Trump Blasts Social Media ‘Censorship': ‘Discriminating Against Republican/Conservative Voices’

Then you and other Conservatives had best start working on getting the message out using the vast amount of alternative means provided to you by the internet. Thus far you have pretended that solutions to your problem don't exist when they do, and refused to offer any solution beyond wishful thinking.

As long as your only solution is to somehow magically have private companies who do not wish to promote your ideas promote them (the very definition of ridiculous) then I guess you have a problem. It amuses me that Conservative have no issue forcing people to go through sometimes difficult processes just to register vote, but act like it is 1984 when they have to spend a few minutes at their desk to find a bit of information.

 

We'll just have to disagree.

You're basically saying that 1) you don't care about discrimination along idiological lines, and 2) conservatives should just migrate on over to some other platform which rivals the scope of google, youtube, facebook, apple, twitter, etc and allows conservative commentators access to as broad of an audience.

You're not living in an actual plane of reality if you believe those are reasonable positions to hold. I doubt you actually believe these things, but more than likely it's just cover for the fact that you applaud what's happening. Thanks for the chat though.

 

As someone who owned internet sites in the early days of the internet I can attest to the difficulty of getting sites listed in search engines. In the beginning it was easy but as time passed it became almost impossible to get your site on search engines so my sites just died away because nobody could find them. So "just start your own site" can't work if it is not listed in the first 3 pages of an internet search if at all.

 

A company has the right to operate their business as they see fit. Don't like it start your own.. Simple as that..

 

I get called weekly because my ad and site are paid to be in the top listings..It's has always been about buying shelf space in the market...

 

There are no First Amendment issues here.

The First Amendment does not guarantee a speaker unlimited access to the privately owned plastform of their choosing.

All this is because they collectively got rid of a crackpot conspiracy theorist (Alex Jones). The noise machine knows that the talk radio Trumpster right threats people like Glen Beck and Alex Jones seriously.

After all, these guys to do play to the paranoid comic book world view that is very popular in the American right, and near universal in the far right.

And, claiming descrimination when there isn't any First Amendment issues is a great way to feed the angry white persecution complex.

 

And if the people you are buying "shelf space" from do not want to sell the space to you because they object to the content of your site, what then.

 

The same thing occurs at every store in the USA, if the shelf space is taken offer more for the shelf space. That is how the game is played in the real world..or advertise on radio and TV.

 

"The less intelligent conservative/libertarian argument of “just start your own site” doesn’t work. This isn’t a cake shop where you can go across the street to a competing business. "

Well, yes there is.

We're talking about public access here. And the platform is the internet, not any of the privately held social media companies that are on it. No one is guaranteed the absolute right to access to a privately held platform.

Yes, you can set up your own presence on the internet. In fact, it's pretty easy to do.

I don't know what the nonsense about Microsoft was about. Microsoft doesn't own the internet or issued domain names.

 

Open your own store, or find another one.

 

Actually, I hope the right pursues this.

After all, they cheered loudly when Trump's FCC Chairman Agit Pai made the internet safe for the big ISP's, over the objections of just about everyone other than Comcast, Cox and TimeWarner.

Now that their ox is gored, they can come back and reverse themselves and regulate the internet as a common carrier.

I was not particularly pleased that they all tossed Alex Jones. The guy is a fool, a far right wing lunatic, who deals in made up conspiracy theories and convoluded, yet naieve explanations for the way the world works that appeal to a low information, not too worldly audience that is too lazy to actually read and learn on their own.

He's pretty easy to ignore.

 

I'm glad you identify jones as a conservative. If hes a conservative, what does that say about those who give a damn?

 

Poor defence

You are up in arms over a private company banning one person but give a free pass to the NRA using legislation to gag medical officers

 

This is a different matter altogether. Got to remember that not everyone with similar content can be on the first few pages. Eventually the rest go on the remaining pages. Still, they are listed.

Also, you have to hustle, set meta info appropriately, and your content has to be in demand for traffic no matter where you show up in listings anyway.

 

No you couldn't be more wrong!!!!
This is a perfect example of the bakery!!!!

https://fossbytes.com/best-facebook-alternatives/
There are many social networks, messaging apps, and news aggregation sites that you can get as a replacement of Facebook. So, let’s tell you about them in brief:

 

Bill Maher isn't a conservative, yet gives a damn. It's not like most of us are huge Jones fans anyhow, it's just that Jones has been the most egregious example of what's going on.

 

Who are these other conservative content provides you keep mentioning? Are you referring to youtube mass demonetizing of videos that happened a while back or was it something specific to targeting conservatives?

 

The problem is, whether or not those platforms are truly 'privately-owned'. The internet is different via its connecting interface system. I live in Detroit, you live somewhere in the USA. Before the advent of the internet, our conversation would have been almost impossible(unless we shared numbers for some reason and even then we'd have no way of doing that unless we met physically or god forbid someone looks up my number in a Yellow Pages lol.). What they own is the domain Facebook.com or Twitter.com, etc. The idea that they own the things hosted, I've never thought that to be a consistent legal argument.

Does Bell own our communications? It owns the records to be sure, but if they released them without a warrant it would constitute a gross violation of the 4th Amendment. We are ALL bound by the US Constitution, the idea that private persons can violate other person's rights because "they are not the government" is the most absurd argument ever. In which case, it'd be okay for slavery to start again as long as the federal government doesn't engage in said slavery.

TLDR: While the platforms may be 'privately-owned', the nature of the communications is in the interface, open-system of the internet. In truth and consistency, the only thing these platform owners truly own, is the domain name and the money they've made off of their stocks. They don't own these private communications.

As proof, some newspaper articles have this in the opinion section: "This is the opinion of the person in question and is not endorsed by (insert name of newspaper here.)". To me, the wide web is in the same fashion as a newspaper's opinion section.

 

Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern, PragerU, Jordan Perterson, Gad Saad, Dave Rubin... these are just NOTABLE commentators.

 

I don't understand you point? Why is it not a "consistent legal argument" to own the intellectual property, physical hardware and manpower required to create and maintain a site like Facebook or Twitter?

 

I have heard of the names but not familiar with their situation. Who is censoring them?

 

Because the user account is not really a part of the intellectual property. Or here's another way to think about it: If no one ever signed up for Facebook, then Facebook would've never been a thing. The same for twitter and the same for these others. They are more reliant on users using their product, then they are on the product's value. This isn't like an item for sale where some people choose to buy this item and another choose to buy another item, if there's no demand for these services then they will tank(See: FB Stocks of recent.)

So it's true that they own all of those things, but I argue the user account is not their intellectual property. It's the intellectual property of the "user"(duh.) Zuckerburg should be happy with that interpretation. He'd be spared many a Congressional meetings.

 

What are ya? A commie? Why should a deranged dumbf*ck like Jones have a right to be on a private website?

Jones can start up his own website.

 

You use other avenues like other companies have had to do..I am not saying what they do is fair or ethical all I am saying it is what is done, like it or not. Big business is a war zone and other companies and business professionals are looking to kill your chances of making it.

 

i think your post stands just fine on its own without the need for labelling. it only, in fact, weakens your argument.