Well well look what we have hear

[yidnar]

Like I said earlier, we tried it your way and it nearly tore the country apart.

So, that is a resounding "YES" right? You want to control thoughts you don't like, RIGHT???

(and I disagree that it nearly tore ANYTHING apart. It was more thought control, and likely would have gone away over time without the serious intrusion on liberty. It certainly is not necessary NOW).

.

The civil rights movement took place 100 years after the civil war. The idea that it would have “gone away” over time defies he factual history of the matter.

I know thought crime sounds scary but motive matters in law quite a lot. Crimes based on thought is not new.

and there you have it folks...... the communist thought police .

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Like I said earlier, we tried it your way and it nearly tore the country apart.

So, that is a resounding "YES" right? You want to control thoughts you don't like, RIGHT???

(and I disagree that it nearly tore ANYTHING apart. It was more thought control, and likely would have gone away over time without the serious intrusion on liberty. It certainly is not necessary NOW).

.

The civil rights movement took place 100 years after the civil war. The idea that it would have “gone away” over time defies he factual history of the matter.

I know thought crime sounds scary but motive matters in law quite a lot. Crimes based on thought is not new.

Motive, as it relates to a crime, is irrelevant. Just because the cop shows and Boston Legal talk about establishing a motive, it is NOT a necessary element of any crime. Only intent is a necessary element.

Take murder and hate crimes, for example:
If you intentionally kill a gay person, he is no less or more dead than if you did so while yelling "******" UNLESS we are trying to punish you extra hard for being bigoted against gay people (which is what we are doing). And, yes. "Hate" crimes are bullshit and mere attempts to control thought.

.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

It's just not government doing it.

At the same time, government was not discriminating against black folks looking for a hotel or a restaurant.

Do you see your own hypocrisy?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

Again, your hypocrisy is showing.

.

A cake shop isn't integral to freedom of marriage, but we have decided that as a society we do not allow some types of business to refuse service based on some characteristics such as sexual orientation.

Now, if a gay couple walks into a cake shop asking for a wedding cake while acting incredibly rude to everyone that works there, I'd have no problem with the shop tossing them on their behavior. Because that decision would be rooted in a behavior, but not their identity as a gay individual.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

Interesting question. I looked a while ago and not sure if public accommodation laws applied to websites and didn't get much of a conclusive answer so I'm not entirely sure.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

for the baker - if no other bakery was available then i would say he has less of a case. however, there are 50 bakeries around his and he wasn't even in the top 10. he was like 14 at the time. so if you can get the same services elsewhere i see it as less of an issue.

but you have no other option if google says "**** off". you're fucked. gonna count on duck duck go to carry you through?

the laws are going to change to meet the times. while trump and biden both want S230 protection gone they want it for different reasons. but they both want it gone and it is picking up bipartisan support. we'll see what they choose to do in their infinate wisdom.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

Again, this has nothing to do with section 230.

You have plenty of options without Google. In this instance, The Federalist could sell ad space directly to advertisers. Google just make the transaction easier, but in no way is necessary. Are we to force Google to serve ads to The Federalist because they're too lazy to do it themselves?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

and your statement is telling me you've never tried to sell online advertising. give it a shot w/o google in the mix. not going to happen. almost every utility is google centric for stats, traffic, and if you don't follow googles SEO rules you're fucked in searched already.

your method would work in on a limited scale but again google's SEO would then start blocking linkbacks and other ways to even be found via any searches at all. most other search engines just use googles shit vs. recreate it.

so no. you won't get far w/o google in the mix.

but now tell - do you or do you not have an issue if google decides no gayness can be on their "platform" or service? you've given them total power to tell one scenario to **** off - so where does that "power" end?

Public accommodation laws may be a victim of their own success. But these are still laws that prevent discrimination based on identity, not behavior. So it’s a rather apples and oranges.

The fact that Google’s product is superior in no way changes the root of the issue. But you seem to be bouncing between search and Adsense which is two different products.

no. it's not.

google can either dictate who uses their services or they can't. if you let them do it to one group do you think they will stop there? does ANYONE ever stop at just silencing ONE group? if you say google can silence a websites content then they can silence a websites content.

you can't say ONLY CONSERVATIVE websites. well what i'm it's a conservative gay one?

you think you can keep pandora in the box but you can't. ***** is out and hungry. she's not going to stop until she's eaten her own and that includes anything that gets in their way and that is subject to change with the wind.

and lobbing out a key word you "googled" doesn't mean you understand SEO and search engine placement. but if you wish to go into heavy debate on it let me know.

Again, Google isn't silencing a website. The Federalist website does not require Google to exist.

At the end of the day, Google has a product they produced and some people feel they have a right to that product. They don't. This entire issue boils down to some people (conservatives it would seem in large part) think that they can force someone else to promote and facilitate their speech no matter what that speech contains. Sorry, that's just not going to work and attempting to force that upon the country is going to ruin the internet.

again - they would not be silencing gays either but you seem to draw the line there.

the point is - once you allow google to do this to ANYONE, you're next.

i found long ago people do what they do. if they can pull bullshit on one person, they can do it to me regardless of how close we may or may not be.

if you allow google/facebook/twitter and social media to dictate what is real, don't think for a second you'll agree with that for very long.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

But this has nothing to do with that. The Federalist isn't publishing on their "platform". They're using Google to serve ads to maintain a revenue stream.

name another system.

 

[anynameyouwish]

A vast left-wing conspiracy suppressing conservative voices includes Google, NBC, and a shadowy foreign group

Remember when the progressive media feigned concern over foreign influence on our elections? Now, just months before a critical election, they are conspiring with foreign groups to destroy conservative publications, with the assistance of Google, the...

www.americanthinker.com

used to be back in the 1960s the left started the free speech movement. How things do change in the 21st century it seems.

"look what we have HEAR"

sorry to correct you

I know that you are a conservative so it will piss you off that I am about to correct you and you will want to shoot me or lynch me....

for correcting you....

but HEAR and HERE are different...

you can stand HERE or THERE

you can put something HERE or THERE

HERE is like a place....

while HEAR is for LISTENING to someone or something;

you can HEAR the sound of a child laughing

or you can HEAR someone plead "please stop beating me just because I am black or gay"

you can HEAR rush limbaugh say "leave only SOME liberals left alive"

see the diff?

please don't kill me

thanks

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

It's just not government doing it.

At the same time, government was not discriminating against black folks looking for a hotel or a restaurant.

Do you see your own hypocrisy?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

Again, your hypocrisy is showing.

.

A cake shop isn't integral to freedom of marriage, but we have decided that as a society we do not allow some types of business to refuse service based on some characteristics such as sexual orientation.

Now, if a gay couple walks into a cake shop asking for a wedding cake while acting incredibly rude to everyone that works there, I'd have no problem with the shop tossing them on their behavior. Because that decision would be rooted in a behavior, but not their identity as a gay individual.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

Interesting question. I looked a while ago and not sure if public accommodation laws applied to websites and didn't get much of a conclusive answer so I'm not entirely sure.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

for the baker - if no other bakery was available then i would say he has less of a case. however, there are 50 bakeries around his and he wasn't even in the top 10. he was like 14 at the time. so if you can get the same services elsewhere i see it as less of an issue.

but you have no other option if google says "**** off". you're fucked. gonna count on duck duck go to carry you through?

the laws are going to change to meet the times. while trump and biden both want S230 protection gone they want it for different reasons. but they both want it gone and it is picking up bipartisan support. we'll see what they choose to do in their infinate wisdom.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

Again, this has nothing to do with section 230.

You have plenty of options without Google. In this instance, The Federalist could sell ad space directly to advertisers. Google just make the transaction easier, but in no way is necessary. Are we to force Google to serve ads to The Federalist because they're too lazy to do it themselves?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

and your statement is telling me you've never tried to sell online advertising. give it a shot w/o google in the mix. not going to happen. almost every utility is google centric for stats, traffic, and if you don't follow googles SEO rules you're fucked in searched already.

your method would work in on a limited scale but again google's SEO would then start blocking linkbacks and other ways to even be found via any searches at all. most other search engines just use googles shit vs. recreate it.

so no. you won't get far w/o google in the mix.

but now tell - do you or do you not have an issue if google decides no gayness can be on their "platform" or service? you've given them total power to tell one scenario to **** off - so where does that "power" end?

Public accommodation laws may be a victim of their own success. But these are still laws that prevent discrimination based on identity, not behavior. So it’s a rather apples and oranges.

The fact that Google’s product is superior in no way changes the root of the issue. But you seem to be bouncing between search and Adsense which is two different products.

no. it's not.

google can either dictate who uses their services or they can't. if you let them do it to one group do you think they will stop there? does ANYONE ever stop at just silencing ONE group? if you say google can silence a websites content then they can silence a websites content.

you can't say ONLY CONSERVATIVE websites. well what i'm it's a conservative gay one?

you think you can keep pandora in the box but you can't. ***** is out and hungry. she's not going to stop until she's eaten her own and that includes anything that gets in their way and that is subject to change with the wind.

and lobbing out a key word you "googled" doesn't mean you understand SEO and search engine placement. but if you wish to go into heavy debate on it let me know.

Again, Google isn't silencing a website. The Federalist website does not require Google to exist.

At the end of the day, Google has a product they produced and some people feel they have a right to that product. They don't. This entire issue boils down to some people (conservatives it would seem in large part) think that they can force someone else to promote and facilitate their speech no matter what that speech contains. Sorry, that's just not going to work and attempting to force that upon the country is going to ruin the internet.

again - they would not be silencing gays either but you seem to draw the line there.

the point is - once you allow google to do this to ANYONE, you're next.

i found long ago people do what they do. if they can pull bullshit on one person, they can do it to me regardless of how close we may or may not be.

if you allow google/facebook/twitter and social media to dictate what is real, don't think for a second you'll agree with that for very long.

Yes. He is obviously COMPLETELY FINE controlling the thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

It's just not government doing it.

At the same time, government was not discriminating against black folks looking for a hotel or a restaurant.

Do you see your own hypocrisy?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

Again, your hypocrisy is showing.

.

A cake shop isn't integral to freedom of marriage, but we have decided that as a society we do not allow some types of business to refuse service based on some characteristics such as sexual orientation.

Now, if a gay couple walks into a cake shop asking for a wedding cake while acting incredibly rude to everyone that works there, I'd have no problem with the shop tossing them on their behavior. Because that decision would be rooted in a behavior, but not their identity as a gay individual.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

Interesting question. I looked a while ago and not sure if public accommodation laws applied to websites and didn't get much of a conclusive answer so I'm not entirely sure.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

for the baker - if no other bakery was available then i would say he has less of a case. however, there are 50 bakeries around his and he wasn't even in the top 10. he was like 14 at the time. so if you can get the same services elsewhere i see it as less of an issue.

but you have no other option if google says "**** off". you're fucked. gonna count on duck duck go to carry you through?

the laws are going to change to meet the times. while trump and biden both want S230 protection gone they want it for different reasons. but they both want it gone and it is picking up bipartisan support. we'll see what they choose to do in their infinate wisdom.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

Again, this has nothing to do with section 230.

You have plenty of options without Google. In this instance, The Federalist could sell ad space directly to advertisers. Google just make the transaction easier, but in no way is necessary. Are we to force Google to serve ads to The Federalist because they're too lazy to do it themselves?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

and your statement is telling me you've never tried to sell online advertising. give it a shot w/o google in the mix. not going to happen. almost every utility is google centric for stats, traffic, and if you don't follow googles SEO rules you're fucked in searched already.

your method would work in on a limited scale but again google's SEO would then start blocking linkbacks and other ways to even be found via any searches at all. most other search engines just use googles shit vs. recreate it.

so no. you won't get far w/o google in the mix.

but now tell - do you or do you not have an issue if google decides no gayness can be on their "platform" or service? you've given them total power to tell one scenario to **** off - so where does that "power" end?

Public accommodation laws may be a victim of their own success. But these are still laws that prevent discrimination based on identity, not behavior. So it’s a rather apples and oranges.

The fact that Google’s product is superior in no way changes the root of the issue. But you seem to be bouncing between search and Adsense which is two different products.

no. it's not.

google can either dictate who uses their services or they can't. if you let them do it to one group do you think they will stop there? does ANYONE ever stop at just silencing ONE group? if you say google can silence a websites content then they can silence a websites content.

you can't say ONLY CONSERVATIVE websites. well what i'm it's a conservative gay one?

you think you can keep pandora in the box but you can't. ***** is out and hungry. she's not going to stop until she's eaten her own and that includes anything that gets in their way and that is subject to change with the wind.

and lobbing out a key word you "googled" doesn't mean you understand SEO and search engine placement. but if you wish to go into heavy debate on it let me know.

Again, Google isn't silencing a website. The Federalist website does not require Google to exist.

At the end of the day, Google has a product they produced and some people feel they have a right to that product. They don't. This entire issue boils down to some people (conservatives it would seem in large part) think that they can force someone else to promote and facilitate their speech no matter what that speech contains. Sorry, that's just not going to work and attempting to force that upon the country is going to ruin the internet.

again - they would not be silencing gays either but you seem to draw the line there.

the point is - once you allow google to do this to ANYONE, you're next.

i found long ago people do what they do. if they can pull bullshit on one person, they can do it to me regardless of how close we may or may not be.

if you allow google/facebook/twitter and social media to dictate what is real, don't think for a second you'll agree with that for very long.

Yes. He is obviously COMPLETELY FINE controlling the thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

.

there's a lot worse out here. just hard to get to a common ground agree to disagree with people anymore. the give and take all started going one way.

 

[sakinago]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

But this has nothing to do with that. The Federalist isn't publishing on their "platform". They're using Google to serve ads to maintain a revenue stream.

Yes, and they had a contract with google that google is reneging on. For the comments section on their site. The federalist is far from any label the left loves. I could go on CNNs websites and type in “n-words die”. By those standards, google would also have to stop advertising for CNN(or insert any other left publication). I’m sure that’s happened plenty of times on CNNs, site...or any site for that matter. But that’s not happening to anyone else.

As a matter of fact this site would too have to end any “ad campaigns” it has with google.

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

But this has nothing to do with that. The Federalist isn't publishing on their "platform". They're using Google to serve ads to maintain a revenue stream.

Yes, and they had a contract with google that google is reneging on. For the comments section on their site. The federalist is far from any label the left loves. I could go on CNNs websites and type in “n-words die”. By those standards, google would also have to stop advertising for CNN(or insert any other left publication). I’m sure that’s happened plenty of times on CNNs, site...or any site for that matter. But that’s not happening to anyone else.

As a matter of fact this site would too have to end any “ad campaigns” it has with google.

How long do you think that comment would stay up on CNN’s website?

Id wager they have filters for comments containing that epitaph although I have no intention of testing that and wouldn’t encourage anyone else to either.

 

[colfax_m]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

But this has nothing to do with that. The Federalist isn't publishing on their "platform". They're using Google to serve ads to maintain a revenue stream.

name another system.

Who says you need any system? Who says you have a right to any of them?

 

[colfax_m]

Like I said earlier, we tried it your way and it nearly tore the country apart.

So, that is a resounding "YES" right? You want to control thoughts you don't like, RIGHT???

(and I disagree that it nearly tore ANYTHING apart. It was more thought control, and likely would have gone away over time without the serious intrusion on liberty. It certainly is not necessary NOW).

.

The civil rights movement took place 100 years after the civil war. The idea that it would have “gone away” over time defies he factual history of the matter.

I know thought crime sounds scary but motive matters in law quite a lot. Crimes based on thought is not new.

Motive, as it relates to a crime, is irrelevant. Just because the cop shows and Boston Legal talk about establishing a motive, it is NOT a necessary element of any crime. Only intent is a necessary element.

Take murder and hate crimes, for example:
If you intentionally kill a gay person, he is no less or more dead than if you did so while yelling "******" UNLESS we are trying to punish you extra hard for being bigoted against gay people (which is what we are doing). And, yes. "Hate" crimes are bullshit and mere attempts to control thought.

.

Hate crimes are akin to terrorism, the harm extends beyond the physical victim. Killing a person because their gay cases fear and intimidation in the entire group and therefore the punishment is enhanced to reflect the greater harm.

Intent is no less a “thought” than motive.

 

[Theowl32]

Let me define every stupid white liberal (cultural marxist) living under and benefiting from the free market anywhere in the world.

"It is easier to fool people than convincing people they have been fooled." Mark Twain

That is what they are. Cannot repeat facts over and over, backed by conclusive evidence, and then watch them do their left wing parrot dance every time.

Such despicable hypocritical human beings.

 

[sakinago]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

But this has nothing to do with that. The Federalist isn't publishing on their "platform". They're using Google to serve ads to maintain a revenue stream.

Yes, and they had a contract with google that google is reneging on. For the comments section on their site. The federalist is far from any label the left loves. I could go on CNNs websites and type in “n-words die”. By those standards, google would also have to stop advertising for CNN(or insert any other left publication). I’m sure that’s happened plenty of times on CNNs, site...or any site for that matter. But that’s not happening to anyone else.

As a matter of fact this site would too have to end any “ad campaigns” it has with google.

How long do you think that comment would stay up on CNN’s website?

Id wager they have filters for comments containing that epitaph although I have no intention of testing that and wouldn’t encourage anyone else to either.

Forgot CNN. How about Google subsidiary YouTube. Yeah...comments there VERY OFTEN violate the same “policy” that google is using in this situation. Google demands the use of section 230 to shield them from litigation, yet doesn’t offer the very same protection to a legit publisher that just happens to have a comment section. You have a problem with what the federalist says, then sue them. You’re allowed too. But you’re not allowed to sue google for anything on their site or their subsidiaries, nor the comment sections in their own sites. How on earth can you not say that this isn’t a ridiculous action and clearly politically motivated. I’d have a problem if google did this to a leftist site. It never has. But I would.

ALL these sites outsource the software for their comment section. People get around filters and say racist shit very easily. I guarantee you go on mother Jones, you’re gonna find plenty of anti-Semitic comments. Forgot that, you go on YouTube, you will find an abundance of all sorts of hateful comments to all races. Is google going to demand that their subsidiary YouTube remove its comment section in 3 days?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Like I said earlier, we tried it your way and it nearly tore the country apart.

So, that is a resounding "YES" right? You want to control thoughts you don't like, RIGHT???

(and I disagree that it nearly tore ANYTHING apart. It was more thought control, and likely would have gone away over time without the serious intrusion on liberty. It certainly is not necessary NOW).

.

The civil rights movement took place 100 years after the civil war. The idea that it would have “gone away” over time defies he factual history of the matter.

I know thought crime sounds scary but motive matters in law quite a lot. Crimes based on thought is not new.

Motive, as it relates to a crime, is irrelevant. Just because the cop shows and Boston Legal talk about establishing a motive, it is NOT a necessary element of any crime. Only intent is a necessary element.

Take murder and hate crimes, for example:
If you intentionally kill a gay person, he is no less or more dead than if you did so while yelling "******" UNLESS we are trying to punish you extra hard for being bigoted against gay people (which is what we are doing). And, yes. "Hate" crimes are bullshit and mere attempts to control thought.

.

Hate crimes are akin to terrorism, the harm extends beyond the physical victim. Killing a person because their gay cases fear and intimidation in the entire group and therefore the punishment is enhanced to reflect the greater harm.

Intent is no less a “thought” than motive.

Terrorism is not a crime separate and apart from another criminal act. Terrorizing, by itself, is not illegal. Otherwise, haunted houses would be shut down (which, if your ilk gets its way, may be the case, who knows).

Do we punish murderers because the victims have children or because they were well liked? That harm extends WELL beyond the physical victim, yet that is not an aggravating factor.

No, the intent of "hate" crime enhancements is to punish thought and intimidate anyone else who may think "incorrectly" in the future.

Let's just be honest, shall we?

You want to punish/suppress/control those with whom you disagree.

You want what you want, and you don't care how you get it. The ends justify the means, right?

That is probably the most dangerous philosophy EVER, when the goal supersedes all ethical considerations.

You won't like it when the shoe is on the other foot....and neither will most of us, because that's how Hitlers are born.

.

 

[Theowl32]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

But this has nothing to do with that. The Federalist isn't publishing on their "platform". They're using Google to serve ads to maintain a revenue stream.

Yes, and they had a contract with google that google is reneging on. For the comments section on their site. The federalist is far from any label the left loves. I could go on CNNs websites and type in “n-words die”. By those standards, google would also have to stop advertising for CNN(or insert any other left publication). I’m sure that’s happened plenty of times on CNNs, site...or any site for that matter. But that’s not happening to anyone else.

As a matter of fact this site would too have to end any “ad campaigns” it has with google.

How long do you think that comment would stay up on CNN’s website?

Id wager they have filters for comments containing that epitaph although I have no intention of testing that and wouldn’t encourage anyone else to either.

Forgot CNN. How about Google subsidiary YouTube. Yeah...comments there VERY OFTEN violate the same “policy” that google is using in this situation. Google demands the use of section 230 to shield them from litigation, yet doesn’t offer the very same protection to a legit publisher that just happens to have a comment section. You have a problem with what the federalist says, then sue them. You’re allowed too. But you’re not allowed to sue google for anything on their site or their subsidiaries, nor the comment sections in their own sites. How on earth can you not say that this isn’t a ridiculous action and clearly politically motivated. I’d have a problem if google did this to a leftist site. It never has. But I would.

ALL these sites outsource the software for their comment section. People get around filters and say racist shit very easily. I guarantee you go on mother Jones, you’re gonna find plenty of anti-Semitic comments. Forgot that, you go on YouTube, you will find an abundance of all sorts of hateful comments to all races. Is google going to demand that their subsidiary YouTube remove its comment section in 3 days?

The reality that we are living in boils down to this...

The coach of Oklahoma State was forced to apologize for being a racist cause he wore an OANN T shirt who had the audacity to be critical of the cultural marxist blm movement.


Commie Kaepernick is seen as a revolutionary, a freedom fighter and a hero victim of white America even though he is a multi multi milti millionaire and wore a shirt with a genocidal dictator hero of cultural marxists.

That is all we need to know. There is not one point to talk anymore. Not one.

 

[petro]

Orwell was warning of a totalitarian police state where all criticism of Big Brother was brutally supressed. Those who dared criticize Big Brother were personally and professionally destroyed, and broken, and then returned to society to frighten others.

Funny as all that is coming from the left. Despite your stupid belief that it is from Trump. You are still free as a stupid Canuck to spew your hatred of America daily with no Anitfa goon squad to stop you. Meanwhile it's the anti fascists that are shutting down free speech, tearing down history, and destroying careers if one doesn't follow the propagandists.
Trump doesn't run your country and you can kindly Piss Off dumbassed TDS afflicted Canadian.

 

[MarathonMike]

A vast left-wing conspiracy suppressing conservative voices includes Google, NBC, and a shadowy foreign group

Remember when the progressive media feigned concern over foreign influence on our elections? Now, just months before a critical election, they are conspiring with foreign groups to destroy conservative publications, with the assistance of Google, the...

www.americanthinker.com

used to be back in the 1960s the left started the free speech movement. How things do change in the 21st century it seems.

In the 60s, Liberals actually WERE Liberals. Their standard phrase was "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your RIGHT to say it".

If Liberals disagree with you today they say something like "DIE MUTHER ******!! ".

 

[sakinago]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

But this has nothing to do with that. The Federalist isn't publishing on their "platform". They're using Google to serve ads to maintain a revenue stream.

Yes, and they had a contract with google that google is reneging on. For the comments section on their site. The federalist is far from any label the left loves. I could go on CNNs websites and type in “n-words die”. By those standards, google would also have to stop advertising for CNN(or insert any other left publication). I’m sure that’s happened plenty of times on CNNs, site...or any site for that matter. But that’s not happening to anyone else.

As a matter of fact this site would too have to end any “ad campaigns” it has with google.

How long do you think that comment would stay up on CNN’s website?

Id wager they have filters for comments containing that epitaph although I have no intention of testing that and wouldn’t encourage anyone else to either.

Forgot CNN. How about Google subsidiary YouTube. Yeah...comments there VERY OFTEN violate the same “policy” that google is using in this situation. Google demands the use of section 230 to shield them from litigation, yet doesn’t offer the very same protection to a legit publisher that just happens to have a comment section. You have a problem with what the federalist says, then sue them. You’re allowed too. But you’re not allowed to sue google for anything on their site or their subsidiaries, nor the comment sections in their own sites. How on earth can you not say that this isn’t a ridiculous action and clearly politically motivated. I’d have a problem if google did this to a leftist site. It never has. But I would.

ALL these sites outsource the software for their comment section. People get around filters and say racist shit very easily. I guarantee you go on mother Jones, you’re gonna find plenty of anti-Semitic comments. Forgot that, you go on YouTube, you will find an abundance of all sorts of hateful comments to all races. Is google going to demand that their subsidiary YouTube remove its comment section in 3 days?

The reality that we are living in boils down to this...

The coach of Oklahoma State was forced to apologize for being a racist cause he wore an OANN T shirt who had the audacity to be critical of the cultural marxist blm movement.


Commie Kaepernick is seen as a revolutionary, a freedom fighter and a hero victim of white America even though he is a multi multi milti millionaire and wore a shirt with a genocidal dictator hero of cultural marxists.

That is all we need to know. There is not one point to talk anymore. Not one.

Yeah it’s ridiculous. MOST of America doesn’t like this BS. But in the major cities on the coast they eat it up.

 

[iceberg]

No one is attacking their free speech.

And no one wants to take away big techs right to choose who can and can’t be on their platform. Or their right to alter their algorithm. Or their right to shutdown content they deem “inappropriate”. They can do so if they want....they just won’t have the protection of being considered a platform....

But this has nothing to do with that. The Federalist isn't publishing on their "platform". They're using Google to serve ads to maintain a revenue stream.

name another system.

Who says you need any system? Who says you have a right to any of them?

Great. So Google can block gays. Who says they have a right to their services.

No android phones for gays. We still cool?

 

[bripat9643]

No one is attacking their free speech.

Wrong. Someone is.

It's just not government doing it.

At the same time, government was not discriminating against black folks looking for a hotel or a restaurant.

Do you see your own hypocrisy?

.

The implication that Google Adsense is integral to freedom of speech is beyond loony.

The implication that a cake shop is integral to freedom of contract/equality/marriage is also beyond loony.

Again, your hypocrisy is showing.

.

A cake shop isn't integral to freedom of marriage, but we have decided that as a society we do not allow some types of business to refuse service based on some characteristics such as sexual orientation.

Now, if a gay couple walks into a cake shop asking for a wedding cake while acting incredibly rude to everyone that works there, I'd have no problem with the shop tossing them on their behavior. Because that decision would be rooted in a behavior, but not their identity as a gay individual.

and what if google decided to not like gays and removed them from their search engines?

Interesting question. I looked a while ago and not sure if public accommodation laws applied to websites and didn't get much of a conclusive answer so I'm not entirely sure.

according to you however, nothing can be done. nothing *should* be done. and here is where i fundamentally disagree.

for the baker - if no other bakery was available then i would say he has less of a case. however, there are 50 bakeries around his and he wasn't even in the top 10. he was like 14 at the time. so if you can get the same services elsewhere i see it as less of an issue.

but you have no other option if google says "**** off". you're fucked. gonna count on duck duck go to carry you through?

the laws are going to change to meet the times. while trump and biden both want S230 protection gone they want it for different reasons. but they both want it gone and it is picking up bipartisan support. we'll see what they choose to do in their infinate wisdom.

Well, tell me what "should" be done and I'll be happy to listen, but I will be very skeptical.

Again, this has nothing to do with section 230.

You have plenty of options without Google. In this instance, The Federalist could sell ad space directly to advertisers. Google just make the transaction easier, but in no way is necessary. Are we to force Google to serve ads to The Federalist because they're too lazy to do it themselves?

great. gay people have options also. but they are not allowed on google anymore.

and your statement is telling me you've never tried to sell online advertising. give it a shot w/o google in the mix. not going to happen. almost every utility is google centric for stats, traffic, and if you don't follow googles SEO rules you're fucked in searched already.

your method would work in on a limited scale but again google's SEO would then start blocking linkbacks and other ways to even be found via any searches at all. most other search engines just use googles shit vs. recreate it.

so no. you won't get far w/o google in the mix.

but now tell - do you or do you not have an issue if google decides no gayness can be on their "platform" or service? you've given them total power to tell one scenario to **** off - so where does that "power" end?

Public accommodation laws may be a victim of their own success. But these are still laws that prevent discrimination based on identity, not behavior. So it’s a rather apples and oranges.

The fact that Google’s product is superior in no way changes the root of the issue. But you seem to be bouncing between search and Adsense which is two different products.

no. it's not.

google can either dictate who uses their services or they can't. if you let them do it to one group do you think they will stop there? does ANYONE ever stop at just silencing ONE group? if you say google can silence a websites content then they can silence a websites content.

you can't say ONLY CONSERVATIVE websites. well what i'm it's a conservative gay one?

you think you can keep pandora in the box but you can't. ***** is out and hungry. she's not going to stop until she's eaten her own and that includes anything that gets in their way and that is subject to change with the wind.

and lobbing out a key word you "googled" doesn't mean you understand SEO and search engine placement. but if you wish to go into heavy debate on it let me know.

Again, Google isn't silencing a website. The Federalist website does not require Google to exist.

At the end of the day, Google has a product they produced and some people feel they have a right to that product. They don't. This entire issue boils down to some people (conservatives it would seem in large part) think that they can force someone else to promote and facilitate their speech no matter what that speech contains. Sorry, that's just not going to work and attempting to force that upon the country is going to ruin the internet.

Google is a government protected monopoly. That's the bottom line. As such it has an obligation to treat customers fairly. It appears likely that the feds will give Google customers the right to sue, and that's as it should be.