Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

standalone.jpg

I feel bad for that girl. The Left is going to make her life hell.

[CGVT]

Stefan Molyneaux backed up a lot of his videos on bitchute.

DSL, CGVT -- here is a link to his channel. Please point out to me which of his videos are "racist" or support Nazi or White Supremacist views.

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/JqEoP64bHDmk/

Take your time. I can wait.

Yeah, right. I know what this jackass is about. I am not wasting my time watching any of his racist, misogynistic drivel.

I mean, why should I when I can just read your posts?

[Hannibal]

Bear in mind that all of this comes directly on the heels of people like CGVT and DSL telling us that we needed the mass regulation of the internet called Net Neutrality. Our internet service providers, they told us, were going to start censoring our content! Big Tech firms like Google were behind it 100%. Yes, Google was once calling for government regulation of the internet to ensure equal access LOL

Turns out that was projection, as it always is with the Left.

[iam416]

DSL, on the other hand, is hilariously trying to sell the notion that if you get banned from the public square and the radio airwaves, it's not censorship because you are still free to write in your diary.

When the Chinese government bans people or words or whatever from social forums, we're appalled. When social forums ban people from social forums it's cheered.

Everyone recognizes the massive platforms that exist. That's not really in dispute. Everyone recognizes that they are truly open to the public.

The best analogy in Supreme Court precedent is probably to shopping malls. The Court went back and forth on this over a couple decades. They ultimately concluded that the private property interests outweighed freedom of speech interests relying mostly on the fact that there were numerous other public areas to convey the message. However, the Court has allowed States to set their own approach. And, numerous states have taken up that invitation wrt to shopping malls and private universities. I think New Jersey articulates the analysis the best:

You have to look at (1) the nature, purpose and primary use of such private property; (2) the extent and nature of the public’s invitation to use that property; and (3) the purpose of the expressive activity undertaken on such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property. NJ applies this test to shopping malls have concluded that because shopping mall owners “have intentionally transformed their property into a public square or market, a public gathering place, a downtown business district, a community,” they cannot later deny their own implied invitation to use the space as it was clearly intended.

This is pretty much exactly where I am with social media. And under this test it's absolutely clear that twitter and fb for sure and probably YT are subject to NJ state free speech type restrictions. And the beauty of it is that if one state goes this way then it will force the platforms to do it for all states (like, say, California's high fuel emission standards as de facto national law).

Again, I certainly understand the argument for a bright line test private/public test, but I'm far more persuaded by the actual facts on the ground than the need for absolute certainty as to what is or isn't "public" forum.

[CGVT]

"Bear in mind that all of this comes directly on the heels of people like CGVT and DSL telling us that we needed the mass regulation of the internet called Net Neutrality. Our internet service providers, they told us, were going to start censoring our content! Big Tech firms like Google were behind it 100%. Yes, Google was once calling for government regulation of the internet to ensure equal access LOL

Turns out that was projection, as it always is with the Left."

Oh bullshit.


If I own a bookstore I get my books delivered by trucks over public roads. Even though my books are delivered on public roads I don't have to sell books that I find offensive.

The internet is the road and Youtube is a bookstore. They have the right to decide what content they will allow.

Your outrage is stupid.

[iam416]

Anyway, the genius of the Left is that they can control the speech of the largest speech platforms in the world. And hence, we can not longer say that men are not women. That's just the way it is: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...nder-comments/

For the likes of CGVT and DSL it's a wet fucking dream to censor people for saying dudes with dicks ain't chicks and then, of course, then turn around and scream SCIENCE!!!!!

[Hannibal]

"Bear in mind that all of this comes directly on the heels of people like CGVT and DSL telling us that we needed the mass regulation of the internet called Net Neutrality. Our internet service providers, they told us, were going to start censoring our content! Big Tech firms like Google were behind it 100%. Yes, Google was once calling for government regulation of the internet to ensure equal access LOL

Turns out that was projection, as it always is with the Left."

Oh bullshit.


If I own a bookstore I get my books delivered by trucks over public roads. Even though my books are delivered on public roads I don't have to sell books that I find offensive.

The internet is the road and Youtube is a bookstore. They have the right to decide what content they will allow.

Your outrage is stupid.

Your analogy doesn't work. There are tens of thousands of actual book stores but there is only one viable video content platform in the entire world. It's a monopoly with more market concentration and power than the robber baron monopolies that led to the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's funny that you should make an infrastructure-related argument though since I literally have more ISP choices than I have choices for video publishing if I want my content to be discoverable.

[Hannibal]

Anyway, the genius of the Left is that they can control the speech of the largest speech platforms in the world. And hence, we can not longer say that men are not women. That's just the way it is: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...nder-comments/

For the likes of CGVT and DSL it's a wet fucking dream to censor people for saying dudes with dicks ain't chicks and then, of course, then turn around and scream SCIENCE!!!!!

Heh. Speaking of which...

Here is the post-racial, post-sexuality, post-facts, post-sanity, and post-reason world that CGVT and DSL have been fantasizing about for so long.

t2Cd7rml.jpg

[AlabamAlum]

If it were the government banning the speech, I would be pissed. If it’s a private company that says, “this is the content we allow on the site we own.” I find it objectionable philosophically, but I support their right to manage the content posted on their property. I mean, I get the counter argument. That it’s a ‘town square’ thing.

But the camps here are fully entrenched on this matter. Discussing this further is like arguing if Wiz’ wings are the 6th or 7th best wings in Ogallala. Or if Mike Riley is a much better coach than Scott Frost or just slightly better.

[Hannibal]

When the Chinese government bans people or words or whatever from social forums, we're appalled. .

Who's "we"? Definitely not Democrats. They fucking love it.

[Tom W]

Of course, this is complete cliché- but a little brevity here. This guy, Magnus Pyke, was the UK equivalent of Carl Sagan, and HATED (but certainly cashed every check that Dolby sent him) when people in US airports kept screaming "SCIENCE!" to him. The 80's were a simpler time.

[Hannibal]

If it were the government banning the speech, I would be pissed. If it’s a private company that says, “this is the content we allow on the site we own.” I find it objectionable philosophically, but I support their right to manage the content posted on their property. I mean, I get the counter argument. That it’s a ‘town square’ thing.

But the camps here are fully entrenched on this matter. Discussing this further is like arguing if Wiz’ wings are the 6th or 7th best wings in Ogallala. Or if Mike Riley is a much better coach than Scott Frost or just slightly better.

I still have a big of sympathy for the Libertarian side of this argument, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Mega monopolies were regulated well over 100 years ago and Congress and the courts have destroyed the rights of small business owners to make choices for their own businesses since then. Don't feel obligated to stick to your principles when those principles will absolutely never be applied in your favor but always applied to fuck you in the ass (e.g. "bake the cake, bigot!")

[Dr. Strangelove]

Why do you think you have a "right" to have your work 'discovered'? You don't. You aren't owed an audience. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you an audience. There is no right to make a living off your shitball opinions being transformed into profit. There's always, always, Gab and Parler. But like you said just having a place to express your opinions isn't what you want. You want to be SEEN and make MONEY off of exposure. You have a constitutional right to fame, apparently.

[iam416]

I still have a big of sympathy for the Libertarian side of this argument, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Mega monopolies were regulated well over 100 years ago and Congress has destroyed the rights of small business owners to make choices for their own businesses since then. Don't feel obligated to stick to your principles when those principles will absolutely never be applied in your favor but always applied to fuck you in the ass.

Yeah, it becomes an even more interesting question if consider any of these platforms monopolies -- statutorily or in practice. At that point you can make a pretty strong argument that, by definition, there is no other viable alternative for your speech. Now, at that point you may just argue -- ok, it's still private and that's my test, but they need broken up. However, if they are allowed to continue to exist then it becomes very difficult to push back.

I do find it an very interesting tactic to try to push for a State court ruling on this issue that would, in effect, set a national standard (assuming the platforms can't operate on a state-by-state basis).

In any event, I think it's quite the connundrum when the principle means of free expression are privatized. I mean, it used to be you had to go outside and go somewhere to express your opinion to the public to disinterested passers-by. Now you do it through your phone and you can reach a far greater audience. But, because of the private company veneer, today's principal public forums are censored.

As I noted, there was a time when the Left would have been outraged by this. I mean PRIVATE, CAPITALIST companies decided what is or isn't acceptable in the public forum. But, they control those companies now, so....HUZZAH!

[iam416]

Some of the shitball opinions being banned are, literally, "men are not women."

SCIENCE!