Techno-fascism

#176
#176
RockyTop85 said:
Yes, they did it to themselves by not adapting to consumer needs/demands.

That’s the point. It’s capitalism.
Click to expand...
Having an idea turn in to a invention or buisness is Capitalism.


That buisness being the only one offering a service or product allows them to push their bias and give everyone a big FU.
 
#179
#179
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Keep those eyes closed.
Click to expand...
As opposed to listing several competing companies and claiming they’re all monopolies?

You have to be some sort of Stephen Colbert style imitation of conservatives. Nobody is this wrong this often without it being on purpose.
 
#183
#183
tenor-gif.210281



All thanks to wafflestomper...best post in thread
 
#185
#185
Burger said:
Sorry Huff, there is censorship going on Youtube. It's not the liberal conservative kind. It's the Authoritative vs. Alternative kind. Left and right are being hit by it.
Click to expand...

The point is that constitutionally protected speech is not being limited and it's free people censoring their own platform, not an authoritative government.
 
#186
#186
n_huffhines said:
Stop using facebook. Stop using youtube. Stop using twitter. They have market power because people use them. You don't have to use them. Nobody has to use them. What happens to you if you stop using facebook?

If youtube is as bad as everybody fears, then there is a huge business opportunity here. Youtube doesn't have some special business model, and there are alternatives. If youtube takes down your video, there are literally thousands of ways to get the same information out there. Do you know how easy it is to make your own website?
Click to expand...
For me, twitter is a big no, facebook for communicating with HS class updates and businesses that use FB as a website, Youtube for music like Tool that can't be gotten on music services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burger
#187
#187
n_huffhines said:
The point is that constitutionally protected speech is not being limited and it's free people censoring their own platform, not an authoritative government.
Click to expand...

There's two different kinds of Fascism in reality. There is governmental fascism and technocratic fascism. The internet is a representation of the planet. If you can get the platforms to willingly censor people, then you end up creating an Orwellian state. I don't think we should break them up, but we should enforce the rules to make them abide by the first amendment. As you know, we do not live with Real Free Markets as much as we want that. What's the difference between a government directly banning speech than getting corporations to censor on the new Town Hall?
 
#188
#188
Burger said:
There's two different kinds of Fascism in reality. There is governmental fascism and technocratic fascism. The internet is a representation of the planet. If you can get the platforms to willingly censor people, then you end up creating an Orwellian state. I don't think we should break them up, but we should enforce the rules to make them abide by the first amendment. As you know, we do not live with Real Free Markets as much as we want that. What's the difference between a government directly banning speech than getting corporations to censor on the new Town Hall?
Click to expand...

No to all of this. There are two kinds of fascism: state-sponsored fascism and fake made up fascism.

Government is the party that will make the internet Orwellian. Make government's role as limited as possible. We're talking about taking freedom away from people because we don't like how they choose to exercise their freedom. The irony is if the government tells youtube that they have to publish stuff they don't like, then that would violate their freedom of expression.
 
#189
#189
n_huffhines said:
No to all of this. There are two kinds of fascism: state-sponsored fascism and fake made up fascism.

Government is the party that will make the internet Orwellian. Make government's role as limited as possible. We're talking about taking freedom away from people because we don't like how they choose to exercise their freedom. The irony is if the government tells youtube that they have to publish stuff they don't like, then that would violate their freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

This goes into the question of if YouTube is a platform or a publisher. They are essentially manipulating a 1990's law to claim to be platforms while making editorial decisions. I want government and businesses to fight each other.. Not get along. That's where the problem lies.
 
#190
#190
Burger said:
This goes into the question of if YouTube is a platform or a publisher. They are essentially manipulating a 1990's law to claim to be platforms while making editorial decisions. I want government and businesses to fight each other.. Not get along. That's where the problem lies.
Click to expand...

The question doesn't matter in the first place. Are they a private entity? If yes, then they should be protected by the bill of rights and enjoy control of speech on their platform.
 
#191
#191
n_huffhines said:
The question doesn't matter in the first place. Are they a private entity? If yes, then they should be protected by the bill of rights and enjoy control of speech on their platform.
Click to expand...

The 1996 Telecoms rule comes into effect though. Are they a platform or are they a publisher. I don't think YouTube should be held liable for the content posted on their platform, but I also don't think Youtube should be allowed to suppress voices they disagree with.

If you say they are a publisher, not a platform, they should be exposed to liability from their platform. It's legal nuance at this point. If they are a public town square, they should be bounded to the first amendment. The Platform vs. Publisher question is the main question. I am a free speech absolutist, and that comes first.
 
#192
#192
Burger said:
The 1996 Telecoms rule comes into effect though. Are they a platform or are they a publisher. I don't think YouTube should be held liable for the content posted on their platform, but I also don't think Youtube should be allowed to suppress voices they disagree with.

If you say they are a publisher, not a platform, they should be exposed to liability from their platform. It's legal nuance at this point. If they are a public town square, they should be bounded to the first amendment. The Platform vs. Publisher question is the main question. I am a free speech absolutist, and that comes first.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it doesn't make it right or constitutional. Your rights shouldn't change because you are big. You should be able to control speech in your restaurant without being liable for something someone else says there. You should be able to control speech on your web property without being held liable for things other people say there.
 
#194
#194
Burger said:
This goes into the question of if YouTube is a platform or a publisher. They are essentially manipulating a 1990's law to claim to be platforms while making editorial decisions. I want government and businesses to fight each other.. Not get along. That's where the problem lies.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is an odd position to have. On one hand you want to stop what you perceive to be unfair censorship, but on the other you want to essentially neuter the ability for these platforms to control the content on their own site. Isn't that censorship too, except now by the government?
 
#195
#195
Wafflestomper said:
I feel like this is an odd position to have. On one hand you want to stop what you perceive to be unfair censorship, but on the other you want to essentially neuter the ability for these platforms to control the content on their own site. Isn't that censorship too, except now by the government?
Click to expand...

It kinda is. You have to pick your poison. Google is more powerful than the US Government right now. The terms of the sweetheart deal was to make sure the platform was treated as a town hall, and those companies failed at that.
 
#196
#196
Burger said:
It kinda is. You have to pick your poison. Google is more powerful than the US Government right now. The terms of the sweetheart deal was to make sure the platform was treated as a town hall, and those companies failed at that.
Click to expand...

Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia page on the CDA Sect. 230:

"Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote the bill's section 509, titled the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, designed to override the decision from Stratton Oakmont, so that services providers could moderate content as necessary and did not have to act as a wholly neutral conduit."

The case law section provides examples which further support this interpretation, ruling that only companies which have actually provided (i.e., authored) content can subsequently be liable for it.
 
#197
#197
Wafflestomper said:
Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia page on the CDA Sect. 230:

"Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote the bill's section 509, titled the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, designed to override the decision from Stratton Oakmont, so that services providers could moderate content as necessary and did not have to act as a wholly neutral conduit."

The case law section provides examples which further support this interpretation, ruling that only companies which have actually provided (i.e., authored) content can subsequently be liable for it.
Click to expand...

That was the trade off for keeping the policies politically neutral. Obviously, things that are illegal have to be taken down. Let's get rid of the obvious needs. The issue is that Google is so powerful that they can directly influence elections more than any country can do.
 
#198
#198
Burger said:
That was the trade off for keeping the policies politically neutral. Obviously, things that are illegal have to be taken down. Let's get rid of the obvious needs. The issue is that Google is so powerful that they can directly influence elections more than any country can do.
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing something in Sect. 230 about political neutrality?

People are free to not watch YouTube and to search the web via Yahoo or any other available search engine as well. If you think Google is unfairly manipulating your search results then don't use Google. If you want to post right-leaning content then come to VolNation. I don't really see the issue.
 
#199
#199
Wafflestomper said:
Where are you seeing something in Sect. 230 about political neutrality?

People are free to not watch YouTube and to search the web via Yahoo or any other available search engine as well. If you think Google is unfairly manipulating your search results then don't use Google. If you want to post right-leaning content then come to VolNation. I don't really see the issue.
Click to expand...

Sadly that's not how it works when you own 90%+ of the market. There is no real alternative to YouTube just yet. That's like saying don't go to Shell when it is the only gas station within 40 miles, or saying to use a different power company when you can only get service through one.
 
#200
#200
Burger said:
Sadly that's not how it works when you own 90%+ of the market. There is no real alternative to YouTube just yet. That's like saying don't go to Shell when it is the only gas station within 40 miles, or saying to use a different power company when you can only get service through one.
Click to expand...

It isn't like that though. There's vimeo, twitch, vevo, dailymotion, etc. all available to you. Maybe none of them are quite as good as YouTube, but that's hardly the same thing as there being no alternative.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top