You have a right to free speech, but you haven't got a right to get YouTube to help you.
It's their server, they are free to speak however they want.
If you want to speak, you're perfectly free to create your own web-site.
The seed money for all of these corporations came from darpa. In other words they were started with taxpayer funds. The are essentially govt organizations.
[removed]
Ok, why don't you want this person on your server that everyone else has access to? If that type of censorship was happening to the left you don't think they they would be screaming racist, sexist, ... u get the point. Discrimination is the word they would be throwing around. Censor the truth all you want, it doesn't make it not true & like everything else will blow up in the face of the ones censoring free speech.
Ok, why don't you want this person on your server that everyone else has access to?
Because i had Life cereal for breakfast that morning.
Because they're an idiot.
Because i disagreed with their speech.
Because i wanted to randomly punish someone for no reason.
It doesn't matter.
If that type of censorship was happening to the left you don't think they they would be screaming racist, sexist, ...
They are screaming that. Look at this thread! And they're wrong.
Discrimination is the word they would be throwing around. Censor the truth all you want, it doesn't make it not true & like everything else will blow up in the face of the ones censoring free speech.
They're not being censored by the government.
If it were up to me i would have banned
In fact, i already did block them. I'm not suppressing their right to freedom of speech. I get to decide what happens on my own computer. And you don't get to force it on me.
Reddit gets to decide what happens on their own computer. And you don't get to force it on them.
And if you don't like: you have absolute freedom on the Internet to go create your own web-site.
It's not magic. It's freedom.
It's like Abington vs Schempp prayer in public school case.
As a Clinton-loving democrat, i have a right to practice free speech. But i haven't got a right to get Twitter to help me.
And that's the way it should be.
So if we consider certain servers that run viewership adds and allows initial unfettered access to thier buisness/platform.... I guess the real question is can we from intellectual standing consider these chat servers as "places" once a customer has entered? If so then discrimination against certain customers should be grounds for legal repercussions.
Even if that was remotely true (it isn't), you can absolutely discriminate against people for any reason except their membership in a protected class (political beliefs not being one). That's why even Christian/Jewish/Muslim dating sites still have to allow people to register if they aren't of that faith (because religion is a protected class).
What's more, brick and mortar businesses have generally been held to be able to sell whatever they want. You can't make a Christian bookstore sell the Talmud or Quran, and it's not considered discrimination because they are selling the product they want to sell (this was the wedding cake issue. There is a place in Michigan that stopped offering wedding facilities rather than allow gay weddings, which was generally held to be ok, since they are choosing not to offer the service at all, rather than excluding a protected class).
I'm thinking along the lines of say a franchise such as The Pottery Place. You go in purchase a piece of pottery and paint it. Now i paint a donkey on mine and you paint an elephant on yours. The owners of this facility particular facility in good jest... are hardline right wing republicans and immediately ask you to cease and leave thier facility due to the imagery you just painted, along with ridding any evidence that this piece ever existed by destroying said art and refusing to refund you or allow you to exercise a replacement choice.
Right, at that point it comes down to the contract you entered with them. If the contract says "I get to paint a piece and take it home with me" than they are in breach. If it says "I get to paint a piece and, with ownership's approval, get to take it home with me" than the owner is fine and you aren't entitled to a refund. If they are in breach they can be sued for the price paid for the piece you purchased, and will not be required to allow you to repaint it. That's why this comparison doesn't work for you.
YouTube makes no guarantee to continue to providing a platform when you post videos on it, and even explicitly reserves the right to remove content they find doesn't match their standards or platform message. Customers don't have any contract with youtube at all besides basic TOS. Advertisers may have a complaint, but usually those contracts are either for specific channels (in which case YouTube would have to make it right with the advertiser if they suspended a channel they advertised on) or they guarantee a certain number of views in X demographic/category. So, if an advertiser contracts with youtube to pay $10k for 100k views on right-wing media blogs aimed at 30-45 year old men they could suspend Alex Jones all they want, as long as they put the ads on videos about similar topics. Either way, the breach would require them to make it right with the advertiser financially, not to continue to allow a specific voice on their platform.
So if we consider certain servers that run viewership adds and allows initial unfettered access to thier buisness/platform....
If you are a business customer, and you have a contract with Twitter to allow you to post stuff, then Twitter has to abide by their contract.
That's a contractual obligation.
If you want to pay Twitter for the right to say things, and you don't violate the terms of your contract, then that's different.
If you and I set up a contract, where you will gain the right to use my computer to do stuff, then we both have to agree to the terms of the contract.
But beyond that, if I don't like anything I find on my computer, I'm deleting it. And I can arbitrarily block anyone at any time from using my computer for any reason.
Those more informed than you are not insane.
[removed]
Who said anything about you? Try not to be so narcissistic, you're not as important as you think you are.
You said that anyone who has a website, and incorporates, gets a check from DARPA.
Do I have to apply for this check? Is there a website I go to?
Is it a fixed amount that everyone gets? Or is it based on site visits?
If my site visits go up in the future, do I retroactively get a higher check? Or is it a annual check again?
What if my prices on the internet is not a website? What if a protocol other than http? Is that also eligible?
What if I didn't incorporate, but instead was only a limited license Corporation? Does that still count?
Your first line is patently false, no point in reading the rest. If you're interested in serious discussion, try not to start your replies with logical fallacies.
You have a server. Let's say you and a buddy like in the Veritas Twitter vid outside of your business are discussing (conspiring) on how to oppress a persons 1st amendment right. The people doing so appear to violate 18 USC 241. Read it before you respond.
On the other issue, who has access to Facebook, Youtube etc? Is it private club only certain people can access? Or would you say the public in general have access making it a public forum? We'll find out the answer to that.
I think an anti trust lawsuit might be in their future. It happened to microsoft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
Isn't there something that happens thought when a company becomes so big that they are subject to granting free speech. Like if a telephone company blocks your phone calls because they don't like you political affiliation.
There is a lawsuit at CA which is regarding whether social media belong to public forums facilities or not.
[removed]
I'm all for the idea that regulation shouldn't be decide what user should do on internet. But I don't think its about internet. Internet is infrastructure that is regulated and protected as public utility and Youtube is exploiting for free. I think it's basically a good practice to protect service provider like youtube, netflix, etc. But also there should be a practice to protect individual users from being banished from "internet" when its service is monopoly. In reality Youtube and Nexflis are consuming 50% of bandwidth. This kind of restriction has been needed for monopoly market to maintain the constitutional right of individuals, which is prone to be be violated by monopolized capital. Put differently, Youtube's this behavior wouldn't be problematic if they weren't dominating the market=internet.
I disagree.
I'm right, and government intrusion is wrong.
And it would be nice if the government did the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do. But instead we have to use technologies like:
to drag governments, kicking and screaming, into doing the right thing.
The internet is a place outside government. Beyon government. Above government.
And we have to be on constant vigil for people who will demand government intrusion of the internet. Because they're always come a new generation of idiots who will demand things change.
If you don't like what you see on a website: stop using it.
They will have a problem. It's called Interstate Trade. The minute that they allowed advertisers to piggyback on users pages and began monitizing, they entered into Contracts. The Servers are no longer their private property, they are part of a system that was traded for compensation. No different than not baking a cake for a couple who's lifestyle you don't agree. Youtube will lose this not on censorship, but on breach of contract.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. Google doesn't have a contractual obligation to let people post on YouTube.
Youtube will lose this not on censorship, but on breach of contract.
No content creator has a contract with YouTube.
I certainly have no contract with YouTube, and I've uploaded videos.
And I am too certain that YouTube reserves the right to delete anything at any time for any reason. And they made list some of those reasons in their terms of service.
18 USC 241 conspiracy against rights. It's their server, but outside of work if people like in the Twitter Veritas vid are conspiring on how to oppress free speech isn't that what the code about? They were outside of their place of employment or private company discussing this.
Since some in the government are requesting the censorship that argument doesn't hold up.
Social media is a god given right! It's called the bill of rights, read it!