American Internet Will Have Chinese Style Censorship Within 5 Years

Ironically if you want to stop this, you need to support left leaning politicians as they are the ones that would be more willing to regulate the internet to allow fair access and break up monopolies when they're abused.

I don't really care what facebook does, as it shouldn't be political to begin with.

But You-tube is a concern. It's the closest thing we've ever had to true "public television," and is a very healthy thing for freedom. Personally I would support a state funded public competitor to you-tube where every-body's first amendment rights are protected.
 
You don't need to be to spot such an INCREDIBLE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY just sitting there!

I spot plenty of business opportunities. There's an empty lot down the street from me that could be developed into nice residential property. That doesn't obligate me to do so.

Is this really an argument that because I'm not investing in an opportunity, that opportunity doesn't exist?
 
These 'private companies' are taking barking orders directly from governments as listed above. Governments and Politicians make the call and the private companies act on their behalf. This is middle man censorship.

So make your own Nazi facebook and get Putin to be your web host.
 
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.


I don't agree with this. By this logic, if you have a problem with climate change, just go start a renewable energy company right?

I do find it funny to listen to righties' complain about not enough regulation though.
 
Ironically if you want to stop this, you need to support left leaning politicians as they are the ones that would be more willing to regulate the internet to allow fair access and break up monopolies when they're abused.

I don't really care what facebook does, as it shouldn't be political to begin with.

But You-tube is a concern. It's the closest thing we've ever had to true "public television," and is a very healthy thing for freedom. Personally I would support a state funded public competitor to you-tube where every-body's first amendment rights are protected.

Socialist.....welcome to the team.
 
This is actually a very big concern of the EU in which government agencies are pushing for private companies to restrict video / media content on their platforms. Not to mention that ridiculous "right-to-be-forgotten"ruling.
 
I don't agree with this. By this logic, if you have a problem with climate change, just go start a renewable energy company right?

I do find it funny to listen to righties' complain about not enough regulation though.

If you have a problem with climate change then, yes, go start a renewable energy company and prove your proof of concept. The government can certainly step in and set standards but if the standards they set don't satisfy you then go demonstrate otherwise.

I think Tesla is doing that, even with the subsidies from the gv't.
 
Ironically if you want to stop this, you need to support left leaning politicians as they are the ones that would be more willing to regulate the internet to allow fair access and break up monopolies when they're abused.

Aye, what Verizon charges for the speed it provides should be a crime.

Handing the reigns of the internet over to the people who did nothing but put in the infrastructure is like giving complete control of every house they built to the construction companies even after they sold it.

My parents are moving to Chatanooga, TN, a city that quit waiting for a major ISP to provide the infrastructure for high-speed internet and did the job themselves. The result is the gig, a 1gb internet connection that is only 70$ a month offered by EPB a publicly owned electrical company. For comparison my 100mb/100mb connection is 60$ a month.
 
If you have a problem with climate change then, yes, go start a renewable energy company and prove your proof of concept. The government can certainly step in and set standards but if the standards they set don't satisfy you then go demonstrate otherwise.

I think Tesla is doing that, even with the subsidies from the gv't.

Cool, so it isn't a problem then right?

The market will sort it out.

@Greoric is that you?
 
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.

I believe it was on a private sidewalk in Alabama.

What happened to the Daily Stormer was dumped from multiple ISP's (which in my, technically unsophisticated mind) are like the roadways of the internet.
 
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.

Trumpwrong.gif
 

Oh man, come on. They decide what we buy, our demand doesn't create it. "Try red, it's the new blue." I could write a 20 page paper on this.

People's mass consumption of information makes the information the driving force, not people's own ideas and youth movements. Youth movements are media driven, now. Even as recently as the 90s it was a balance of media influence, and media reaction to youth trends.
 
These are not just private companies, they are monopolies that have a huge amount of sway and influence within the corridors of power. They are heavily intertwined into our political system because we don't have a true free market, we have crony capitalism.

Plus a scumbag like Zuckerberg has already shown that he has no problem working with Islamic governments in order to round up blasphemers, knowing full well that these people will face death as a result. And this guy has political ambitions of his own in America, even possibly running for president. So imagine a society ruled by a person like this and how he would deal with 'wrong thinkers'. It's actually a terrifying thought and modern day China might seem pretty decent by comparison.
 
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.


The internet may qualify as a "utility," but individual companies that use the internet like Facebook certainly do not. Facebook is simply a company that provides services via the internet. The internet is provide by ISP's such as Comcast, ATT, Charter, etc. I am not aware of any of those providers doing any censoring.

I could open a conservative competitor to Facebook with $100K. Like Facebook, it would begin small and rudimentary but if there was demand I could invest and grow it. Or maybe someone to buy Myspace and take it conservative.
 
These are not just private companies, they are monopolies that have a huge amount of sway and influence within the corridors of power. They are heavily intertwined into our political system because we don't have a true free market, we have crony capitalism.

Plus a scumbag like Zuckerberg has already shown that he has no problem working with Islamic governments in order to round up blasphemers, knowing full well that these people will face death as a result. And this guy has political ambitions of his own in America, even possibly running for president. So imagine a society ruled by a person like this and how he would deal with 'wrong thinkers'. It's actually a terrifying thought and modern day China might seem pretty decent by comparison.

Claims Facebook is a monopoly on a competing sight with the exact same goal of sharing political opinion and information. OK.
 
The internet may qualify as a "utility," but individual companies that use the internet like Facebook certainly do not. Facebook is simply a company that provides services via the internet. The internet is provide by ISP's such as Comcast, ATT, Charter, etc. I am not aware of any of those providers doing any censoring.

I could open a conservative competitor to Facebook with $100K. Like Facebook, it would begin small and rudimentary but if there was demand I could invest and grow it. Or maybe someone to buy Myspace and take it conservative.

It would immediately be target by the left and labelled as "racist". And other services would be closed off to them such as Paypal,etc.
 
It would immediately be target by the left and labelled as "racist". And other services would be closed off to them such as Paypal,etc.


You act like there are no successful conservative business on the internet.
 
Back
Top