Youtube to remove extremist sites

I never said ban.

 

I agree that the public square argument does hold some water, from a user perspective. Except in this case, that "public square" is privately owned. In fact the entire software industry is predicated on proprietary intellectual property (open source, notwithstanding). The network is the highway, the applications are the cars and the users are passengers. The network is the highway (built by the government), the applications are the cars (built by private software companies) and user buys/rents/borrows that car to drive on the highway.

I also agree that regulation of social media should be codified, and it is an emerging trend to create new regulation or amend existing ones.. Its just that its going to be slog to get there since most legislators are ignorant of how it all works in the first place.

 

There is absolutely no law that a company can't be involved in politics. IN fact, there are laws to protect companies rights to do so.

Are you saying that farmers who collect tax subsidies or oil companies are no private enterprises?

There is absolutely no question that the social media companies have acquired ENORMOUS almost unregulated power thru the billions of people who utilize functionality.

I absolutely support breaking up some of them into their constituent pieces and imposing appropriate regulation on individual user privacy, liability, reporting, usage policies, etc. New Legislation and regulation are obviously required. The challenge is what and how it should be regulated. Problem is it's going to take years to get to get laws passed that provide adequate oversight and establish non partisan consistent oversight. Its gonna be a long slog to catch up.

No it doesn't make it a public platform. Is Fox News a public platform or a private company? That trump's tweets are part of the official presidential record is law. The fact that he chooses to self publish his thoughts on twitter doesn't not magically transform a corporation's status.[/QUOTE]

 

there are however laws against standing in the way of a person communicating with their politicians.

and we saw a court case happen that reinforce this recently. Donald Trump was not allowed to block anyone on Twitter if Donald Trump isn't allowed to do it Jack Dorsey should not be allowed to do it. Same goes for YouTube.

I don't think they would be able to legally forbid people from consuming their product based on political views like YouTube is doing.

breaking them up wouldn't do much because there are already different companies that work as a form of antitrust. if you broke them up into smaller pieces they would just do the same thing.

would you were saying would work on a monopoly not an oligopoly.

we don't need to make new legislation we just need to be able to force that legislation that already exists. If Donald Trump isn't allowed to block people on Twitter because it violates the First Amendment then when Jack Dorsey or Twitter does it they are violating the same law and the same would go for YouTube. We already have the regulation in place it's been there for decades. We just need an FCC that will enforce it.

no all we need is for the FCC to Levy a fine against Facebook Twitter youtube Instagram all these different corporations that are violating laws that already exist.

it is a public platform because the public is used it to publish their own content. Fox news is not a public platform because they do not provide a platform for people to produce their own content.

Fox or any TV channel is just like louder with Crowder or any YouTube channel. The television is a public platform

and the fact that Donald Trump cannot legally block anyone from reading his Twitter or commenting on it underscores my position. That is it a violation of the First Amendment. That was already ruled in a court of law. so it shouldn't matter if Donald Trump does it or Jack Dorsey does it. It's still the same violation.

correct the fact that he can publish means that Twitter is a public platform.

There are also all sorts of things that the government does on Twitter so they're paying for Twitter meaning the taxpayer is paying for Twitter meaning it is not the property of Jack Dorsey it is the property of the people. Just like internet bandwidth or television airwaves.

Twitter YouTube Facebook these are not shows on television they are platforms individual publishers to use. They made it into a public platform. It is not a private company any more than TV airwaves are a private company.

 

The difference between the Official Record of the President of the United States. Jack Dorsey can cut off anyone he chooses to do, as per the agreement about usage everyone agrees to upon sign up, which obviously hardly ever gets read.

You have it backwards. YouTube is a publisher who has every right to determine what is acceptable for publication on their platform. They aren't restricting anyone from consuming those unacceptable political views elsewhere. They are under no obligation to provide the means for publishing hatred, advocacy of violence, etc.

I suspect your "all we need to do" is not possible since existing laws to not automatically translate from the "analog" world of reality and the "digital" world of the internet.

And breaking up facebook for instance would work and open up more competition. A breakup would necessitate a bunch of new legislation to achieve.

It is not a violation of first amendment rights. Usage of the platform is contingent on a user's agreement to the terms of service.

The public agrees to accept the terms of service before they can publish. Period. That means that the user agrees to abide by the internal policies of the platform. Period.

When trump goes on Fox to do an interview, he is in essence publishing thru a platform on the cable television network.

The government also buys ads on television networks and print media. I agree that the tv airwaves are not private, but the cable companies sure as hell are. Just like the internet is not private but the applications that run on it are, unless expressly put into the public domain thru open source or revocation of copyright.

 

Why is Jack Dorsey allowed to stop people from interacting with their president but the president is not?

If that were true they would be criminally and civilly liable for anything on the site. Meaning there wouldn't be copy right strikes against channels YouTube would be infringing on copy rights. That would be stupid to wish to be considered a publisher.

They wouldn't be punishing them they aren't a publisher.

There is no specific language in any laws that refer to only digital or only analog so there is no need to translate.

Take for instance if you threaten sometime in Facebook that's just called a terroristic threat, there was never a specific clause in the law that regulated the means you use.

If you broke it up it would still be an anti trust. These silicon valley corporations are broken into different companies, they operate together as if they are not non competitive like capable television providers.

The judiciary said otherwise. Donald Trump is not allowed to block users. Dorsey shouldn't be either.

So the public can publish? Earlier you said the platforms publish. So which is it?

You said it was a publisher, now it's a platform? Does it just switch based on your argument?

If the internal policies violate Constitutional rights than most certainly not.

Fox isn't a platform. It's a publisher.

Yes and the FCC regulates those things. No corporation is in charge of whether or not you can publish a news paper

cable companies? Can they tell people they can't have access to cable due to political views?

YouTube doesn't hold copy rights of things published on its platform. Have you ever watched a movie trailer on YouTube? The uploaders hold the copy right. Disney holds the copy right to the Star wars trailer not YouTube.

This further underscores the idea that YouTube isn't a publisher.

 

In the 20 years before Johnson's War on Poverty, the rate dropped from 32% to 15% or so. Since 1966, the rate has barely changed.
Transfer payments in 1965 were $3k/person. In 2016 they were $34k. 84% of the disposable income of the poorest 25% of American households come from government.
One of Johnson's proclaimed goals was to create self-sufficiency, not just end poverty. Can you explain how creating a society in which 25% of Americans are almost wholly dependent, and the next 25% of Americans mostly dependent on government largesse was an effective strategy to end poverty? It didn't end it, it just bribed it to go away until the bribes stop and it still didn't go away.

Can you provide a source for your claim?

 

I believe it was the DNC who sought to create echo chambers...

Their own memos and emails say as much.

But their extremism gets to stay.

"Cutting your dick off isnt extreme.... it's so brave and progressive."

 

Here's Ben Shapiro further demonstrating why these latest actions against Crowder are ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

Its called the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

Okay so they are merely the printer providing a printing service for people to self publish.

That is profoundly ridiculous. Of course there is no specific law because those laws were written before the ascendancy of social media. And fortunately for all of us there are any number of people who understand the need to "translate" those existing laws to accommodate certain legal realities in a digital world where everything can be tracked and every user profiled in detail.

Donald Trump as President must preserve all presidential communications - outbound and inbound BY LAW. He is president and can't block(penalize) a citizen (a taxpayer he supposed works FOR) from expressing their opinions to him using the same medium.







So the public can publish? Earlier you said the platforms publish. So which is it?

You said it was a publisher, now it's a platform? Does it just switch based on your argument?

If the internal policies violate Constitutional rights than most certainly not.
Fox isn't a platform. It's a publisher.
Yes and the FCC regulates those things. No corporation is in charge of whether or not you can publish a news paper cable companies? Can they tell people they can't have access to cable due to political views?

YouTube doesn't hold copy rights of things published on its platform. Have you ever watched a movie trailer on YouTube? The uploaders hold the copy right. Disney holds the copy right to the Star wars trailer not YouTube.

I corrected it from publisher to printing service.

 

This is a good business opportunity for someone who wants to start a new platform to present alternative viewpoints.

 

so why does Jack Dorsey have the rightto violate the presidential records act of 1978?

no they're not even that.

yes I agree with you. it's perfectly ridiculous for you to suggest that there needs to be special logs for digital spaces you make that claim not me. my statement above was pointing out to you how ridiculous it is thank you for agreeing with me.

there doesn't need to be special LOL made for it because it's digital there's already law in existence.

you need to make up your mind you just said it was profoundly ridiculous then you state the profoundly ridiculous again.

so explain why Jack Dorsey can do that.

you are still wrong it is still a platform.

 

Sure it is. It's hurting women in bathrooms, locker rooms, and in sports. It's hurting society in that you are encouraging and pandering to a mental illness and should be discouraged.

 

That is beyond silly. No one is getting hurt because of a video promoting transgenderism.

 

Because, a video itself can't hurt anyone? Obama would disagree.

 

I don't care what Obama thinks

 

Gee that's a poser. I'd take a wild guess and say it's because the act is specific to the President of the United States and Jack Dempsey isn't?

Oh? so what would you think is a more appropriate analogy?

Seriously? Is that what you got from my response? I see you don't comprehend what is going on in the digital world. Privacy laws seem to be wholly inadequate when translated into the digital realm, but then again most of the masses don't know or care about how much detailed knowledge of their lives are distributed throughout the corporate and political world.

Try to connect these thoughts.

1. Trump is President of the United States
2. Dorsy is President of a private corporation.
3. The president of the united states is obligated BY LAW to preserve all official communications including incoming communications.

After letting that marinade for a while, perhaps you can ask yourself the question again.

"A platform"? Of course it is. Seems you are not that familiar with the taxonomy of the digital world. There are numerous kinds of platforms sorted by the ISO level within which it resides. Hint - the internet is a platform. Youtube is a platform. Development suites are platforms. Windows is a platform. Android is a platform. Facebook is a platform.

Dunning Kruger reigns.

 

republicans don't think Muslim extremist would kill over a cartoon or video attacing their religion?

"Captured Suspect Said Benghazi Attack Was Revenge For Anti-Islam Video"

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/khattala-benghazi-video-new-york-times

"Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the suspect captured by U.S. special forces on Tuesday for his role in the 2012 Benghazi attack, reportedly said he was motivated in part by the anti-Islam online video made in America"

 

it comes with lots of liabilities, if they allow the hate and it incites violence, but yes, they can do it if they want

 

Jack Dorsey is forbidding people to see the president's words.

No.

Since when were we talking about privacy law?

Sorry, Twitter is not a private platform, it is public.

Irrelevant nonsense doesn't need to marinade.

why does Jack Dorsey have the right to deprive you of communication with your president through Twitter?

when was the last time someone was banned from using Windows Android because of their political opinions?

 

HUH? by banning certain posters who violate the terms and conditions of usage that has nothing to do with trump?

So you can't think of one? qu'elle surprise.

Er, in context of the digital world requiring new laws and regulations, perhaps.

I see it just isn't penetrating. Twitter is a privately owned corporate destination website/communication service fueled by advertising revenue for profit. That you can't wrap your mind around that fact is rather revealing.

I could make any number of assumptions about why logic parameters are irrelevant nonsense in your world.

Er, Windows is an operating system. Android is an operating system. They are application "platforms" delivering various software services (apis to exploit the hardware platform functionality, file handling etc).

You are continuing to display a rather distressing level of ignorance for somebody who has such definitive opinions.

 

I'm not saying it has anything to do with Trump I'm saying it has to do with rights.

if I can't talk to my president through Twitter because Jack Dorsey doesn't like the way I think about transgender people, it isn't constitutional to bar me from it.

how does that translate to freedom of speech?

none of this argues in my point that it's a public platform.

Irrelevant statements about who gets money for what doesn't explain how Jack Dorsey can deprive you of a line of communication with your politicians.

faulty logic typically is.

and Twitter is a social platform. You were the one that brought up the analogy and I'm trying to find out how they are analogous.

who has been banned from using Android or Windows based on their political views? People have been banned from Twitter based on their political views.

in order to draw an analogy you have to find people who have been banned from a platform based on their political views.

Listing things that are platforms supports in my argument because I can show you that people aren't been from them based on their political views

Your argument is inadequate to support your position. If that's ignorance on my part then you fail to communicate.

 

Makes you wonder what all the white male bashing in the MSM will lead to doesn't it? Will it perhaps radicalize them? What if you completely deplatform all social media voices that defend white males. Would that perhaps lead to increased violence? You are making a strong argument for our side here.

 

We're truly regressing. It's no different to historical religious oppression. At least in the 16thC we had an excuse - we didn't know any better.

I suppose if it's allowed to continue, at some point the West will look like a less orderly version of North Korea.

 

Who determines what hate is? There is no possible way to provide a universal base line on 'hatred'. It's ALWAYS going to be personal preference. That's a terrible way to run a business, and a dangerous way to run a country.

Any alternative with merit would simply exclude overt calls to violence, pornography, and any form of child or animal abuse. Everying else should be allowed. Anti-gay Christians, Nazis, Anti-fa, Communists, Religion of Peace recruiters, etc etc. There should be no 'preference' exclusions.

We lived with oppression of thought and speech for far too much of our history. Why on earth are we going back to that kind of darkness?