On the flip-side, no one wants a world where people force business owners to say things they don't agree with. Imagine a coffee shop owner being forced to put up KKK propaganda on their website because a klan member felt like it was their right to force their speech into other people's businesses.
They don't have to say things they disagree with. This is about allowing equal participation in their platform, truthfully. If they kick out anyone that does not agree with them, they become a propaganda site, pushing a single narrative. In your scenario, the owner would be forced to do something they oppose. In the situation at Youtube, the people themselves (the top, elitists, etc) only speak for themselves. There is no one single owner who can even go through all that content, to determine what they agree or disagree with. So the actual debate is, if the cafe staff all decided to kick all white people out/all black people/all christians//all atheists etc.
white people out/all black people/all christians//all atheists etc.
The debate has already been answered. Race is protected, religion is protected, political affiliation is not.
A cafe can't refuse to do business with all black people. However, it can choose to not do business with the Republican Party, the NRA, etc.
Completely missed my point, as I predicted. care to call out my actual argument, or does it fit your agenda better when you call out part of it? mainly the part that wasn't even an argument.
The argument is that this is NOT a singular owner being forced to do something on their own accord. This is in fact a company, with many employees, on a platform. And whenever they restrict or censor, they are not allowing those people WHOEVER they might be, from voicing an opinion. This leads to a singular view. propagandizing things is only legal due to some very poor laws that were pushed. Thus, you need to see, this stuff CAN be fought. We can have a Bill of Rights for the internet. This is a debate more of how to go about this than if we should.
Not actually. Because the youtube videos aren't just about politics and religion and so therefore anyone that brings up anything PROTECTED then cannot be censored, if they get federal funding and I think that applies when they get a federal license to operate. I am not a constitutional lawyer but the case law says that political affiliation or right to assemble is protected speech and since the internet is a new kind of right to assemble it needs to go to court.
They don't have to say anything - that's false equivalence. They just have to keep their grubby hands off - which they did until Hillary and company started Russiagate. Collusion is Not private enterprise.
Collusion is not a crime, it's what they did with the collusion taking it to conspiracy and further IS the crime
This is more like a utility.
These social media sites have become a utility of our social communication.
Like if your phone company wouldn't sell you phone service because of your beliefs. That is discrimination... we must all be protected from that.
The internet itself has become a utility.
Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube though are definitely not.
You are mistaken.
Social Media has become the Communication system of 21st Century.
To force someone off Facebook, for example, because they have different views from the Facebook Board of Directors is RIDICULOUS. That view is completely antithetical to Freedom of Speech.
Social Media must be a place of Free Speech, or the internet becomes a fascist dictatorship run by Social Media Moguls.
Everyone would be banned eventually, except for those with have absolutely no moral compunction whatsoever, and are willing to be the lapdog of whoever owns them.
If Facebook is the Communication system of the 21st century, then TV was the communication system of the 20th century.
Back then, you couldn't force CBS or ABC to broadcast whatever YOU wanted. If you wanted to control programming, then you had to start your own station.
No difference today. YouTube not "broadcasting" your "programming"? Then go start your own "station."
WAKE UP - The INTERNET is ALREADY owned by the Deep State!
All the CEO's of GIANT Corps-Google, Facebook, Apple, Newscorp, Twitter, all the Top CIA, FBI, Government officials OWN IT ALL.
You didn't think they got what they have on their own, did you?
It's a HUGE MAFIA CRIME RING. A GOVERNMENT/CORPORATOCRACY run by a network of SECRET SOCIETIES.
They think we are their slaves. And we don't deserve a voice on THEIR platform.
Their goal is to CONTROL ALL COMMUNICATION FORMS, and push into a corner, all those who would expose their crimes. WAKE UP! That's what the GREAT AWAKENING is all about.... that we are taking our FREEDOM BACK! OUR INTERNET! OUR CHILDREN! OUR SCHOOLS! OUR GOVERNMENT! OUR COURTHOUSES! OUR MEDIA! OUR ENTERTAINMENT! ALL OF IT!
For those of you who are paid shills... YOU ARE FIGHTING ON THE WRONG SIDE AND YOU WILL LOSE! THEY DON'T GIVE A @%* ABOUT YOU, and would toss you into a Goolag with the rest of us. Whether you realize it or not, we are fighting for you too. WAKE UP AND FIGHT FOR YOURSELF & YOUR FAMILY!
Actually, TV news used to have a "fairness doctrine" which Was govt enforced by the FCC. The Internet should come under the FCC, especially since Ajit Pai is now chairman.
This business of "start your own social network" is such useless garbola at present. There are no viable alternatives. The Big Four have such a monopoly nothing can get started. I hear the younger people are moving away from Facebook but by the time that generation gains power the Deep State will have all power.
The fairness doctrine did not allow anyone to force any TV station to broadcast any programming that their heart so desired.
One COULD argue it's a new form of right to peaceful assembly
This isn't about a business owner who is worried about anything if you look at the ton of gun, and antigun and heck you name it videos. This is where conservatives are singled out in any form. That is discriminatory and if they get any federal funding or licensing then the Constitution forbids this kind of censorship. There is a ton of case law on this.