Jump to content

Leaked Google Document shows the shift towards Censorship

rcmaehl
Message added by Crunchy Dragon

Reminder to keep this non-political

7 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Which again doesn't fall under "censorship" category, it's again just dealing with illegal content and activities.

So you're saying if someone decided based on their own morals that something is wrong and thus should be illegal and wrote a bill that became law, it should be censored- but not even considered censorship, because we should bow down to their command and not question them? So because China makes it illegal to talk about the Tiananmen Square Massacre, that is an alright thing and should not be questioned or even considered censorship as they are doing what's right by upholding the law? Many laws are not based on if something is inherently wrong or not, but are based on the moral principles of the lawmakers and deserve to be questioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

I think it's the very opposite. It is rape porn and messed up stuff like that which incentivize psychopaths to commit the act. I have to make a very clear distinction here, I'm talking about rape porn, not porn itself, I'm fine with regular porn.

All porn is an outlet that causes less rape whether you like it or not. It is not fair to say that the porn you like is okay, but porn that goes against your personal morals and standards causes rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Commodus said:

Evidence of outright fabricated stories?  I'd really like to see this.  Provide a link to the story if you can, and for the refutal provide a link that isn't from a hyper-partisan outlet (that means ruling out Fox News, Daily Caller, DailyKOS, Breitbart et. al.).

The entire "hand's up don't shoot!" thing from a few years ago was completely fake. Not the incident himself, but the statement of the person killed having his hands up yelling "don't shoot". That was entirely fabricated by the media.

 

Not to mention CNN telling everyone that "you can't go online and look at wikileaks, only we can because there's special exceptions for journalists".

 

 

All modern major "news" outlets are completely full of shit and entirely biased. The majority of them very obviously lean towards the left. Not that every story is fabricated, but they definitely sustain a narrative based on what stories they cover, and sometimes they incorrectly report things, wait about an hour to fix it, then do so as quietly as possible.

 

Like a number of them did recently with the supreme court nomination. Several of them claimed that the witnesses for Dr. Ford verified her story. In reality, none of them did.

 

But that doesn't matter. Because with a high profile story like that, the majority of the links are going to be in the first hour or so. Which is why we ended up with a bunch of uninformed people protesting in front of the supreme court voting. None of whom seemed to be aware that there was zero evidence or witnesses backing up "their side".

 

Fox does the same, just to a different audience.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Trik'Stari I personally love watching CNN. I enjoy the tragic comedy of watching the clowns on there pretend theyre a legit news outlet instead of the shills and Operation Mockingbird psyop dumpster fire that they are. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, EPENEX said:

So you're saying if someone decided based on their own morals that something is wrong and thus should be illegal and wrote a bill that became law, it should be censored- but not even considered censorship, because we should bow down to their command and not question them? So because China makes it illegal to talk about the Tiananmen Square Massacre, that is an alright thing and should not be questioned or even considered censorship as they are doing what's right by upholding the law? Many laws are not based on if something is inherently wrong or not, but are based on the moral principles of the lawmakers and deserve to be questioned.

Bills don't just happen over night, they still have at least a touch of democracy, unlike corporations do in a very dictatorship way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Bills don't just happen over night, they still have at least a touch of democracy, unlike corporations do in a very dictatorship way.

There is zero democracy in China, never pretend otherwise.

 

They are, by all measures, a fascist dictatorship. I say fascist because that's what communism ends up being when put into practice. There is no dissent, there is no questioning the government.

 

Power must always be questioned and checked. These companies are beginning to wield an enormous amount of power and no one with any power seems to be willing to check them or question them. That should be concerning to everyone. I would expect this of the left, as they talk a great deal about questioning authority, at least when it's authority that isn't catering to them.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

There is zero democracy in China, never pretend otherwise.

 

They are, by all measures, a fascist dictatorship. I say fascist because that's what communism ends up being when put into practice. There is no dissent, there is no questioning the government.

 

Power must always be questioned and checked. These companies are beginning to wield an enormous amount of power and no one with any power seems to be willing to check them or question them. That should be concerning to everyone. I would expect this of the left, as they talk a great deal about questioning authority, at least when it's authority that isn't catering to them.

You really need to start using Find/Replace of "Communism" with "Marxism"

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

You really need to start using Find/Replace of "Communism" with "Marxism"

Unnecessary considering that it has ALWAYS been the same thing when put into practice.

 

Theory isn't as important as actual reality. And the reality is that communism always ends up being fascism pretending to be something else.

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Communism gives absolute power to the state when put into practice.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, fck censorship. We are not under any obligations to adhere to the terms of services of any private platforms. In fact, I feel like I am completely entitle to violate all rules on this community forums and called any moderators who tried to stopped me as fascist censorship tyrants. 

Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

Yeah, fck censorship. We are not under any obligations to adhere to the terms of services of any private platforms. In fact, I feel like I am completely entitle to violate all rules on this community forums and called any moderators who tried to stopped me as fascist censorship tyrants. 

Having a political opinion that differs from the owner/operator should not qualify as a violation of ToS unless clearly stated in said ToS.

 

And by clearly stated, I don't mean buried in 50 pages of legalese.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule of thumb. Government censorship is evil. Private entity censorsing others is perfectly acceptable. What's the difference you say? Well, unlike government censorship, you are perfectly fine to start your own media platforms and say whatever you want if no other private platforms wish to have you. If government censors you, it is game over. Either you shut the hell up or get out of this country because the secret police is coming for you. 

Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Having a political opinion that differs from the owner/operator should not qualify as a violation of ToS unless clearly stated in said ToS.

 

And by clearly stated, I don't mean buried in 50 pages of legalese.

Even so, Google is a private business. They reserve  the right to refuse business and services for any reason. It's like me offering a car washing service. If I do not wish to wash certain people's cars, you CANT make me.

Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

Even so, Google is a private business. They have the right to refuse business and services for any reason. It's like me offering a car washing service. If I do not wish to wash certain people's cars, you CANT make me.

Once again, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are by legal definition NOT private businesses. They are publicly traded.

 

And again, they might have the right to do what they want now, but should they continue to have that right? That's the question at hand.

 

I'm %150 certain that if they were banning users for being gay or trans quite a LOT of you would have a very serious problem with it. As you should. The only reason you don't care or disagree with their actions is because it isn't targeting people you might agree with.

 

Perhaps if they started targeting gay or trans conservatives you might actually think about what they are doing and thus might care.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Once again, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are by definition NOT private businesses. They are publicly traded.

 

And again, they might have the right to do what they want now, but should they continue to have that right? That's the question at hand.

 

I'm %150 certain that if they were banning users for being gay or trans quite a LOT of you would have a very serious problem with it. As you should. The only reason you don't care or disagree with their actions is because it isn't targeting people you might agree with.

Their share holders are private individuals, not tax payers. What you said is invalid. 

Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

Their share holders are private individuals, not tax payers. What you said is invalid. 

No? They are by LEGAL DEFINITION NOT private companies.

 

Go actually read up on the subject like I did. They are not privately owned.

 

The shareholders are private individuals yes, but that is not a transitive property. Not that it matters because this isn't important to the subject at hand.

 

Yes, they can do what they want, that is the current law. The discussion here is whether or not they should continue having that right.

 

https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/public-company-vs-private-company/

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

No? They are by LEGAL DEFINITION NOT private companies.

 

Go actually read up on the subject like I did. They are not privately owned.

 

The shareholders are private individuals yes, but that is not a transitive property. Not that it matters because this isn't important to the subject at hand.

They are businesses. All businesses have the right to refuse bussiness. Are they run by the government? Does government offer them grants and subsidies? If not, they can pick the customers as much as customers pick the businesses. Period. 

Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wasab said:

They are businesses. All businesses have the right to refuse bussiness. Are they run by the government? Does government offer them grants and subsidies? If not, they can pick the customers as much as customers pick the businesses. Period. 

That small business that didn't want to bake cakes for a certain couple didn't get that right.

 

If they don't get that right, neither should Google, Twitter, or Facebook.

 

Discrimination is discrimination. Regardless of whether or not you disagree with it.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

That small business that didn't want to bake cakes for a certain couple didn't get that right.

How come? Because of gender discrimination? Then we ought to sue cheerleading squads for discriminating against men then. 

Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wasab said:

How come? Because of gender discrimination? Then we ought to sue cheerleading squads for discriminating against men then. 

They were basically destroyed by social media and the resulting lawsuit because they didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

Which is fine. That's discrimination. But when Google, Facebook, and Twitter are targeting conservative users, that's equally discrimination and should be punished accordingly.

 

That's the fucking point here. You don't get to have it all your way. Either discrimination is a valid reason for refusing service, or it isn't. Take your pick.

 

Just because you don't like conservatives or don't agree with their views, doesn't mean you get to deny them the same rights as everyone you do like and agree with.

 

Specifically, the right to not be discriminated against.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

They were basically destroyed by social media and the resulting lawsuit because they didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

Which is fine. That's discrimination. But when Google, Facebook, and Twitter are targeting conservative users, that's equally discrimination and should be punished accordingly.

 

That's the fucking point here. You don't get to have it all your way. Either discrimination is a valid reason for refusing service, or it isn't. Take your pick.

Dude, that is just double standard. If we really want to defend civil rights, we would be suing ballet theaters, cheerleading teams, Asian themes restaurants, even the Armed forces for discrimination. 

 

I say they are allow to censor. Just like I am allow to hire only Japanese chiefs if I want to convince my customers that my sushi restaurant is authentic japanese. 

Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

Dude, that is just double standard. If we really want to defend civil rights, we would be suing ballet theaters, cheerleading teams, Asian themes restaurants, even the Armed forces for discrimination. 

THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.

 

There is in fact a double standard. It is being largely ignored by those who proclaim themselves "tolerant" and take the moral high ground.

 

Also IIRC the armed forces now accept women for combat roles. The NFL just started accepting male cheerleaders as well. Not sure about Ballet theaters.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.

So google is allow to censor. Hurrah. We are in the same page. 

Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wasab said:

So google is allow to censor. Hurrah. We are in the same page. 

So then a couple running a small bakery is allowed to refuse service to a gay couple on the grounds that they disagree with gay marriage from a religious standpoint?

 

Because that's very clearly illegal. The same should apply to banning people for having a different political opinion.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.

 

There is in fact a double standard. It is being largely ignored by those who proclaim themselves "tolerant" and take the moral high ground.

 

Also IIRC the armed forces now accept women for combat roles. The NFL just started accepting male cheerleaders as well. Not sure about Ballet theaters.

You should understand that free speech was once a weapon of the liberal progressives back when a few was fighting against the intolerance of the masses. It was only very recently that the conservative pick the same weapon, appeal to the masses with the same ethos, in order to bring what is now disfavored(rascism, white nationalist ect) back into the mainstream 

 

Edit: not conservatives should be the radical right wing. 

Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×