(08-06-2018 04:58 PM)green Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, so youre saying that a private company should be forced to promote speech that it disagrees with? Good, I'm looking forward to selling a line of abortion pills on the Hobby Lobby site or having CBN and Lifesite promote my political videos.

Guys, you are tying yourselves in knots here. There's no way to mandate that a PRIVATE company use the assets they PRIVATELY raised and invested in their own company allow someone who they don't agree with to SELL (and yes, Jones makes money off his videos) products and services they don't agree with either. And they aren't even a public accommodation either. The FCC says so.

apple, alphabet, twitter, facebook are publicly traded companies ...

SQUAWK BOX

and you know youtube is just around the corner.....

I youtube quite a bit.....and I can tell you they've gone the google algorithm route over the last couple of years....

like querying google to find a specific, it's becoming increasingly more difficult.....

(08-06-2018 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 02:51 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:50 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:47 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Alex Jones is a twat. There's a supreme difference between having the freedom of speech and spreading misinformation, peddling conspiracy theories, coordinating targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies, and doing it all to profit off of website traffic and ad space. Cry about it all you want, but this is what Alex Jones is guilty of, and this is why he is being removed from these platforms. Anyone who follows and accepts Jones' vitriol as fact is a hair-brained dingus who is probably also a flat-earther.

Link?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...72301.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...524148002/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017...tim-father

No, I'm aware that he is being sued. I'm also aware of how frivolous the lawsuit is, how many of the claims against him are outside the statute of limitations (going back to 2012), how difficult it is to proof defamation, and how he will probably win.

Anyone can sue him, that doesn't mean he's guilty.

Show me the proof of what I bolded, your claim that he "coordinated targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies". That's complete and utter nonsense.

It's a financial attack more than a legal challenge. Left leaning donors gives to the attorneys fund for the plaintiff and if these are numerous enough, and protracted enough they can spend the one being sued into oblivion.

BTW: The right has done the same thing. As as municipalities in taking little old widow women's homes (as in Boston) by tying up people who can't afford legal representation with imminent domain cases so that the land could be sold by the city for commercial purposes. The projected sales tax became the basis for the claim that the US Supreme Court upheld under Bush. The threat of lawsuit by corporate entities over patents is a long and checkered one as well. Financial bullying occurs across the board! That's what happens in a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.

+3

(08-06-2018 04:59 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  and you know youtube is just around the corner.....

alphabet, google's parent company, owns youtube ...

WILLY & THE POOR BOYS

(08-06-2018 04:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 02:51 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...72301.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...524148002/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017...tim-father

No, I'm aware that he is being sued. I'm also aware of how frivolous the lawsuit is, how many of the claims against him are outside the statute of limitations (going back to 2012), how difficult it is to proof defamation, and how he will probably win.

Anyone can sue him, that doesn't mean he's guilty.

Show me the proof of what I bolded, your claim that he "coordinated targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies". That's complete and utter nonsense.

It's a financial attack more than a legal challenge. Left leaning donors gives to the attorneys fund for the plaintiff and if these are numerous enough, and protracted enough they can spend the one being sued into oblivion.

BTW: The right has done the same thing. As as municipalities in taking little old widow women's homes (as in Boston) by tying up people who can't afford legal representation with imminent domain cases so that the land could be sold by the city for commercial purposes. The projected sales tax became the basis for the claim that the US Supreme Court upheld under Bush. The threat of lawsuit by corporate entities over patents is a long and checkered one as well. Financial bullying occurs across the board! That's what happens in a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.

XACLY!

This isn't the government. These are private businesses. Jones has zero recourse here, other than to whine.

The government can challenge it as a monopoly. Or they can take away their liability protection as simply a carrier of what others say and treat them like a newspaper.

Jones may have recourse against a concerted action as this appears to be. If only one did it then you would be right.

(08-06-2018 04:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:44 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:25 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Which side is an immutable characteristic in your opinion the bakers religion or the couples sexual orientation?

you really don't understand the difference.....

one could argue brick and mortar vs. the ethereal is synonymous....but you'd be wrong....

there's a difference between religious rights vs.monopolizing the media that is the internutz.....

hopefully congress and the SCOTUS will help move that along quick like....

this was all part of the equation going in when DJT picked the fight with the MSM.....people like you simply tend to focus on the tidbits and knee-jerk yourselves to death......

hell, that's why I come here exclusively.....too many of y'all crack me the fk up.....

this board is a hodge-podge of porridge, pudding, and pie.....

So it’s completely impossible to start a competeing social media platform or video streaming service? So net neutrality is bad because monopolies are bad?

Its the wrong question. If a monopoly exists, you have an issue. Barriers of entry are high. Impossibility is not a necessity.

And Net neutrality is a totally different thing. Its about priority service.

What barriers to entry are there to starting a video streaming site? Very few. What Jones wants is access to all the people that those companies have on their platforms. People and traffic that all 3 companies spent literally billions collecting.

And I'm glad that since impossibility is not a necessity, that we can get all the hospitals that don't have competition to provide admitting rights for abortion providers. I'm thinking that its about as hard for Alex Jones to create a new fb, than it would be for an abortion provider to gain access to some (loosely affiliated ) religious hospital in a one hospital town.

Demanding fb, Youtube, and Apple broadcast Alex Jones is about the same as demanding Sinclair and Fox News allow liberals to just take over a part of their prime time broadcast for their own purposes.

Texas's restriction on abortions got partly reversed because there were no alternatives in some parts of the state.

You are totally missing the boat on your last paragraph. Those channels are not treated like media. They have a more favorable liability and less requirements for opposing viewpoints because they proclaim themselves a carrier, not actual media. They want all the benefits and none of the downsides while maintaining a near monopoly.

(08-06-2018 04:58 PM)green Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, so youre saying that a private company should be forced to promote speech that it disagrees with? Good, I'm looking forward to selling a line of abortion pills on the Hobby Lobby site or having CBN and Lifesite promote my political videos.

Guys, you are tying yourselves in knots here. There's no way to mandate that a PRIVATE company use the assets they PRIVATELY raised and invested in their own company allow someone who they don't agree with to SELL (and yes, Jones makes money off his videos) products and services they don't agree with either. And they aren't even a public accommodation either. The FCC says so.

apple, alphabet, twitter, facebook are publicly traded companies ...

SQUAWK BOX

Private...means not owned by the government.

(08-06-2018 05:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:44 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  you really don't understand the difference.....

one could argue brick and mortar vs. the ethereal is synonymous....but you'd be wrong....

there's a difference between religious rights vs.monopolizing the media that is the internutz.....

hopefully congress and the SCOTUS will help move that along quick like....

this was all part of the equation going in when DJT picked the fight with the MSM.....people like you simply tend to focus on the tidbits and knee-jerk yourselves to death......

hell, that's why I come here exclusively.....too many of y'all crack me the fk up.....

this board is a hodge-podge of porridge, pudding, and pie.....

So it’s completely impossible to start a competeing social media platform or video streaming service? So net neutrality is bad because monopolies are bad?

Its the wrong question. If a monopoly exists, you have an issue. Barriers of entry are high. Impossibility is not a necessity.

And Net neutrality is a totally different thing. Its about priority service.

What barriers to entry are there to starting a video streaming site? Very few. What Jones wants is access to all the people that those companies have on their platforms. People and traffic that all 3 companies spent literally billions collecting.

And I'm glad that since impossibility is not a necessity, that we can get all the hospitals that don't have competition to provide admitting rights for abortion providers. I'm thinking that its about as hard for Alex Jones to create a new fb, than it would be for an abortion provider to gain access to some (loosely affiliated ) religious hospital in a one hospital town.

Demanding fb, Youtube, and Apple broadcast Alex Jones is about the same as demanding Sinclair and Fox News allow liberals to just take over a part of their prime time broadcast for their own purposes.

Texas's restriction on abortions got partly reversed because there were no alternatives in some parts of the state.

You are totally missing the boat on your last paragraph. Those channels are not treated like media. They have a more favorable liability and less requirements for opposing viewpoints because they proclaim themselves a carrier, not actual media. They want all the benefits and none of the downsides while maintaining a near monopoly.

There's plenty of alternatives to fb youtube and apple. They just don't have the audience that those three have. There's no monopoly.

(08-06-2018 05:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  No, I'm aware that he is being sued. I'm also aware of how frivolous the lawsuit is, how many of the claims against him are outside the statute of limitations (going back to 2012), how difficult it is to proof defamation, and how he will probably win.

Anyone can sue him, that doesn't mean he's guilty.

Show me the proof of what I bolded, your claim that he "coordinated targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies". That's complete and utter nonsense.

It's a financial attack more than a legal challenge. Left leaning donors gives to the attorneys fund for the plaintiff and if these are numerous enough, and protracted enough they can spend the one being sued into oblivion.

BTW: The right has done the same thing. As as municipalities in taking little old widow women's homes (as in Boston) by tying up people who can't afford legal representation with imminent domain cases so that the land could be sold by the city for commercial purposes. The projected sales tax became the basis for the claim that the US Supreme Court upheld under Bush. The threat of lawsuit by corporate entities over patents is a long and checkered one as well. Financial bullying occurs across the board! That's what happens in a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.

XACLY!

This isn't the government. These are private businesses. Jones has zero recourse here, other than to whine.

The government can challenge it as a monopoly. Or they can take away their liability protection as simply a carrier of what others say and treat them like a newspaper.

Jones may have recourse against a concerted action as this appears to be. If only one did it then you would be right.

that's where I see it headed....

just like ma bell as the sole carrier vs. squashing emerging competition.....they're now synonymous in the 21st century.....

it's the perfect anti-trust/1st amendment argument....

(08-06-2018 05:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:44 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  you really don't understand the difference.....

one could argue brick and mortar vs. the ethereal is synonymous....but you'd be wrong....

there's a difference between religious rights vs.monopolizing the media that is the internutz.....

hopefully congress and the SCOTUS will help move that along quick like....

this was all part of the equation going in when DJT picked the fight with the MSM.....people like you simply tend to focus on the tidbits and knee-jerk yourselves to death......

hell, that's why I come here exclusively.....too many of y'all crack me the fk up.....

this board is a hodge-podge of porridge, pudding, and pie.....

So it’s completely impossible to start a competeing social media platform or video streaming service? So net neutrality is bad because monopolies are bad?

Its the wrong question. If a monopoly exists, you have an issue. Barriers of entry are high. Impossibility is not a necessity.

And Net neutrality is a totally different thing. Its about priority service.

What barriers to entry are there to starting a video streaming site? Very few. What Jones wants is access to all the people that those companies have on their platforms. People and traffic that all 3 companies spent literally billions collecting.

And I'm glad that since impossibility is not a necessity, that we can get all the hospitals that don't have competition to provide admitting rights for abortion providers. I'm thinking that its about as hard for Alex Jones to create a new fb, than it would be for an abortion provider to gain access to some (loosely affiliated ) religious hospital in a one hospital town.

Demanding fb, Youtube, and Apple broadcast Alex Jones is about the same as demanding Sinclair and Fox News allow liberals to just take over a part of their prime time broadcast for their own purposes.

Texas's restriction on abortions got partly reversed because there were no alternatives in some parts of the state.

You are totally missing the boat on your last paragraph. Those channels are not treated like media. They have a more favorable liability and less requirements for opposing viewpoints because they proclaim themselves a carrier, not actual media. They want all the benefits and none of the downsides while maintaining a near monopoly.

But the courts didn't mandate that the hospitals allow the abortion providers to have admitting rights at the hospitals.

(08-06-2018 05:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 05:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:44 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So it’s completely impossible to start a competeing social media platform or video streaming service? So net neutrality is bad because monopolies are bad?

Its the wrong question. If a monopoly exists, you have an issue. Barriers of entry are high. Impossibility is not a necessity.

And Net neutrality is a totally different thing. Its about priority service.

What barriers to entry are there to starting a video streaming site? Very few. What Jones wants is access to all the people that those companies have on their platforms. People and traffic that all 3 companies spent literally billions collecting.

And I'm glad that since impossibility is not a necessity, that we can get all the hospitals that don't have competition to provide admitting rights for abortion providers. I'm thinking that its about as hard for Alex Jones to create a new fb, than it would be for an abortion provider to gain access to some (loosely affiliated ) religious hospital in a one hospital town.

Demanding fb, Youtube, and Apple broadcast Alex Jones is about the same as demanding Sinclair and Fox News allow liberals to just take over a part of their prime time broadcast for their own purposes.

Texas's restriction on abortions got partly reversed because there were no alternatives in some parts of the state.

You are totally missing the boat on your last paragraph. Those channels are not treated like media. They have a more favorable liability and less requirements for opposing viewpoints because they proclaim themselves a carrier, not actual media. They want all the benefits and none of the downsides while maintaining a near monopoly.

There's plenty of alternatives to fb youtube and apple. They just don't have the audience that those three have. There's no monopoly.

read post #150....tell me how they don't walk hand in hand today.....

and lazy tom, this is more about controlling content than anything else.....

certainly EWE of ALL understand THAT.....

(08-06-2018 05:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 05:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:44 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So it’s completely impossible to start a competeing social media platform or video streaming service? So net neutrality is bad because monopolies are bad?

Its the wrong question. If a monopoly exists, you have an issue. Barriers of entry are high. Impossibility is not a necessity.

And Net neutrality is a totally different thing. Its about priority service.

What barriers to entry are there to starting a video streaming site? Very few. What Jones wants is access to all the people that those companies have on their platforms. People and traffic that all 3 companies spent literally billions collecting.

And I'm glad that since impossibility is not a necessity, that we can get all the hospitals that don't have competition to provide admitting rights for abortion providers. I'm thinking that its about as hard for Alex Jones to create a new fb, than it would be for an abortion provider to gain access to some (loosely affiliated ) religious hospital in a one hospital town.

Demanding fb, Youtube, and Apple broadcast Alex Jones is about the same as demanding Sinclair and Fox News allow liberals to just take over a part of their prime time broadcast for their own purposes.

Texas's restriction on abortions got partly reversed because there were no alternatives in some parts of the state.

You are totally missing the boat on your last paragraph. Those channels are not treated like media. They have a more favorable liability and less requirements for opposing viewpoints because they proclaim themselves a carrier, not actual media. They want all the benefits and none of the downsides while maintaining a near monopoly.

There's plenty of alternatives to fb youtube and apple. They just don't have the audience that those three have. There's no monopoly.

There were lots of alternatives to Ma Bell. They were just tiny, so it was still a monopoly.

lol wut is happening

I'll say this...

now that there appears to be a coordinated effort to ban Alex Jones / InfoWars I'm starting to think his stuff hit much closer to the truth that we thought.

(08-06-2018 05:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  lol wut is happening

the recess going into the midterms....

(08-06-2018 05:31 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I'll say this...

now that there appears to be a coordinated effort to ban Alex Jones / InfoWars I'm starting to think his stuff hit much closer to the truth that we thought.

that's very plausible....I wouldn't step out on the ledge for it, but if I'm AJ, my head is on a swivel at this point.....

(08-06-2018 05:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  lol wut is happening

LOL.

Next thing you know he'll be banned from farmersonly.com

----

Private business, private rules. Wut? Some of y'all thought that private property rights only extend to conservative decisions by companies?

(08-06-2018 05:31 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I'll say this...

now that there appears to be a coordinated effort to ban Alex Jones / InfoWars I'm starting to think his stuff hit much closer to the truth that we thought.

There IS a coordinated effort to ban Alex Jones/Infowars. From a large part of the public that is sick of his misinformation. Companies are getting a lot of bad customer feedback from hosting his lies and misinformation.

Look at this as a fantastic opportunity to create Breitbarttube and NoCuckboook. Go out there and start your own companies!

(08-06-2018 05:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 05:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  lol wut is happening

LOL.

Next thing you know he'll be banned from farmersonly.com

----

Private business, private rules. Wut? Some of y'all thought that private property rights only extend to conservative decisions by companies?

there's quite a difference between facecrap, twitter twat,xs and the other ones vs. porn....

I'd love to see you argue that one in court.......

btw, all you had to do was stop with the second line item.......that was actually funny....

(08-06-2018 05:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 05:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 05:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  lol wut is happening

LOL.

Next thing you know he'll be banned from farmersonly.com

----

Private business, private rules. Wut? Some of y'all thought that private property rights only extend to conservative decisions by companies?

there's quite a difference between facecrap, twitter twat,xs and the other ones vs. porn....

I'd love to see you argue that one in court.......

btw, all you had to do was stop with the second line item.......that was actually funny....

If Jones sues, I would imagine that the Masterpiece Cake, and the Hobby Lobby cases will figure into the pleadings, if it doesn't get summarily squashed before trial.