noun
            Government censors deleted all references to the protest.
            Verb
            The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Private companies cannot prevent you from speaking. A private company can only refuse to help you, not suppress your speech. Only government can do that -- when the First Amendment is gone.

              Censorship is a political/legal concept. Mixing private action with government action in an invalid concept in the form of a package deal, leading to such absurdities as the rationalizations for government control of private companies contrary to the First Amendment.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                "Private companies cannot prevent you from speaking: So when you are banned from the platform they are, what, helping your message, promoting you message, broadcasting your message? If the phone company cuts your line off, that is? Yet they keep every liberals phone working? That is called, uh, selective business? Really.....
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Not helping someone is not preventing him from living his own life without you and no one is cutting off telephone lines. You are a statist employing standard statist bromides and fear mongering while ignoring what government power has in fact done to people.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 1 week ago
                From the Miriam-Webster Dictionary “The station censored her speech before broadcasting it”
                EWV by station do they mean Government?
                When I looked up station , Government was not mentioned.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  That is an improper use of the concept, all too common as sloppiness grows. Dictionaries give (changing) common word usage accepted by repetition, not definitions of valid concepts. It's not an argument for controlling publishing by private companies.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 1 week ago
                    Good down vote EWV and Peter Smith.
                    Maybe the EWV-Peter Smith dictionary should be published.
                    These tech companies are afforded protection from being sued for the content of their site because they claim to be a platform not a content provider like a news paper or news organization.
                    Yet they take that protection and still act as an editor. You cannot have it both ways.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
                      Apart from the definition and usages of the word 'censor'-
                      The argument used would force a christian baker to provide a cake with a message denigrating his view of marriage, otherwise he is 'censoring'.

                      It is correct to say, the tech companies have substantial legal protection as they are a provider, on top of that they suppress views they don't like under the guise of stopping hate speech, the public good, or whatever they may call it. Altruism again is used as a cover to promote self-interest.
                      But if private property cannot be used for promoting views and interests of owners, then, well, .. .

                      To attack the hypocrisy, theft and lies of big tech the approaches are-
                      avoid using, make their misdeeds more public, seek legal avenues such as remove special legal protection they have but small competitors do not, go for their breaches of contracts (legal systems recognize understood contracts), illegal snooping, misuse of private data. If you go the way of imposing a regulator you will get something that has built-in organic growth and you will not be able to control or stop it.
                      (I have used pragmatic type arguments, the Objectivist position should be obvious).
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
                      Tech companies don't enjoy any protection from being sued.
                      Your issue is that you want to sue them for things that can't rightly be sued for and you want laws changed to help accommodate this.
                      All because they disagree with you politically.
                      In other words, you want to censor those you disagree with while claiming to be fighting censorship.
                      Only conservatives can be this completely confused about everything.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                        They can be sued for all kinds of things if there is a case to be made. But they are immune from being sued for libel perpetrated by others using their services. The populists are trying to exploit a threat of removing that limited liability to force them to help inflammatory conservative promotions.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                      Collaboration to arrange 'downvoting' posts and 'downvoting' specific people for who they are is contrary to the guidelines of this forum. Under the First Amendment this privately owned forum has the right to restrict that. It is not "censorship" and does not require a personal dictionary.

                      Providing a platform for the purpose chosen by the owner does not in logic necessarily make the owner responsible for libelous material created by a user, especially with no chance for the forum owner to remove it only after investigation. Abusing libel law to intimidate a forum is unethical, statist control. Under conservative populist controls forums such as this one could not exist.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                    We can also add that actual censorship in radio and tv stations and in movies is imposed by or threatened by government, such as for certain kinds of language. Forcing the stations to implement that does not mean that anything a station does not choose to provide a forum for is "censorship".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
            "If any technology that received government funding at some point in its development were grounds for denying all subsequent private ownership then government would be in complete control and there would be no freedom of speech left for anyone. "
            Uh, I am pretty sure that is the point we are making. Thanks for agreeing. Good job.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              That is not the point that was made. Conservatives are using previous government funding of an early development of a technology as an excuse to control google, mixed with a conspiracy theory of government creating google for nefarious purposes.

              The funding should never have been granted; that it was is not an excuse to control those benefited into the future. This is analogous the Soviet Union refusing to let people out because they received the 'benefit' of Soviet public education.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                ewv, go do your research and come back when you know facts, the connections between google, FB, twitter all their management and CIA are undeniable and have been posted. Keep those blinkers on, and your won't risk panic or running into the street.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  CIA conspiracy theories are not fact and not relevant. You do not tell people here to go do research and not come back until we agree with your conspiracy theories as "fact", let alone an excuse for statist control of private businesses.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bsmith51 2 months, 1 week ago
        By your logic, then, private power companies should be able to shut off your electricity because they don't like the way you use it. That's a common libertarian argument (i.e., start your own power or oil or whatever company....).
        NONSENSE!!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 1 week ago
          “Your call could not be completed as dialed because we disagree with what you believe! Don’t bother trying to dial the number again. This is a recording.”
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
            Could happen, if your number ended up in a data base of "unreliables", you could magically find you get an awful lot of dropped calls, like, all of them. It's all digital and programmed, that's how they can eavesdrop on you so easily.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 2 months, 1 week ago
        It would seem to me that once a company sets itself up to serve the public and opens its doors to the public, it can't discriminate what public it serves. Restaurants open to the public can't discriminate by race or religion, etc., therefore, these companies that opened their doors to the public's ideas and creativity shouldn't be discriminating against competing ideas.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago
          Devils advocate: So the cake baker must bake a wedding cake for the gay couple despite his own beliefs against gay marriage?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
            I am with the baker. But what are the general principles?

            Free speech. Private property.
            It may be easier to define the negatives:

            Free speech is not a defense or a license when-
            shouting fire in a crowded theater, giving instructions on blowing up a school, releasing private information on a private person, releasing secured information on the military of your government, copyright breaches, ..

            Private property stops when in trade with the public, but if a baker clearly states they are of some religion then they may restrict trade to conform with the intentions of that religion, eg- trade on their sabbath day, if they say they are a bread-maker then no customer may demand a cake, can they be forced to sell a loaf to an idolator or covertor? Now if they say they are private bakers, with no public open hours, then all restrictions are ok.
            A Prespertumpian church or declared business, can insist on a preacher who is, but can they refuse to employ a cleaner who is not? If they advertise in the public arena then no such discrimination, if all positions are filled only by invitation, then ok.

            Going back to that baker, yes they were open to the public, but their religion was stated. It was clear in the trial that the agitators did not select that baker on price, skill, value, convenience or on anything except to make trouble, they only went to that baker because a religion was declared.
            Now Gurgel acts more like a well-funded agitator than a small business baker.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Private property rights do not "stop when in trade with the public". Private property rights make trade possible.

              Freedom of speech is a political concept that pertains only to government interference. There is no Constitutional right to use someone else's forum to broadcast anything you want to regardless of the standards and purpose of the owner. That is the general principle https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
                Point 1. I will sit-on-the-fence again on this.
                Point 2. 'no right to use '. Yes yes! My memory is that the agitator wanted a slogan on the cake, the baker accepted that customer but objected that he was required to write out the slogan thereby becoming a mouthpiece for ideas contrary to his own standards and purpose.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Without private property you have nothing to trade, nothing to receive, and no rights. to either or the act of trading. Rights do not stop when you engage in trade, they make trade possible.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
                    I agree, I had something in mind when I wrote that, cannot remember what! Maybe something like that when in public you and your property are subject to agreements you are in.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 2 months, 1 week ago
            It can get rather sticky, freedomforall. The baker has his religious right for his defense. As much as I dislike Islam, I'd have to side with a Muslim baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple, either, for the same reason. [side note: It would have been interesting to see what hoopla would result if the gay couple did go to a Muslim baker.]

            Personally, if I were in the bakery business I'd have made the cake. I'm in business to make money legally and I really don't care who you are... show me the green and we're good to go.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 1 week ago
              Whatever happened to the right for businesses to refuse service to any person for any reason? It was so simple.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                They still can, until challeneged by some liberal moron. Take "No shoes, no shirt, no service". A woman comes in topless, because she says it is her right to express her boobs freely. Does it become discrimination? The whole discrimination thing got hijacked so as to make it virtually impossible to have a standard. Where this all falls apart is we have not defined the difference between a corporate entity and an private business. Under the current structure the discrimination laws are used as tools against people who are expressing their right to run their business as they see fit, corporations are NOT individuals (this is where SCOTUS showed its true colors in the campaign finance law ruling that opened the doors to deep state control, big money has big leverage). The argument that corporations have the same right to discriminate is illogical, simply because You Tube was supposedly started to make an open platform that would allow people to speak and say as they wished, with no controls or restraint except that imposed by the FCC regulations. Section 230 is manipulated to say thet companies cannot be held accountable for their actions, yet so many tweaks to the law have made it impossible to do anything to any of them, unless they are found to be engaged in some specifically sanctioned criminal act (like the Backpage fiasco). So, You Tube, by claiming their rules are for the good of all to prevent "any one of a dozen bad acts like harrasment, violence, racisim, discrimination". has a free hand to kill off anyone they deem politically negative. Here is a good rundown on Section 230:

                https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechc...

                It claims a change, but that change was not against them, it actually enhanced their ability to censor.

                The key thing is to not think of them as just a corporate entity, but to think of them as having done a bait and switch: "we will let you create a life based on making money and speaking your mind, and presenting material, freely, and now we have you hooked, we will blackmail you by cutting off your money and livelihood if you say the wrong thing, or we don't like it". They started the service with rules in place, and now people who have NOT violated their rules, are found to be guilty of unspoken crimes, and turned off. That is not free speech, that is censorship.

                Now, as afar as "Go somewhere else". How big is Google? How much control do they exert on search and information? So, you start a competing platform, and how much exposure will you get? Have you ever looked an any search engine besides Google? Do a search and look at the lower left corner as it goes through the 8000 little connections and cookies and trackers and what all and 80% will have "Google" in them. Google has expanded into everything, and controls probably 80% or more of the information you can find. They are the controllers of what you will get. So, go start up your new platform, no one will ever find it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Many facts mentioned in this post are correct, but there is a lot I do not understand.
                  No shoes, no shirt, no service .. for or against, does/should the business have the right to discriminate like that? In arguing ignore law, consider the philosophy.

                  Google has a near complete monopoly, I do not use it directly but it is next to impossible to avoid as (most of) the search engines I use in turn use google. Same situation for the other mega-techs. If you do not use them, you are not quite an outcast but are a social misfit.

                  The question is, should governments have the power to intervene to enable me to bypass those mega-techs, or have the power to modify the parts of their behavior that I (in practice, government regulators) do not like? Is it a right of a citizen to have a choice when only one corporation provides a service out of its inventiveness? Once monopoly is established it is real hard for competitors to break-in. But it happened to IBM and Microsoft.

                  There may be a way to get them under the heading of contract violations, they make the user agree that they can do anything. I am unconvinced that harassment, ultra-biased search results, victimization of users because of opinions, etc. is covered by the 'anything'.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                    Yes, you are pretty near the mark of the issue. The problem is legal remedies are slow and will allow them to make the situation they need. Silence the conservative voices. It is happening in FB, Google, YT and Twitter. Accounts closed for "violation of terms" when others speaking the right kind of "kill them all" chants are allowed and promoted. When you have the only platform in town, you hold all the cards. That was Tuckers point.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                      Giving more and more power to government to control private individuals and companies whenever someone doesn't like what they do has been the "point" of the progressives for a century.

                      This is the chickens coming home to roost for conservatives relying on "tradition". Yesterday's liberal is today's conservative, following in line.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 1 week ago
          That's certainly the law, but I don't agree. If you run a business you should be able to discriminate as you choose -- and you will pay the price with fewer people coming.

          These tech companies can discriminate as well. If they do, they create a niche that their replacement can fill.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
          "It would seem to me that once a company sets itself up to serve the public and opens its doors to the public, it can't discriminate what public it serves."
          Yes it can. At no point do you lose your rights, unless you've violated the rights of others, which being a successful business, does not do.

          "Restaurants open to the public can't discriminate by race or religion, etc."
          But they should be able to. This is an example of affirmative action going too far.

          Those of us who are actually right wing, should be fighting for individual rights, not using existing rights violations to justify EVEN MORE rights violations.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
            You are using false logic, in defining a corporation as a person. It is not, and they have bought more laws to protect them than you can shake a stick at. The small business may fit into that logic, but You Tube is NOT a small business. How would you like it I I had control of the Gulch and just deleted every post you make because I dont agree with you? I bet you would change your tone real quick. The end result is a Gulch where everybody would agree with everyone else and just be an echo chamber. Now, you have what is going on in You Tube, an echo chamber. Silence those you do not want to speak.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              A corporation is a voluntary association of individuals. People don't lose their rights by voluntarily joining together. That is not "false logic". The size of a group does not change that it is composed of individuals with rights.

              Private forums on the internet do have guidelines, including this one, and offenders have been removed (but not enough). If someone doesn't like it he can leave. Few bother to stay for a discussion when the purpose of a forum is subverted by burying proper posts in a sea of garbage tolerated by the owner who put a lot of effort into creating a forum for a stated purpose.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 2 months, 1 week ago
            My argument is based on basic understanding of existing law regarding restaurants and other service businesses. I'm sure that is the way the SCOTUS will go with companies dealing in public Internet forums of various types as well. I don't think those laws were initiated for "affirmative action to go too far", but were mainly put in place to end the old Jim Crow.

            Your argument "But they should be able to..." is well taken and understood, but lets not resurrect the old Jim Crow system of business. It didn't work out very well.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
              "My argument is based on basic understanding of existing law regarding restaurants and other service businesses."
              Yes I understand that. I'm saying any law that prevents private enterprise from discriminating for any reason, is a leftist, rights violating law that I oppose.

              "Your argument "But they should be able to..." is well taken and understood, but lets not resurrect the old Jim Crow system of business"
              I'm not saying we do that.
              I'm saying that the GOVERNMENT cannot discriminate because it's role is to protect rights.
              Private enterprise is not government and can do as it pleases.
              I'm saying don't equate government action with private action as those are two completely different things.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                You don't get out much, do you? Or do you not ever watch the news? Remember the baker? Remember the states who passed laws saying you CANNOT discriminate against a person based on sex? In other words, Government discriminated against the businesses right to do business with who the want, they ARE REQUIRED by government to do business with EVERYONE. That is pretty discriminatory against the business owner.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  He said that is a "leftist, rights violating law" that he "opposes", for the same reason to oppose government control of google that populist (collectivist-statist) conservatives advocate. Smearing someone with "you don't get out much, do you?" is non-responsive.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                    It is an observation to explain a lack of understanding that could easily be reasearched and corrected. You claim "same reason to oppose government control of google that populist (collectivist-statist) conservatives advocate." You mistate the position, no one is saying that the government control google, beyond making them follow their terms of service and their contract, and not censor people because of their message. The difference between a horse and a cow, just because they have 4 legs does not make them equal.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
                      "It is an observation to explain a lack of understanding that could easily be reasearched and corrected."
                      You haven't observed any lack of understanding that could easily be researched and corrected from me.
                      This is amusing projection on your part.

                      "You mistate the position, no one is saying that the government control google, beyond making them follow their terms of service and their contract, and not censor people because of their message."
                      You don't get to dictate what their terms of service are or how they choose to enforce them. That would be "government control google."
                      Also, as has been explained, google cannot "censor" anyone. You still haven't understood how to use that term correctly.
                      Only the government can censor.

                      In short, you have a complete lack of understanding that you could easily research and correct.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        Tech companies cannot engage in control or censorship? Who says that? Because they definitely are. Even the basic American definition of a censor is,
        “A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.”
        But in these days programmed AIs are in control of the censoring, And they have been judging and executing their sentencing without trial.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        Individuals or companies can advocate for statism and censorship, and should be denounced for it when they do, but they can't engage in it privately unless they are collaborating with government. "Censorship" only applies to government actions, not private restrictions on one's own private property. Facebook (and google and others) are currently lobbying Congress for government restrictions on free speech. They want "guidelines" on "extreme" speech in an attempt to suppress controversy over their own actions.

        We can understand the distinction between private and government action, but Zuckerberg and facebook do not, which obscures and confuses defense of facebook's rights when not done carefully.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          Yes but that's not what's happening here.
          On this particular issue, conservatives are actually advocating for regulating tech companies because they disagree with them politically.
          In other words, to censor them.
          All the while advocating that they are fighting censorship.
          What makes this worse is not that they are trying to trick anyone, but that they are doing this simply because they don't understand the concepts involved at all.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
            No, Peter, they are using the platforms doing the same thing as everyone else. The companies are censoring them claiming "hatespeech" as the catch all excuse.If you see the video, there are specific example of leftists using real hatespeech, and that they are not censored, on all platforms. They are not saying censor the platforms, they are saying open them up. The excuse of the left is the infamous "white supremacists" that do not exists, except for the 38 of them in the little groups that meet in closets and talk old nazi victories. If YouTube cuts Crowder, then they need to cut a good 50% of their participants, all of whom are speaking one side or the other. Yet they only have been demonetizing the conservatives. When you silence a particular group, that is referred to as "censorship".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 2 weeks ago
              Censorship is a concept that applies only to government action. A private company cannot "silence" anyone; it can only refuse to help. Conservatives who demand laws to force companies to serve speech they disagree with are violating property rights and are themselves advocating censorship.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                Uh, forgive my ignorance here, but if YouTube "demonetizes" or even outright bans people because they "violated" the nebulous terms of of use, AND they happen to all be conservatives, that is called??? Uh, business as usual? Capitalism?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
                  "Uh, business as usual? Capitalism?"
                  Yes.

                  It's also called, "free speech."
                  It's also called "freedom of association."
                  It's also called "property rights."

                  And just individual rights in general.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                    I am confused. How can a company locking someone out, or removing their monetization be classified as "free speech". It seems that is definitely "censorship". Same with "freedom of association" how can you associate when you are locked out? "Property rights" has no place here, ecause if youwant to claim YouTube has the right to reject, then it is totally against it's premise that it is an open platform for all creators of content, and the content is the property of the creators, YT is a vehicle. In fact, YT is a classic looter, it takes the bulk of the money made and keeps it giving the content creators little at all, the ads are in the content, not in You Tube.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
                      I agree you are most certainly confused, as is anyway who can up vote your post here while down voting mine.
                      I'm actually speechless by what you've written here and wouldn't even know where to begin.
                      You simply have to start at the very beginning and learn how we arrive at rights protecting government and why, learn what the difference is between state and private action and why, then go from there.
                      There's really nothing more I can say to you on this topic.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • -1
                        Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                        Actually, I upvote every comment in a post I am either posted to, or posting in, so I know I read it and to recognize the person for their effort, however misguided or skewed. Since you seem to be committed to a Pearl Harbor mentality, I leave you to it, just make sure you have a bunker deep enough when the bombs start falling.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                          Emphasizing the necessity of distinguishing between government actions and private actions is not a "Pearl Harbor mentality", which is a personal smear.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
                            Nope, you are wrong, nothing personal about it. A Pearl Harbor mentality is a common descriptor for people who, despite overwhelming evidence, INSIST their point of view is correct. It was used to describe the "isolationists" of Pre-WW2 America who INSISTED "No war" was the only way and nearly destroyed the country, and who, after the various German aggression, attacks and then Pearl Harbor, were branded as traitors and Nazi sympathizers,and their party dissolved in less than a week. Lindburgh was their leader and switched to "support" of the war afterwards but was isolated and not allowed to participate. It was his end as a public figure. Not a smear at all. Fact.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
                              "A Pearl Harbor mentality is a common descriptor for people who, despite overwhelming evidence, INSIST their point of view is correct."
                              Right, but then you're describing yourself.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                              This has nothing to do with your imaginary psychologizing, nothing to do with "Pearl Harbor", and nothing to do with "Nazi sympathizers" or any of your other excursions. The Nazis did not bomb Pearl Harbor. None of that is a defense of dogmatic statism violating the First Amendment.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 1 week ago
            Conservatives are censoring? How convenient that you can flip flop back and forth on your and EWE’s definition that only the govt can censor.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
              Conservatives are calling on the government to do something about tech companies kicking them off their property.
              This means they are calling for censorship.
              Among numerous other leftist rights violations.

              This position has never changed, so not sure what you think is flip flopping
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                There is no "flip flopping". Populists who are emotionally stampeded by some public spokesman find themselves unable to objectively discuss the issue, superficially grasping at pat slogans to toss out as they become increasingly personally belligerent in their feuding. Look at the quality of the posts they can't answer and subject to hit and run 'downvoting'.

                Some of their posts sound less like an Ayn Rand forum than John Kenneth Galbraith in the 1960s and 70s. Such is the 'tradition' that has become ingrained.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Populist conservatives trying to use government to control other's speech is censorship. That is not "flip flopping" on a valid definition.

              That the First Amendment pertains only to restrictions by government is fundamental and not new. Conservatives used to understand that. Now they are package-dealing government action with private action to rationalize controlling private companies in the name of what used to be common understanding of freedom of speech and the fact that censorship is wrong.

              Conservatives and liberals share a common principle: they each want to control what they regard as important.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
    I think Infowars dude was right He was the frist big one to fall because he HAD their number. Thats why they cut him off of social media. Its rampant today, even to the point of cutting off Judge Jeanine for simply asking the question if a muslim congresswoman held the sharia law higher than our constitution. As long as we have anonymous voting, the quiet majority can still win like they did in 2016. The deep state IS crooked and needs to go
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bill54 2 months, 1 week ago
    Saw this live the other night and immediately thought Tucker was too polite to Mr. Greenwald. Doubtful he really is familiar with Mr. Crowder. His diatribe simply ate up time on Tucker Carlson's program. Tucker didn't reveal Glenn Greenwald and his message. Some good came from it though. Greenwald hybridizes the truth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 1 week ago
    I think Facebook is stupid. A certain member of my family stays on it! But since she is a 'redhead', what can I say? We call her 'Lucy'.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Just remember folks, there is a 1st amendment right involved. It does not give any authorization to control what one says, or how, and that is what is at stake here, ESPECIALLY when it is on a platform built to specifically facilitate that Amendment. That is Tucker's point, you used to be able to go to the town square and say what you wanted, and should have been assured of no interference. Nowadays, you cannot do it ANYWHERE without some knuckle headed snowflake screaming how you hurt their feelings and a mob of morons screaming at you so loud as to disable your ability to express yourself. That happens all the time at Campuses, with conservatives blown out by whining herd of liberal snowflakes screaming the typical labels used "racist, homophobe, anti-abortionist" etc. Does YouTube have a right to censor people on a platform they created specifically to enable speech? That should be a SCOTUS issue. Just because they are a business does not give them special protections, in fact, I would say the individual outranks the company in that realm.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Even the basic right of business owners to be able to refuse to service anyone, is under brutal attack. This all stems from the far left, which the left seems to be moving toward.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
        The left simply wants to control everyone to think and act as they do. Forget that... The USA got rid of England, and can do the same with the left.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 1 week ago
          We also helped get rid of those National Socialists. An extremely progressive and militant group that wanted to expand their ideology to a global level.
          If they just told everyone that the climate is changing and the earth would end in 12 years and only Global Socialism could save us all, maybe they would have gotten enough fools to believe them and the world will be speaking German.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
            somehow I cant see how replacing global warming and its bad effects with socialism with even worse effects. I would say 12 years of socialism would do more damage than 12 years of greenhouse gasses
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 1 week ago
              You’re using your mind. Just imagine how you would feel if everyone was equal in every way and there was no unfairness and the whole planet was all wonderful like. Don’t you FEEL this morally superior goal is worth any cost until we obtain it?
              If you say yes, I got a bridge to sell you, cheap.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
        Again, it becomes something that SCOTUS will ultimately have to decide, because the question is: Is YouTube, as a business,allowed that privilege? Remember, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically was jiggered to give immunity to YouTube, Google, and other from defamation and liable lawsuits because "they serve the public good". So, they have a special set of rules, and no one has ever defined their responsibilities. All the privileges, none of the responsibilities, it appears to be.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          Rights are not "privileges" and incur no "responsibilities" to serve.

          Immunity from legal liability for libelous actions by individuals who use the platform is not a "privilege". If companies were held legally liable for actions of customers no one could be in business.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bsmith51 2 months, 1 week ago
      There is a point at which a private business becomes so ingrained in our society that it becomes a utility. Should private utilities be regulated, and what is the threshold? It is an interesting question for our age.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
        That is the point Tucker was making, when a business becomes so commanding of a specific medium for communications, it does begin to fall into specific regulation and rights and responsibilities, hence the Telecommunications Act in its various incarnations.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          The "Fairness Doctrine" for the airwaves was an unmitigated disaster that denied freedom of speech and was removed in the 1980s. Conservatives want to resurrect it for the internet.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
      The first amendment restricts government, not private enterprise.
      Tech companies kicking people off their property will NEVER be censorship.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
        That the First Amendment protects individuals from government, not granting entitlements, is fundamental. Conservatives used to understand that. Now they have been stampeded by populist demagogues in the media encouraging resentment in order to drum up support for statist controls.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo