American Internet Will Have Chinese Style Censorship Within 5 Years

[Amerikuracana]

Although I am against censorship, these are private companies. If it's that much of an issue, a suitable replacement will come about. Isn't that how the free market works?

Free market is almost dead.

 

[panamaican]

So you literally telling the 'right wing' to create their own internet from the ground up and haven't addressed those some providers telling consumer 'you aren't good enough to use our content' are also preventing them from doing what you are saying.

No, I'm not asking the right wing to become Al Gore.

I'm pointing out that complaining about private businesses not supporting you is stupid in America because you can just start your own business that meets your need. There are right wing billionaires and to the best of my knowledge, nothing is stopping anyone from hosting their own website on their own servers and providing the platform that they want.

I host my law practice site through a 3rd party but my brother owns his servers and hosts his consulting business off of them. You don't need a Godaddy or other 3rd party to do that sort of thing.

This is a struggle argument. It's like arguing that because a restaurant requires shirts and shoes, you can't go open a different restaurant without those restrictions.

 

[KILL KILL]

Free market is almost dead.

How so?

 

[LostSoul]

Look what happened to Diamond and Silk. They had their YouTube videos demonetized presumably for being black and supporting Trump.

This was the stated explanation:
‘It’s Not Suitable For All Advertisers'

We Smell A Class Action Lawsuit. This.... S.ugar H.oney I.ce T.ea have got to stop. YouTube......Google, this does not look good!

 

[Hit-N-Run]

Does this same argument apply if a restaurant decides not to serve black people? After all it is a private company right?

That's a pretty ridiculous question. Not serving someone based on race/religion/sex..... is a violation of their Civil Rights. Companies are not allowed to discriminate based on those areas.

If you can't tell the difference you need to go back to school.

 

[Quipling]

No, I'm not asking the right wing to become Al Gore.

I'm pointing out that complaining about private businesses not supporting you is stupid in America because you can just start your own business that meets your need. There are right wing billionaires and to the best of my knowledge, nothing is stopping anyone from hosting their own website on their own servers and providing the platform that they want.

I host my law practice site through a 3rd party but my brother owns his servers and hosts his consulting business off of them. You don't need a Godaddy or other 3rd party to do that sort of thing.

This is a struggle argument. It's like arguing that because a restaurant requires shirts and shoes, you can't go open a different restaurant without those restrictions.

What I'm getting from this is a lot of the same people who complain about socialism think they have a right to property which isn't theirs if the alternatives aren't as convenient.

 

[LostSoul]

Why not? The argument being floated around here is that a private company has the right to deny services to anyone and for any reason. If it is alright to discriminate based on political persuasion then why not race or religion as well?

 

[LostSoul]

That's a pretty ridiculous question. Not serving someone based on race/religion/sex..... is a violation of their Civil Rights. Companies are not allowed to discriminate based on those areas.

If you can't tell the difference you need to go back to school.

But it's alright to discriminate based on political viewpoints?

 

[Denter]

I didn't say private companies can do what they want. I said that speech censorship from the government is very different from speech censorship via a private company platform.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're driving at since you don't mention China, speech, or internet anywhere in your response. Just a general statement that private companies have some limitations on them and something about Coaltown.

The idea is that private censorship, in areas which are analogous to public utilities (the internet is the new town square, social media and blog services the new soapboxes, and CloudFlare the new road leading there), should be regulated in the same way that other public spaces are. The case I hinted at was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

There, the company town's defense of "We're not silencing you, just telling you to take your free speech elsewhere" was not successful. Ultimately, though, if people really want to fight back against this, they will have to hope the administration uses antitrust measures against Google and others. Because of economies of scale, they are effective monopolies and "lol start your own facebook" defenses really won't hold.

On the other hand, if they are successful in using metapolitical-and-industry cooperation to effectively censor the internet, maybe they deserve to.

 

[HomerThompson]

Why not? The argument being floated around here is that a private company has the right to deny services to anyone and for any reason. If it is alright to discriminate based on political persuasion then why not race or religion as well?

<18><18><18><18>

 

[Hit-N-Run]

But it's alright to discriminate based on political viewpoints?

Yes, a private company can. Your political view points are not civil rights. The two are not equivalent.

 

[panamaican]

Sounds like you could go throw up this internet infrastructure and make a cool billion dollars, what are you waiting around for.

I'm not complaining about the current one.

 

[Denter]

Yes, a private company can. Your political view points are not civil rights. The two are not equivalent.

Oh man I remember the Bush years when liberals were worried about getting fired by conservative bosses, how the worm turns.

 

[panamaican]

What I'm getting from this is a lot of the same people who complain about socialism think they have a right to property which isn't theirs if the alternatives aren't as convenient.

Well put.

 

[Denter]

I'm not complaining about the current one.

You don't need to be to spot such an INCREDIBLE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY just sitting there!

 

[BangersAndSmash]

These are private companies, so this is akin to someone decorating their own house and lawn in the way which they prefer. If you have a problem with FaceBook, don't use it. The bigger problem is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

 

[KILL KILL]

You don't need to be to spot such an INCREDIBLE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY just sitting there!

There is no demand for it. Ts and a few fans of Jihadwatch are the only ones that care about it. If the demand were high enough, you better believe people would capitalize on it.

 

[LostSoul]

Yes, a private company can. Your political view points are not civil rights. The two are not equivalent.

It depends on the anti-discrimination laws in your particular state or city. D.C. for example prohibits discrimination based on “the state of belonging to or endorsing any political party.” It's not as cut and dry as you believe and there are lawsuits filed over this issue all of the time.

 

[panamaican]

The idea is that private censorship, in areas which are analogous to public utilities (the internet is the new town square, social media and blog services the new soapboxes, and CloudFlare the new road leading there), should be regulated in the same way that other public spaces are. The case I hinted at was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

There, the company town's defense of "We're not silencing you, just telling you to take your free speech elsewhere" was not successful. Ultimately, though, if people really want to fight back against this, they will have to hope the administration uses antitrust measures against Google and others. Because of economies of scale, they are effective monopolies and "lol start your own facebook" defenses really won't hold.

On the other hand, if they are successful in using metapolitical-and-industry cooperation to effectively censor the internet, maybe they deserve to.

Oh, I understood what you were saying and referencing but there's a difference between an ISP and Facebook or Google.

If the ISP's start restricting access based on speech that's a very different conversation than individual company websites restricting speech based on pre-written rules that you agreed to. The Alabama case is very different because it applied to their private residences within the town.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Large internet monopolies such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter have committed themselves to censorship of ideas and views they don't like but the purge isn't stopping there. Sites like Paypal, Pareton, and ISPs are joining into the purge as well.

When a neo-Nazi psychopath plowed his car into a crowd of Leftist protesters in Charlottesville, the Left saw a golden opportunity to use the moment as its Reichstag Fire, and indulge its increasingly obvious authoritarian tendencies. But when they came after Jihad Watch, they overreached.

On Saturday afternoon, the Soros-funded hard-Left website ProPublica published a hit piece calling upon PayPal and other new media giants to block Jihad Watch and other groups that have been defamed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as “hate groups.” ProPublica’s Lauren Kirchner complained that Jihad Watch’s “designation as a hate site hasn’t stopped tech companies — including PayPal, Amazon and Newsmax — from maintaining partnerships with Jihad Watch that help to sustain it financially. PayPal facilitates donations to the site. Newsmax — the online news network run by President Donald Trump’s close friend Chris Ruddy — pays Jihad Watch in return for users clicking on its headlines. Until recently, Amazon allowed Jihad Watch to participate in a program that promised a cut of any book sales that the site generated. All three companies have policies that say they don’t do business with hate groups.”

The Left media said “Jump,” and PayPal immediately said “How high?” Just hours after the ProPublica piece appeared, PayPal blocked Jihad Watch. I received an email early Saturday evening from PayPal’s Ronita Murray, saying: “Due to the nature of your activities, we have chosen to discontinue service to you in accordance with PayPal’s User Agreement. As a result, we have placed a permanent limitation on your account.”

But after banning Jihad Watch, PayPal encountered a crowd of free citizens. PayPal was inundated with emails and tweets denouncing its ready capitulation to Leftist attempts to delegitimize and silence all dissent. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people canceled their PayPal accounts.


And so PayPal quickly came to realize that the power of the people is not vested solely in the Leftist thugs who assert themselves ever more aggressively on America’s streets. PayPal discovered that America is still full of patriots who don’t wish to accept the Left’s lie that opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression constitutes “Islamophobia,” which is worse than jihad terror itself. What made Jihad Watch no longer a “hate site”? The voices of free people.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267...ns-jihad-watch-then-backs-down-robert-spencer



This however is only a small part of the problem, leftists are using the subjective term of 'hate speech' to mass censor and silence any opinions they don't agree with. From silencing the individuals, pulling down websites they don't like, and going as far to go after the financial institutions to get them banned from receiving funds as well, they is clearly no line the authoritarians of group think won't go to snuff non progressive viewpoints. China works directly with media giants such as Apple and Google to mute their population and i'm afraid the same is coming here to the USA as clearly people see no problem with a handful of corporations controlling what the masses can see and think.


I believe in 5 years, the internet as we know it will be similar to China's top down authoritarian control.

Oh, so now you think corporate power needs to be regulated?