YouTube bans Alex Jones

[newwurldmn]

I did not read the article about Kushner, but I don't need to. Censorship shouldn't be done, period (except by parents as mentioned above). The moment you begin down that path is the moment that the process becomes flawed and prone to bias.

Whether or not there are objective truths is irrelevant.

Firstly a world without some kind of censorship would not function. If I put a sign outside your work that you are a pedophile, that would cause you a problem even if it were not objectively true.

If I released government secrets, that would be okay because a confidentiality agreement is a form of censorship (not unlike a EULA or TOS).

Finally, even a conversation about censorship has bias. You have devoted more words defending Alex Jones censorship than you have to the NFL football players who kneeled for the national anthem.

 

[exGOPer]

I'm a moderate and a staunch capitalist who knows the difference between public and private sectors. But if you want to nationalize social media, yeah we can talk about the applicability of censorship.

A new Daily Beast/Ipsos poll finds that 43% of self-identified Republicans said that they believed “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.” Only 36% disagreed with that statement.

When asked if President Trump should close down specific outlets, including CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, 23% of Republicans agreed and 49% disagreed.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Firstly a world without some kind of censorship would not function. If I put a sign outside your work that you are a pedophile, that would cause you a problem even if it were not objectively true.

What? If you put a sign outside my office saying that, it isn't freedom of speech. It's blatant slander, of which there are laws and rules in place to prevent and allow me to sue you. Don't confuse this with censorship.

If I released government secrets, that would be okay because a confidentiality agreement is a form of censorship (not unlike a EULA or TOS).

Again, the agreement to not release proprietary data or information of a public, private company or government entity that you expressly committed to holding confidential is a breach of contract and punishable by the rules that are enforced accordingly, both criminally and civilly. This also, has nothing to do with censorship.

Finally, even a conversation about censorship has bias. You have devoted more words defending Alex Jones censorship than you have to the NFL football players who kneeled for the national anthem.

And what did I say about the NFL? I said the NFL has the right to punish the players accordingly because the players are employees of the NFL. No different than your boss can punish you (fines, firing, etc) if you do something that reflects poorly on the company. This is also not censorship, because a work contract has been signed.

You want to keep trying?

 

[sandp500trader]

A new Daily Beast/Ipsos poll finds that 43% of self-identified Republicans said that they believed “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.” Only 36% disagreed with that statement.

When asked if President Trump should close down specific outlets, including CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, 23% of Republicans agreed and 49% disagreed.

A lot of Republicans aren't true conservatives, nor are they true believers in liberty. I personally believe the less power a President has, the better.

 

[Poindexter]

Jones, Hannity, Limbaugh- all of them are full of shit and they fill peoples brains with lies. They should be banned too.

 

[exGOPer]

A lot of Republicans aren't true conservatives, nor are they true believers in liberty. I personally believe the less power a President has, the better.

Then you must be really supportive of Trump's Supreme Court pick who believe the law doesn't apply to Presidents.

 

[LS1Z28]

So if Verizon suddenly decided to cut off all internet access to people of a certain color, or gender, or political affiliation, you'd be ok because they're a private company?

They wouldn't be able to legally deny someone service based off of race or gender because they're protected classes. They could choose to deny someone service based off political affiliation. We saw an example of this recently when a restaurant refused to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

 

[newwurldmn]

What? If you put a sign outside my office saying that, it isn't freedom of speech. It's blatant slander, of which there are laws and rules in place to prevent and allow me to sue you. Don't confuse this with censorship.



Again, the agreement to not release proprietary data or information of a public, private company or government entity that you expressly committed to holding confidential is a breach of contract and punishable by the rules that are enforced accordingly, both criminally and civilly. This also, has nothing to do with censorship.



And what did I say about the NFL? I said the NFL has the right to punish the players accordingly because the players are employees of the NFL. No different than your boss can punish you (fines, firing, etc) if you do something that reflects poorly on the company. This is also not censorship, because a work contract has been signed.

You want to keep trying?

There are no objective facts - thus there is no such thing as slander, libel, or even confidentiality.

A TOS is also a contract. You sign one when you open an account with YouTube. Want to keep trying?

 

[sandp500trader]

Then you must be really supportive of Trump's Supreme Court pick who believe the law doesn't apply to Presidents.

I don't believe that's what, is it Kavanaugh, believes. But no, that would actually be the opposite of what I believe. A President having less power is no way is related to the idea of a President being above the law. And again, Kavanaugh, does not believe that a President is above the law.

 

[sandp500trader]

You've nearly gotten every liberal talking point down though. Surely you can't believe in every liberal meme out there. You must have atleast one original thought.