Support us at Patreon

Politics Google Oppresses the opinions of others

Sideline said:
Why should anyone be censored by the whims/beliefs of others? It should not be so.
Click to expand...
Well, why should any bakery be forced to sell a cake for a gay wedding? The freedom of all business applies to Google as well. It's not censorship as long as they're under no obligation to distribute your content in the first place. (I mean, you don't have a constitutional right to your own little column in the news, right?)

And therein, as the Bard would tell us, lies the rub. Big data has a monopoly on the distribution of information. Heck, even governments now address their citizens via bloody Twitter (which is a shame as far as I'm concerned, I wish all those fuckwits would stop tweeting so much).

So, I agree with your assessment in that I agree it's how things should be, but I'm pretty sure there needs to be a legal basis first; right now, they might as well act well within their rights.
 
Well we are coming to a head, and this is unacceptable, it's not just my opinion but a fact.

Obviously I'm not the only one, as the government is looking to change things.

I've stated my position, see it as complaining if you like.

Times are changing, Google is changing, and laws are likely to be changing.

So spare me the lecture on what Google's position/rights as a company are today, which is based on a classification that no longer fits their actions.

AGAIN.......find on page 1
www.breitbart.com

REPORT: DOJ to Propose Rolling Back Big Tech's Legal Immunity

The Department of Justice is preparing proposals to roll back the legal immunities enjoyed by Big Tech companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), in measures that will be announced as early as Wednesday, sources told the Wall Street Journal.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
Sideline said:
Well we are coming to a head, and this is unacceptable, it's not just my opinion but a fact.

Obviously I'm not the only one, as the government is looking to change things.

I've stated my position, see it as complaining if you like.

Times are changing, Google is changing, and laws are likely to be changing.

So spare me the lecture on what Google's position/rights as a company are today, which is based on a classification that no longer fits their actions.
Click to expand...
Why so defensive? We're just having a discussion, and I even made it clear we're largely in agreement.

And I do beg your pardon, Sir, but you're not solely stating the facts here. Your civil rights bind the government. They don't bind your fellow citizens who're protected by their own rights. Your right to free speech doesn't force a newspaper to publish your opinion. Your right to bear arms doesn't entitle you to a weapon paid for by the tax payer. And so on and so forth.

Censorship is the unlawful act of curtailing free speech at the hands of the government. Google isn't the government, and Google isn't under an obligation to publish your opinion. If you want them to be – and I certainly agree it should be so –, you'll need to change the law.
 
Why do you think I'm defensive?........Are you labeling me defensive?

And I don't think the wedding cake issue was because it was "for a gay wedding"

I'm pretty sure it was because they wanted a cake that the maker considered lewd.

Why would a "gay wedding cake" HAVE to have a big penis on it????

Maybe he didn't mind making it for a gay couple, just not the design they wanted.

You want an argument, no....... I stated my position.

I'm pretty sure I know my own position without you trying to state it for me, they have a monopoly now and as such they choose to allow the voices they want and omit those that don't fit their world view.

Google and other social media were not always like this, and as such laws should change.

No pardon needed, sir.

There are many a bakery to go to in this world...........social media to have your input heard....not so many.

And in this stupid world of today, social media is more powerful than laws/rights it seems.

And as far as the cake, the maker has beliefs too, just like the gay couple.

Google/ social media should NOT have 'beliefs'..... it should be a format for everyone to state their beliefs.

My .02, not anyone else's.
 
Last edited:
Sideline said:
Why do you think I'm defensive?........Are you labeling me defensive?
Click to expand...
"You're angry." – "I'M NOT FUCKIN' ANGRY!!!"

Nevermind; we're obviously talking past one another. Have a nice day then.
 
As you've said we mostly agree.

No need to lecture me on gun rights and such, as I never took those obtuse positions.

Sorry if you feel you know my emotions behind your monitor.

You have a nice day too.

EDIT: For future reference, when I capitalize something it is for emphasis, not yelling....... perhaps I should italicize or underline instead.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Also, an interesting point he is making: archive everything.
 
Google controls 70 + percent of advertising on the internet and enforces their politics by threatening to de-monetize platforms it doesn't like. Anti-trust laws, like those used to break up AT+T, Standard Oil and the like might be the way to go.
www.nationalreview.com

Hands Off the Federalist | National Review

We have been sounding the alarm about the illiberalism of the Left for years, but the current nadir is surprising even to us.
www.nationalreview.com www.nationalreview.com
 
TheKiwi said:
And such "bias" change to the law would result in google/youtube shuttering anything that anyone might remotely offensive to anyone. You'd have a couple of channels left covering gardening and little kittens and nothing else.
Click to expand...
and that may happen... lol... which would be fine, but what is happening, is any view considered 'conservative' or 'right', gets the kibosh... its not evenly applied across the political spectrum. its a slippery slope to deem someone elses opinion offensive and thereby block access to it... one should consider that one day the power might be in the hands of the other side, and it may be your opinion that is censored.
its called precedent and you may think its suitable now, but one day the shoe may be on the other foot and it will be your thoughts and opinions in the cross-hairs.
 
Sideline said:
Well we are coming to a head, and this is unacceptable, it's not just my opinion but a fact.

Obviously I'm not the only one, as the government is looking to change things.

I've stated my position, see it as complaining if you like.

Times are changing, Google is changing, and laws are likely to be changing.

So spare me the lecture on what Google's position/rights as a company are today, which is based on a classification that no longer fits their actions.

AGAIN.......find on page 1
www.breitbart.com

REPORT: DOJ to Propose Rolling Back Big Tech's Legal Immunity

The Department of Justice is preparing proposals to roll back the legal immunities enjoyed by Big Tech companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), in measures that will be announced as early as Wednesday, sources told the Wall Street Journal.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
Click to expand...
I do not see how rolling back these legal protections is going to decrease censorship.... it sounds like it will increase censorship. maybe I am misunderstanding, but I dont see the desired effect emanating from this action.
 
riderboy said:
Google controls 70 + percent of advertising on the internet and enforces their politics by threatening to de-monetize platforms it doesn't like. Anti-trust laws, like those used to break up AT+T, Standard Oil and the like might be the way to go.
www.nationalreview.com

Hands Off the Federalist | National Review

We have been sounding the alarm about the illiberalism of the Left for years, but the current nadir is surprising even to us.
www.nationalreview.com www.nationalreview.com
Click to expand...

It's the best way to go because speech is extremely hard to regulate without turning into censorship.

That does' nt mean "baby googles" would publish anything though. 50 years ago, when you had some opinions noone wanted to hear, you were still allowed to have them but noone was forced to forward them.

But let conservatives recognize that google and the social networks have given a voice to many conservative opinions. Quite a lot of conservatives who did find the published press rather closed to their ideas were able to get their ideas through to huge numbers. Even the Donald before being upset at Twitter benefitted from that platform to publish absolutely everything that came to his mind.
 
surfpunk said:
and that may happen... lol... which would be fine, but what is happening, is any view considered 'conservative' or 'right', gets the kibosh... its not evenly applied across the political spectrum. its a slippery slope to deem someone elses opinion offensive and thereby block access to it... one should consider that one day the power might be in the hands of the other side, and it may be your opinion that is censored.
its called precedent and you may think its suitable now, but one day the shoe may be on the other foot and it will be your thoughts and opinions in the cross-hairs.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with most of what you say there. But I don't think a law revoking their S230 protection will achieve an equality of voices left and right on their platforms - much more likely is that it will silence anything non white-bread and bland.

Far better IMHO would be to force Google/YouTube to publish their rules for what gets you banned/suspended/demonetized. At the moment they refuse to say what their rules are for any of that and so can ban things at any time for (seemingly) arbitrary reasons. Worse yet, the reason they refuse to publish the rules at the moment is that then "people would follow them" - i.e. skirt close to the edge. Which is the rule in the real world so I don't see why they can get away with their secret rules online.
 
TheKiwi said:
I'm inclined to agree with most of what you say there. But I don't think a law revoking their S230 protection will achieve an equality of voices left and right on their platforms - much more likely is that it will silence anything non white-bread and bland.

Far better IMHO would be to force Google/YouTube to publish their rules for what gets you banned/suspended/demonetized. At the moment they refuse to say what their rules are for any of that and so can ban things at any time for (seemingly) arbitrary reasons. Worse yet, the reason they refuse to publish the rules at the moment is that then "people would follow them" - i.e. skirt close to the edge. Which is the rule in the real world so I don't see why they can get away with their secret rules online.
Click to expand...

That, or Google can start hiring people who aren't extreme leftists, or at the very least, they can stop bullying/firing people in their midst who are found to not be extreme leftists.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/fired-...ack-theres-been-a-lot-of-bullying-11564651801
 
That YouTube has moderation and isn't a free for all is hardly surprising, LiveLeak and Ogrish before it are examples of what happens when you let what ever you want onto a platform. Content like that will turn off half the audience and drastically cut the advertising revenue.
We did the same thing at mpnet, not wanting the place to turn into stormfront or a ogrish/liveleak snuff film repository.
 
TheKiwi said:
Tech people lean left on the West Coast. Trying to change that is highly unlikely to say the least. Far better to have the rules open and therefore less subject to invisible manipulation.
Click to expand...


Oh, they certainly do. So then they shouldn't be bothered if 2% or 5% of them end up being conservative. They should just get along.
 
digrar said:
That YouTube has moderation and isn't a free for all is hardly surprising, LiveLeak and Ogrish before it are examples of what happens when you let what ever you want onto a platform. Content like that will turn off half the audience and drastically cut the advertising revenue.
We did the same thing at mpnet, not wanting the place to turn into stormfront or a ogrish/liveleak snuff film repository.
Click to expand...

They are hypocrites though . A few years ago a lot of left / right wing political channels started getting de monetized for spreading false information which gave birth to the widespread use of of patreon as a method of funding ........ Unless of course you were spreading an evidence free Russia conspiracy theory then that was fine .
 
TheKiwi said:
...

Far better IMHO would be to force Google/YouTube to publish their rules for what gets you banned/suspended/demonetized. At the moment they refuse to say what their rules are for any of that and so can ban things at any time for (seemingly) arbitrary reasons. Worse yet, the reason they refuse to publish the rules at the moment is that then "people would follow them" - i.e. skirt close to the edge. Which is the rule in the real world so I don't see why they can get away with their secret rules online.
Click to expand...

I think it would end in a magma of lawyer jargon ununderstandable by anyone. It could be applied still in any way they see fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mark Sman
World War I Every Day using Google Earth
Replies
4
Views
941
downsizer
D
Jake84
Technology Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google defend firms against calls for break-up
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
8K
colin traveller
colin traveller
Drone_pilot
Funny google search
Replies
2
Views
2K
Derrick Stephenson
Derrick Stephenson
Back
Top