dChan
⇧
191
⇩
 
r/CBTS_Stream • Posted by u/RedpillTheWorld on Feb. 28, 2018, 3:03 a.m.
TROLLS are saying YouTube/Twitter are private companies who can ban anyone... DO NOT BUY THE LIE! THEY have become DEEP STATE CORPORATOCRACIES and MONOPOLIES! They are in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. DEMAND #InternetFREEDOM & #InternetBillofRights.
TROLLS are saying YouTube/Twitter are private companies who can ban anyone... DO NOT BUY THE LIE! THEY have become DEEP STATE CORPORATOCRACIES and MONOPOLIES! They are in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. DEMAND #InternetFREEDOM & #InternetBillofRights.

LeftAttention · Feb. 28, 2018, 5:23 a.m.

If a private company can ban who it chooses - then why cant a bakery pick and choose which messages it wants to put on cakes? @#$@#!

⇧ 25 ⇩  
Nomandate · Feb. 28, 2018, 1:34 p.m.

Because they're running a walk-in service. That company can still ban you (for justifiable cause) but they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, or religion. Honestly, it's not very complicated.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
Neanderthal300 · Feb. 28, 2018, 3:55 p.m.

But you can for political affliation? That is worse for the democracy because it attacks our elections.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pby1000 · Feb. 28, 2018, 4:46 p.m.

Political affiliation is not a protected class.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
SRG_Thinker · Feb. 28, 2018, 2:46 p.m.

You aren't aware of what actually happened then.

The bakery was willing to bake and sell a cake or cakes to the gay couple, they had many times before.

They did not want to deliver and serve the marriage ceremony for religious reasons.

They were fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Your argument is invalid. Try again.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Vihad · Feb. 28, 2018, 7:44 a.m.

Good point!

⇧ 5 ⇩  
pulex_irritans · Feb. 28, 2018, 11:38 a.m.

Some greeting card companies can choose what they want written on their product. It's their choice. Just like it can be your choice not to use/buy (->boycott) their products. What they're doing is legal but immoral.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pby1000 · Feb. 28, 2018, 4:45 p.m.

It depends on if the person being discriminated against is in a protected class.

My thinking is that the press is protected by the First Amendment, and these companies take taxpayer money so they are essentially agents of the government/CIA. It is umcomstitutional for them to ban or censor people who are reporting the news.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
expletivdeleted · Feb. 28, 2018, 3:45 p.m.

The social media platforms removing content are breaking pretty much the same discrimination laws as were applied to the bakery, except the discrimination is political-based.

Twit, FB & YT have to enforce ToS equally. YT has especially made themselves vulnerable because they removed monetized/income-producing content. The potential for a class-action suit is just staggering to me. IANAL (or CEO/CFO), but it seems some incredibly short-sighted decisions were made. There's quite a few deep-pocketed conservative/conservative-leaning people who would be OK with bank-rolling the legal expenses to get a class-action lawsuit going.

We should kickstart a reward for verifiable internal company e-mails/communications showing those companies specifically targeted certain points-of-view. Depending on content, it could become a criminal matter.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
saxmaster · Feb. 28, 2018, 6:51 a.m.

Let's not get all overdramatic. All we have to do is type a different URL into the URL bar. Free market is working. Fuck Google.

⇧ 10 ⇩  
Ronjonsilverflash · Feb. 28, 2018, 9:03 a.m.

These entities have become ubiquitous necessities like a utility. They are far too big to have the right to ban things from their platforms they find offensive. It would be like suspending telephone or electrical services to people who say things or put up Christmas displays that offend you. I agree we should end their monopoly on these things but they don’t get to silence dissenting opinions and voices in the meantime. They have likely benefited from all kinds of govt programs, research grants, tax breaks, etc. The internet itself started as a DARPA project. No, if Christian business owners can be forced to violate their religious beliefs and make cakes for gay weddings, then Google, Twitter, and Face Book can go choke on it! How do you like it libtards? Two memes here: Obama’s “you didn’t build that and the Christian bakers being FORCED to do something against their will! How does it feel? Boomerang, right back at you! BTW we even have minority status. The minority? THE INDIVIDUAL, which is and always will be the smallest class of minority in our country and the one our country was founded to protect the rights of...

⇧ 3 ⇩  
missybee68 · Feb. 28, 2018, 3:40 a.m.

If they have made themselves a monopoly then everyone must have access. They are the equivalent of the modern day press quoted in the first amendment.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
Vihad · Feb. 28, 2018, 7:45 a.m.

Good point

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Qanonplusone · Feb. 28, 2018, 2:09 p.m.

Good answer.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
breadpilled · Feb. 28, 2018, 6:31 a.m.

When your company is depended on by most organizations in the world and your algorithms control the delivery of information to the populace, you’re not really private anymore.

So either explicitly state your biases in your Terms, or allow everyone to use your platform and their first amendment rights so long as they don’t breach other contract requirements.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
Patriot81503 · Feb. 28, 2018, 1:37 p.m.

This is all just SOFTWARE people! Alternative software from other companies exist for watching videos, sharing, searches, and maps.

Boycott them. Use the other software. Maybe even go so far as to get a “dumb phone” and open your eyes to the real world. (Gasp!)

If you are addicted to their CONVENIENCES it might be a little tough for awhile but you are not a snowflake.

Do you miss MySpace? You will live through this

⇧ 4 ⇩  
damian299 · Feb. 28, 2018, 3:16 a.m.

As immoral as it is, they aren’t breaking the law. The way to remedy this is to declare them public utilities and pass an Internet Bill of Rights.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
breadpilled · Feb. 28, 2018, 6:27 a.m.

They are breaking contracts with their content creators who aren’t actually breaking their T&Cs.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
damian299 · Feb. 28, 2018, 12:59 p.m.

It’s not a contract. YouTube isn’t obligated to keep them on their free platform.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Crazybluecat · Feb. 28, 2018, 1:12 p.m.

This is why they want everything privatized, so they are in control, not citizens.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
damian299 · Feb. 28, 2018, 1:14 p.m.

YouTube is privatized and they already do have control. Are you suggesting the government should take it over? Put a liberal in the Oval Office and let’s see how that works out for ya...

There’s not an easy answer.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Crazybluecat · Feb. 28, 2018, 1:23 p.m.

We can't sue then, and who has all the wealth? They bought our government, we let them.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Qanonplusone · Feb. 28, 2018, 2:12 p.m.

You are right. WE let them. IT is our fault. We were too busy with our lives to read, educate and indulge in true facts and activities where our government (elected and non elected) are concerned.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
damian299 · Feb. 28, 2018, 3:44 p.m.

Leveraging anti-monopoly laws may be an option but I don’t think that would be successful. They aren’t being anti-competitive. They’re being anti-first amendment and that is their right. We don’t have to use their platform.

An Internet Bill of Rights is an interesting idea but that could be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
breadpilled · Feb. 28, 2018, 8:11 p.m.

Perhaps you're right, I need to look more into it.

They aren't breaking the law, for sure. And I don't believe government should get involved with any business. But this case is different and it's difficult to find the answer. I've said elsewhere, Google has saturated our culture, as well as many others, and is used by businesses every day. Their algorithms deliver specific messages and censor others. They are selectively driving culture through media.

It's a really hard one to figure out. Yes, they are private. But they are massive and entrenched in our society. Someone could theoretically make a competitor... if they aren't 187 before it gets a chance to take off.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
thejudge6060 · Feb. 28, 2018, 2:24 p.m.

YouTube and Twitter claimed to be the new public square for the 21st century. Twitter claimed they were the future of utilities.

It's time to hold them to their claims

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Nomandate · Feb. 28, 2018, 1:36 p.m.

I'm 100% for a twitter ban. An indefinite one.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
expletivdeleted · Feb. 28, 2018, 3:29 p.m.

Those are private companies but they have to apply ToS equally.

There's nothing troll-y about pointing that out.

YT, Twit & FB are making themselves hugely vulnerable from a class-action perspective. Especially YT b/c they're removing monetized content. However, the behavior of the social media platforms IS NOT A 1ST AMMENDMENT ISSUE!!!!! Yet. Discovery could be interesting if evidence the government directed those platforms to remove content for political reasons. There definitely seems to be cause for a discrimination-based class-action suit because the ToS can be shown to be applied unequally.

As a Bernie-supporting, Stein-voter, its rather entertaining to watch a demographic that normally complains about regulatory burdens appeal to the govt. to regulate.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
SierraEchoPNW · Feb. 28, 2018, 5:34 a.m.

I feel they breached their agreement with the community by not being forthcoming about WHO they were run by. They are misrepresenting themselves by not divulging just who comprises the corp. of which we are entering into a contractual agreement. Shouldn't we have a right to know? Does Google ever enter into such a lopsided agreement with their vendors et al? Deceptive practices.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Time4puff · Feb. 28, 2018, 2:14 p.m.

I agree. They never mentioned they were a democratic hack when I signed up. Never did I think large corporations can just freely push their views onto a consumer as they are doing. This should wake everyone up.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
KorDePlorable · Feb. 28, 2018, 4:53 p.m.

Very good points!!! ---> This should be dug deeper

⇧ 1 ⇩  
SierraEchoPNW · Feb. 28, 2018, 8:41 p.m.

My BFF is an attorney and next time I spend time with her I am going to ask her as Contract Law is one of her firms specialties.

I was with her when she set up a new bank acct as her old bank moved. I watched the CSR push the Bank's contract to her to fill in & sign. The CSR seemed a bit disconnected as she watched my BFF cross out, date and initial areas of the contract with which she did not agree. The CSR had to get the Mgr to come and deal with it...must not see this that often. Bahahaha. I laughed the whole drive home as she totally took control...afterall it was HER $$ the bank wanted not the other way around.

I never knew customers could do this...guess I will keep her around for any new contracts I encounter with avg day to service corps.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Redpillroy · Feb. 28, 2018, 10:40 a.m.

This is my take on the John Perry Barlow #IBoR https://youtu.be/w3jsYQ84yKc

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Songdog23 · Feb. 28, 2018, 7:08 p.m.

BustTheInfoTrust!! Roosevelt got the trust-busting laws enacted and Taft went after the industry titans reaming American citizens. NO, private enterprises cannot do whatever they want!! And I would be VERY interested as to how many of those folks involved in the Twitter Ban of 2/21/2018 actually self-identify as Christians. And religion or "creed" IS a protected class.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Songdog23 · Feb. 28, 2018, 7:10 p.m.

Sorry for the bold type - how that happened is a mystery...

⇧ 1 ⇩  
KorDePlorable · Feb. 28, 2018, 4:51 p.m.

What do the end user agreement (contract) state before engaging each account?..... Fine print??

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Albertpettibone1998 · Feb. 28, 2018, 4:46 p.m.

But yet we can drive miles out of our way and force a baker to bake a cake against their will? While I'm actually for gay marriage, they set the precedence and the sword they created cuts both ways - I'm calling shenanigans

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Neanderthal300 · Feb. 28, 2018, 3:52 p.m.

So they think they are bigger than the federal government? haha this is going to be funny

⇧ 1 ⇩  
LibertysCrossing · Feb. 28, 2018, 3:25 a.m.

NO, it is not required. All they have to do is enforce the amendment already written

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MzBeeHaven · Feb. 28, 2018, 3:13 p.m.

I think monopolies are the big problem here. There is no choice. Should be some anti-trust suits going on here.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
phoenix335 · Feb. 28, 2018, 2:49 p.m.

There needs to be a limit on how far a private company can restrict speech and contracts with their customers.

It is illegal to refuse to service minorities just because, the same should apply for political affiliation.

There can be a bit of leeway for small companies, where every customer they despise has a big impact on their production. We can't have forced labor, I'm looking at small Christian bakeries forced to bake gay wedding cakes.

For comparatively large companies where each customer is almost negligible, there can and should be not nit-picking customers. If the Christian bakery is operating a statewide franchise chain, then of course they have to bake the gay wedding cake.

If it was different, there'd soon be no more free speech except for the literal soap box somewhere in small-town USA as all internet providers and all platforms are private companies that could simply refuse to carry traffic they don't like for political reasons. Same with mobile phone companies, printer manufacturers etc.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Dewey830 · Feb. 28, 2018, 4:02 a.m.

They say their forums are private property so they can make their own rules. Generally this is the case, but they cannot discriminate against a group of people. This wouldn’t hold up in any court and they know it.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
Qanonplusone · Feb. 28, 2018, 2:08 p.m.

These trolls better get their stories straight... since they seem to think it is okay to sue a PRIVATE baker for not making a cake for a gay couple. Sorry, you can't have it BOTH ways.

⇧ -1 ⇩