1984 in 2018

[_Water Dog]

I love it when the news of the day just continues proving me right.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08 ... ocide.html

[_subgenius]

perhaps you could tell us "why not"?
Is there some sort of hidden morality/integrity in Facebook ? Is Facebook some bastion of something yet to be revealed ?

I mean, granted I am all about that tasty freedom, but why care what Facebook promotes or does not promote? Does Jones being on YouTube cause you much hand-wringing?

Shocking, another mouth breathing trumpster who doesn't support the rights of private companies to support and enforce their own rules - unless it involves baking gay themed cakes, then they are all about supporting the bigots right to run his business however he wants. Im sensing a pattern here.

Well, you're obviously the one with the 3rd copy of chromosome 21 aren't ya?
At what point in that post is the claim for a right or prohibition of private companies supporting and enforcing their own rules?

Perhaps you could start a thread, a sort of how-to, about the merits of posting with one hand on the keyboard and a another hand grasping a bottle of Jergen's.

[_Water Dog]

Of course.

One day after what appeared to be a coordinated attack by media giants Facebook, Apple, Spotify and Google on Alex Jones, whose various social media accounts were banned or suspended in a matter of hours, the crackdown against alternative media figures continued as several Libertarian figures, including the Ron Paul Institute director, found their Twitter accounts suspended.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08- ... g-ron-paul


Nothing to see here, just a bohemian grove orgy, or whatever the hell Kish was saying earlier.

All your base are belong to us. A leaked memo circulating among Senate Democrats contains a host of bonkers authoritarian proposals for regulating digital platforms, purportedly as a way to get tough on Russian bots and fake news. To save American trust in "our institutions, democracy, free press, and markets," it suggests, we need unprecedented and undemocratic government intervention into online press and markets, including "comprehensive (GDPR-like) data protection legislation" of the sort enacted in the E.U.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/demo ... ans-leaked


Huh, didn't I just say this very thing?

Apple has benefited from cheap labor and a strong supply chain in China and needs to share more of its profit with the Chinese people or face "anger and nationalist sentiment" amid the ongoing trade war, an article in the state-backed People's Daily warned Tuesday. The article originally appeared in another state-backed publication, Global Times, last week.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/07/apple-c ... -chip.html

[_schreech]

Good lord, and I'm the one with poor reading comprehension?

Uh, yea, you don't really seem to be capable of comprehending what anybody writes, you can't seem to compare things that are similar and you seem to imagine people are saying things they arent.

Your web hosting company isn't the internet. There are thousands of such companies. There is only one Facebook. Do you really not understand the concept of a monopoly?

WTF are you talking about? Facebook is not the internet. There is only ONE comcast therefore, monopoly!. There are, literally, thousands of social media companies that cater to every kind of freak and fetish. You are just not very good at logic are you?

I would be happy to discuss the topic further, but to be honest it just isn't very interesting or fun with someone like you. Besides being a jackass, you're just wrong. This is not some flat earth concept I pulled out of my ass. Congress has been holding hearings about it, it's a topic that has been widely debated for many years now.

You don't seem capable of discussing the topic. Other than pearl grasping anti-librul rants, you've got nothing. Congress has been holding hearings about not letting a private company enforce their own terms and conditions??? WTF are you even on about?

[_Themis]

A coordinated ban of Infowars between independent companies. How, what's the word, collusive?

Sure it's collusive but not illegal. It doesn't ban free speech. Every media platform filters the messages to some extent. Some do it with a political agenda. What I like to see is filtering for messages that are consistently inaccurate and promoting things like hatred, racism, etc. These messages do great harm to society and do not deserve all these platforms to promote falsehoods and hatred. It sounds like you agree that he is promoting falsehoods and things like hatred.

[_Ceeboo]

This goes beyond Alex Jones and it's very complex:

As an example, PragerU recently filed a lawsuit against Google/YouTube. I followed it off and on because I listen to Prager's radio show quite often. Rather than trying to articulate the many layers involved with this, I decided to post a press release Prager made about it (Not sure if it will allow you to click on the "full lawsuit complaint here" tab - But I guess we will see shortly.)

It's long but I didn't want to post it out of context - so here it is:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



PragerU Takes Legal Action Against Google and YouTube for Discrimination
Press Release
VIEW FULL LAWSUIT COMPLAINT HERE

“This is speech discrimination plain and simple, censorship based entirely on unspecified ideological objection to the message or on the perceived identity and political viewpoint of the speaker”
- 36th Governor of California Pete Wilson
Browne, George, Ross LLP

LOS ANGELES — Prager University (PragerU) has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to stop Google and YouTube from unlawfully censoring its educational videos and discriminating against its right to freedom of speech.

The lawsuit cites more than 50 PragerU videos which have either been “restricted” or “demonetized” by Google/YouTube. The PragerU videos range on various subjects presenting a conservative point of view, and include a video by noted Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on the founding of Israel. PragerU previously compiled a complete list of their restricted videos here, which includes: “Why America Must Lead,” “The Ten Commandments: Do Not Murder,” “Why Did America Fight the Korean War,” and “The World’s Most Persecuted Minority: Christians.”

In correspondence cited in the filing, Google/YouTube made it clear that the censorship of certain videos was because they were deemed “inappropriate” for younger audiences.

“Watch any one of our videos and you’ll immediately realize that Google/YouTube censorship is entirely ideologically driven. For the record, our videos are presented by some of the finest minds in the Western world, including four Pulitzer Prize winners, former prime ministers, and professors from the most prestigious universities in America,” stated PragerU founder Dennis Prager.

Prager added, “They are engaging in an arbitrary and capricious use of their ‘restricted mode’ and ‘demonetization’ to restrict non-left political thought. Their censorship is profoundly damaging because Google and YouTube own and control the largest forum for public participation in video-based speech in not only California, but the United States, and the world.”

The total number of people who currently use YouTube exceeds 1.3 billion people. Google and YouTube advertise YouTube to the public as a forum intended to defend and protect free speech where members of the general public may express and exchange their ideas. They have represented that their platforms and services are intended to effectuate the exercise of free speech among the public. According to Google and YouTube: “voices matter.” YouTube states that it is “committed to fostering a community where everyone’s voice can be heard.”

“However,” said Eric George of Browne George Ross, the firm representing PragerU, “Google and YouTube use restricted mode filtering not to protect younger or sensitive viewers from ‘inappropriate’ video content, but as a political gag mechanism to silence PragerU. Google and YouTube do this not because they have identified video content that violates their guidelines or is otherwise inappropriate for younger viewers, but because PragerU is a conservative nonprofit organization that is associated with and espouses the views of leading conservative speakers and scholars.”

“This is speech discrimination plain and simple, censorship based entirely on unspecified ideological objection to the message or on the perceived identity and political viewpoint of the speaker,” said former California Governor Pete Wilson of Browne George Ross. “Google and YouTube’s use of restricted mode filtering to silence PragerU violates its fundamental First Amendment rights under both the California and United States Constitutions. It constitutes unlawful discrimination under California law, is a misleading and unfair business practice, and breaches the warranty of good faith and fair dealing implied in Google and YouTube’s own Terms of Use and 'Community Guidelines.'”

“There is absolutely nothing ‘inappropriate’ about the content of the PragerU videos censored by Google and YouTube; the videos do not contain any profanity, nudity or otherwise inappropriate ‘mature’ content and they fully comply with the letter of YouTube’s Terms of Use and Community Guidelines,” said Marissa Streit, PragerU’s chief executive officer who has engaged in a year-long-effort to try and persuade Google to stop censoring PragerU content. Streit continues, “It's clear that someone doesn’t like what we teach and so they intend on stopping us from teaching it. Can you imagine what the world would look like if Google is allowed to continue to arbitrarily censor ideas they simply don’t agree with?”

“This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” Prager concluded.

The lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California is available here.

[_Kishkumen]

One thing’s certain: the horror of Alex Jones has sent right wing media into a panic. GOP politician had her video blocked by a Facebook algorithm, until it was unblocked on review! The Chinese are demanding bigger profits from Apple! PragerU still sucks ass!

[_schreech]

Dude, your continued fantasies involving me and masturbation are getting kind of creepy and way too specific. If you werent such a basement dwelling tool stuck in some crappy town on the other side of the country, I would be a little worried. Luckily you don't get out much and, from what I can tell, you seem like kind of a loser...

Anyway....I was responding to your comment "perhaps you could tell us "why not"?". I directed you to their terms and conditions. If i misunderstood, which is very possible since you seem barely capable of communicating rational thought, and you agree that Facebook is well within their rights to shut down alex jones and that this doesn't, in any way, constitute an infringement on his freedom of speech, then I apologize and agree with you.

[_Kishkumen]

Here is the title of a PragerU video:

“The World’s Most Persecuted Minority: Christians.”

According to a 2011 Pew Research Center survey, there were 2.19 billion Christians around the world in 2010, more than three times as much from the 600 million recorded in 1910, however this rate of growth is slower than the overall population growth over the same time period. According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study, by 2050, the Christian population is expected to be 3.0 billion.

Christians make up 31.7% of the global population. Christianity is the largest world religion.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth

[Guest]

---snip---

Honestly, I don't entirely disagree with what you posted about google and youtube. I don't think companies should be able to arbitrarily discriminate. I think the baker who refuses to bake cakes for gay couples should have to put up a sign of his "terms and conditions" for everyone to see much like google and youtube do. His bigotry should be displayed prominently for any would be patrons. Same with google or youtube if they choose to not accommodate certain viewpoints, they should say so right up front.

If they break their terms and conditions, then I think they should be held accountable. If prager didn't break the rules that youtube agreed to do business under, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to seek compensation. If he is being arbitrarily targeted and a portion of his livelihood is derived from youtube and based on the marketplace and rules they have created, he may have a leg to stand on here.

That said, the algorithms they use change constantly and react to all kinds of triggers and situation like brigading, fake traffic, profitability, popularity, connectivity with competing sites, competitors and partnerships, copyright conflicts, etc. There are dozens of reasons pragers videos could have been pushed lower in searches or put into a queue for review. I will be interested to see how that turns out.