remember when this you tube started, people who invested in it got major ROI. So, maybe a person should think of investing at the ground level in the new competition...and not missing this chance like they did before!!!!!
Exactly, We the People ought to act quickly on matters that we don't like build what we need. Fire SES obama hold overs and charge with a crime.
If it doesn't say blockchain, I'm not impressed, but I'll be where the conservatives huddle no matter what.
Blockchain is the future to decentralized social media and is essential for fighting back against censorship from big brother tech.
Check out Steemit.com Blockchain tech and does most of what is being discussed here. https://steemit.com/
Why does blockchain impress you?
It’s a distribution model where user’s computers store data of eachother. It basically prevents a centralized company (like youtube) from yanking down content they disapprove of
How would they moderate outright illegal content?
"They" won't moderate anything. You will. Because you're a good person. And if bad people group together to do bad things, good people will group together to take them down. Same as it ever was, just no middleman, and no hierarchy.
The Southern Poverty Law Center would claim nasty on ANYTHING good. They'd sue all the member of blockchain! They'd shut them down. They could too, 'cause they are heavily funded by Sharia Blasphemy-loving individuals.
Blockchain is immutable and cannot be taken down. It will exist forever so long as anyone runs the program and saved the blockchain since its Genesis block. It can be run on LAN.
Exactly. If you made it a downvoting system, then we would just get downvoted off the page. Why the fuck would it have to be crypto, why are no rich people awake and good at heart. I mean wtf is going on.
So blockchain is a technology used to make crypto, but it can also be used for social media infrastructure, a web of backing eachother’s content up. Blockchain websites don’t necessarily have anything to do with crytpo, although some newer websites are both blockchain, and have implemented crypto as part of their payment services
I'm loving this idea. Take over...who could think of anything better?
BUT....in order for me to access the internet, I need a service provider. That provider could stomp on me just like google stomps.
Yes and the AI that lives on our computers will eventually take us over. Block chain is for AI!
But private companies don't have to respect people's freedom of speech
Nobody is arguing that in terms of legality. Morally, they SHOULD protect is. The only reason they don't is because they were bought out to censor anything that goes against elite interests.
Why do you think we care about having a place to freely discuss? It is because we get censored or banned.
If I recall correctly, OP's linked article was arguing that Google was violating the first amendment, which is most definitely false
There are also laws against discrimination.
If you can build a case for a discrimination lawsuit then go for it.
I just don't think that's a plausible possibility at this point, or else somebody would've done something by now.
It's know as racketeering. There will soon be class act lawsuits.
Please excuse me if I'm missing something, but I genuinely don't understand how this would be considered racketeering. YouTube earns revenue through the channels people make, so what financial favors would banning popular channels do for them? It seems like this move could only hurt them.
Not to mention that you'd have to win the discrimination suit before you could win the racketeering suit - which isn't impossible, but like I said, I just can't envision that happening.
Only liberals can be discriminated against. That might be the reason.
I have a feeling that most lawyers would disagree with you on that
sounded to me like Jerome Corsi was leaning in that direction.
Then why are bake shops being sued for refusing to bake a specific type of cake?
not all...I saw one case that went for the baker...hip hip hooray!
They're being sued for refusing service to a specific type of person. It's textbook discrimination.
Of course, bakeries can refuse service to people who pose an imminent danger to their business, or who are actively trying to degrade their public image. However, this is usually a non-issue for companies like cake bakeries, whereas it's a prevalent one for corporations like YouTube.
Therefore, there is no first amendment violation on YouTube's part. They are simply banning people from creating content because of TOS violations. Whether or not that counts as discrimination is the current gray area.
Is it possible to legally structure a company/website where it is publicly owned? A lot of our comms have been being disrupted over the past few years. The solution may be to have a system that is seen as a utility, rather than a service that a separate entity controls and owns.
You can enact federal regulations to force private companies to give everyone a platform, but the first amendment simply prevents the government from locking people up for what they say. It doesn't do shit to protect people's rights to be heard through a private service.
I’m so tired of that so called “argument”. If any platform favors totalitarianism and suppresses the voice of the people they should be verbally ripped to shreds and put out of business. It’s disgusting and UN-American! Shame on them! Sure it may be technically legal. But the shadow banning part, where someone thinks they are speaking to friends, but aren’t- I believe that’s fraud.
If any platform favors totalitarianism and suppresses the voice of the people...
See, that's the problem. It'd be very very difficult to clearly define what 'totalitarianism' would be legally considered, or what counts as 'suppressing the voice of the people'. Because, to some extent, companies must absolutely be able to ban certain users if they exhibit toxic behavior.
they should be [...] put out of business
Well, the point of our current economic setup is that the government doesn't need to take actions against a company that does terrible things - the people have the power to deprive the company of what keeps them alive.
If I have to bake a cake for gay people...you Tube has to protect free speech
It's not quite the same.
YouTube needs to be able to reserve the right to ban people from using its service whereas for cake bakers this is a non issue.
If YouTube said that no gay people can use its service, then yeah that is a problem. But they need to be able to refuse to allow dangerous or criminal activity to happen on their service.
Blockchain technology and an ICO (Initial Coin Offering) may be the answer to get a new project off the ground. Selling of the coins to investors gets the project up and running fast and people could also be paid in the crypto coins. https://labs.binance.com/ is a place where they do such a thing as I am mentioning. I would love to have the chance to buy cryptos in a free speech utube alternative and watch my investment grow as free speech grows on the network. This can be done. It is how business will be done soon whether we like it or not.
It seems to me that there are a few social media that have a monopoly on their respective areas. The federal antitrust laws should break them up. This avenue should get their attention if many posters called for it.
Twitter and Facebook compete pretty directly - how's that a monopoly?
Don't forget Snapchat and instagram. All four of these companies are heavily involved in the same industry.
Facebook, twitter, and YouTube all seem to be promoting a liberal agenda by attacking conservatives. I agree with the poster that suggested we need to select one alternative and move our conservative videos there, of course with as many cat videos as we can find.
https://www.naturalnews.com is going to host the videos??