The internet as a public utlity?

Google especially IS NOT an essential service. Maybe you should have a better understanding of what an essential service is:

"essential services" means services, by whomsoever rendered, and whether rendered to the Government or to any other person, the interruption of which would endanger the life, health or personal safety of the whole or part of the population;"

Will you die if you don't use google?

Only morons give up their social media. They ask you for social media tell them you don't have any. Lack of social media cannot occlude you from employment.

Besides no one OWNS the internet.

Yes. Duh.
I'd prefer to revoke their corporate charters and make them personally liable for the hurt they cause. Won't happen in corporate China so regulation is the way to go.

>All jobs start to require social media
>Google and others grow bigger and bigger
>No one can stop them
>Eventually they own the internet between them
>Opinions must be approved by big google
>All other opinions get banned
>Their house their rules
>Your job is at risk if you don't tow the line
>The end of the internet as we know it

That would make sense. Except for the fact that jobs cannot require social media. That would be a discriminatory practise, and subject to litigation.

Take out 'jobs' then and leave the rest (even though many jobs are actually doing this already). Now you have a situation where freedom of speech has been effectively removed from the internet because every website is owned by a big company who don't care for it.

Employers CANNOT do this. They can ask for your social media but they cannot force you. It's illegal.

Google doesn't own the internet. No one does.

computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/who-owns-internet1.htm

What's oppressive about Google? I don't really get what's everybody so worked up about it. If you don't like their services, you can use any of the alternatives.

nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-ask-passwords-my-social-media-accounts.html

>and subject to litigation.

Okay, then.
Go ahead and sue Google or Facebook for their blatant discrimination against the right-wing. See how it goes when the billionaire corporations start harassing and hiring thugs to go after your family and there's nothing you can do about it because 'corporations are people'.

No.

Notice how we had no problems when the private sector built the rail network. Yeah, it was expensive, but it was maintained and well-run.

Compare that to the shitty highway system we have today. It's fucking crumbling and getting more expensive to fix by the day.

Now you want to take a private infrastructure that is working well and put it in the hands of government? No thanks

When has Google or Facebook ever sent thugs after the right-wing?

Twitter is a public service, the courts are making Trump stop blocking people

Its used by public entities to address their constituents

Google runs my smartphone

Why would they have to ask for it?
Simply search your real name and they find it, unless you use some cringy username or fake name on your real account.

People recently have got this idea that since they use the services of these companies so much that those services are owed to them. If the company wants to change their services, then the government shouldn't allow them to do so.
Basically, they want free stuff.

What retard that isn't already a public figure uses their real name on the internet? How stupid do you have to be to do that?

The problem lies in the fact that, other than your service provider, you use the internet for free. Websites need a way to make money for servers and employees, etc. Right now the primary source of revenue is advertisements. If advertisers pull their ads, the website loses it's income and cannot function. Their only recourse would be to charge users. Like paying to upload/watch a video, or to post a comment. Right now you use their platform for free. Unless you and the general public are willing to pay to use a platform, like you pay for any other utility, you're at the mercy of the advertisers as far as what content you can and cannot post.

Attached: 1521698016654.gif (200x200, 618K)

>Unless you and the general public are willing to pay to use a platform, like you pay for any other utility, you're at the mercy of the advertisers as far as what content you can and cannot post.
Whenever somebody makes this argument the immediate reply is "I would be willing to pay for it!" but they fail to take into account the amount of services they use, and that they need to pay for these services for themselves and their entire family.

You've got a mental issue. You've been radacalised by internet retards. Seriously all jokes aside, you are certifiable.

Google and facebook are private corporations with terms of service agreements. When you use their services you agree to their terms of service. Wether you know it or not. It's funny because you're supposed to know it before you use. Meaning BEFORE you use google you are supposed to read their terms of service.

Google:

"You can stop using our Services at any time, although we’ll be sorry to see you go. Google may also stop providing Services to you, or add or create new limits to our Services at any time."

Facebook:

"If we determine that you have violated our terms or policies, we may take action against your account to protect our community and services, including by suspending access to your account or disabling it. We may also suspend or disable your account if you create risk or legal exposure for us or when we are permitted or required to do so by law. Where appropriate, we will notify you about your account the next time you try to access it. You can learn more about what you can do if your account has been disabled."

If you don't like their rules don't support their service. xD

You are making them rich. It's not the other way round.

You want to know what real problems are? Try getting banned from paypal.

How can websites be "monopolistic"? All the web development technologies are freely available. You yourself can go ahead and learn HTML, CSS, Javascript, Node.JS, Python and PHP through any of the many tutorials available online and replicate pretty much any existing web application, even Facebook or any Google web application.

Twitter and Google both provide government services- especially disaster alerts and police access.

They are thus as essential to modern tech as phones were to the last era.

The problem isn't that twitter is a public service. The problem is that the president is a public official and cannot block the public from access to him. He serves the public.

The language used in the ruling could possibly create problems for twitter in the future. But the actual case has nothing to do with twitter.

Attached: Dd5YlBQV0AAbHRT.jpg (1199x499, 72K)

And microsoft runs your computer. Get an Iphone.

>should the state run popular websites and service providers
Hahahahahahahahaha
no

Anything that can be searched for and found is already public information.

Who the fuck demands you have it? I mean who the fuck demands you open an account where none existed previously?

Just because your phone runs a Google Android operating system doesn't mean Google runs your phone. Would you prefer if your computers didn't run any operating system and you had to directly program the hardware yourself?

Only White people should be able to use the internet and all comments and posts on every site, forum, blog etc should be monitored for speech laws. You would have to make comments and conduct yourself online how you would in person. No trolling, no memes, no being a stupid ignorant faggot, no shitty grammar etc. Imagine how the internet would have developed had the Nazi's won, something like that.

This

Steve Jobs hated jews

I know you didn't intend this but I read your whole post in Styx voice

There used to be far more websites than there are today, it's quite clear that the internet is becoming homogenised over time and will eventually be ruled primarily by the mainstream tech giants.

It's the same idea of a company buying up all the land in an entire city and enforcing totalitarian rules on its citizens and then claiming 'well muh property, yr free to leave if you like' You need to have a balance of power or else you can make the 1st amendment and similar effectively useless because of the immense power of these tech giants.

The state shouldn't 'run them', it should regulate them from censoring freedom of speech and other overreaches of power when the company is sufficiently big enough that it poses a threat to these things in a large scale. It's quite clear there's a difference between a small website banning comments and a huge website that is embedded into every aspect of your life now deciding you can't post pro Trump memes or else you're banned.

>Who the fuck demands you own a telephone
>Get a boss who doesn't need you to use electricity in your house

*spoon clinks*
That’ll be all.
Peace.

By that account no one can be kicked out of a political rally, press conference, town hall meeting, etc. either.

Attached: 12323543.gif (400x167, 3.99M)

I did intend that :^)
I'm hoping he sees this thread and makes a video about the subject because I think it's interesting.

Twitter and google are not essential services. Disaster alerts are also broadcast on television. Is television an essential service? Is radio? Essential services are paid for by tax dollars and managed by the government. This is the distinction.

This, the ruling was clearly ridiculously contrived.

it's "That's about all, peace out."

Oh, well it’s been awhile since I’ve watched him so I guess I forgot.

>Is it time to nationalise the internet Jow Forums?
You mean revert it to what it was?

>no one can be kicked out of a political rally, press conference, town hall meeting, etc

You cannot be kicked out of any government event or function. "That is open to the public". I have to add open to the public because there is obvious hypocrisy but this is the general concept.

There should be the BARE BASIC needed to apply for a job. No streaming, no video games.

Bump

>Notice how we had no problems when the private sector built the rail network.
lol

Hi Plebbit

I love Styx and have been following him for years and still think this is fuckin hilarious

each other

>It's the same idea of a company buying up all the land in an entire city and enforcing totalitarian rules on its citizens and then claiming 'well muh property, yr free to leave if you like'
Land is a limited commodity.
>The state shouldn't 'run them', it should regulate them from censoring freedom of speech and other overreaches of power when the company is sufficiently big enough that it poses a threat to these things in a large scale. It's quite clear there's a difference between a small website banning comments and a huge website that is embedded into every aspect of your life now deciding you can't post pro Trump memes or else you're banned.
So you want to make sure that Google, Twitter etc get shut down and that no company ever tries to become that big? Because if that's what you want then you're advocating for the right ideas. I guess we'll all be using Bing then.

Anybody that thinks that google or any of these other giant companies weren't set up by some ZOG intel entity, using tax payer dollars, it a retard. These are NOT private companies. They work hand in hand with the government, just like hollywood production houses do. The people like zukerberg and the google kikes that they put forward as the founders are just front men and figure heads. Google, twitter, facebook, etc are government entities, and they should NOT be able to pick and choose what political speech is allowed. Best thing to do is not use them as much as possible, with the goal of getting off the internet.

show your flag

communication

This regards mundane communication- more like phone services, which are public utilities.

A phone company cannot cancel your service because you are "offensive" or say something they politically dislike. We ought to relegate corporate tech monopolies to the same status.

The alternative- to not do so- will lead to so much worse long term effects, and is so obviously anathema to the very idea of free expression, that it cannot possibly be considered valid.

Television and radio broadcasts are government regulated in both broadcasting means and content, are they not?

>Should monopolistic websites be made into a public utility to prevent them being too powerful and oppressive? Is it time to nationalise the internet Jow Forums? Pic related (he brought this up)

No, we what we need is a Constitutional Amendment to protect Free Speech and Privacy Online.

Social media would be an inefficient means of communication, and couldn't be considered primary.

so fucking retarded.

Social media is mass communication and it saves the poster time and it saves the reciever time. Its instant. How fucking clueless are you?

In the ethnostate

>internet is a public utility
>nationalized twitter / social media
>blue checkmarks used properly (not as political endorsement, but as confirmation that it is the person in question)
>degeneracy instantly deleted by state employed and approved former Jow Forums poster's now made moderators
>twitter/facebook/social media/degeneracy blocked by state-issued ISP (every single connection in the country), like in China

Any questions?

Attached: 1500238809805.png (152x254, 40K)

it's actually not their right as a business,
and hasn't been since a supreme court ruling where a woman was trying to hold a sign on a sidewalk in a privately owned-company town.
I can't seem to find the case... but it has been used in other cases such as Guttenberg Taxpayers and Rentpayers Association v. Galaxy Towers Condominium Association where a man was distributing political flyers in a privately owned apartment complex.

PUBLIC television, and PUBLIC radio are subject to government regulation. PRIVATE television and PRIVATE radio are not.

For an important private communication would it be better to send you a twitter message, which is inherently NOT private or call you on the telephone?

found it.
Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

see

Yes
Bump

Yes, 100%, and Jews should be banned on pain of death from using the internet or any advanced technologies in our countries, let alone controlling them. The assets of these demonic enemies of humanity should be seized and put under the control of approved Aryan owned enterprises, which should be part of state ran cartels controlled and operated by people who are members in good standing of the National Socialist party of the country in question.

Basically, treat this the same way the National Socialists treated essential government industries.

we are talking about communication. not private. Its a massive utility for mass public communication with little effort.

Just look at any flyer with this set up and think about how fast and efficient they can spread.

Attached: 2nd-Amendment-Part-2.jpg (2550x3300, 996K)

for additional information:
>In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

essentially, in Marsh v. Alabama the Court said that the individual's right to freedom of expression trumps the businesses rights to censor.

FCC is not enforcing even the current laws, what makes you thing they will do so under a (((new))) law?>law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222

The phone company is prohibited from listening to your phone calls by law. So they have no idea what you may or may not be saying.

That being said ALL companies reserve the right to terminate service without consent or notice. It's just what the do.

Vodafone terms of service:

Verizon terms of service:

We can, without notice, limit, suspend or end your Service or any agreement with you for any good cause, including, but not limited to: (1) if you: (a) breach this agreement; (b) resell your Service; (c) use your Service for any illegal purpose, including use that violates trade and economic sanctions and prohibitions promulgated by any US governmental agency; (d) install, deploy or use any regeneration equipment or similar mechanism (for example, a repeater) to originate, amplify, enhance, retransmit or regenerate an RF signal without our permission; (e) steal from or lie to us; or, if you're a Postpay customer; (f) do not pay your bill on time; (g) incur charges larger than a required deposit or billing limit, or materially in excess of your monthly access charges (even if we haven't yet billed the charges); (h) provide credit information we can't verify; or (i) are unable to pay us or go bankrupt; or (2) if you, any user of your device or any line of service on your account, or any account manager on your account: (a) threaten, harass, or use vulgar and/or inappropriate language toward our representatives; (b) interfere with our operations; (c) "spam," or engage in other abusive messaging or calling; (d) modify your device from its manufacturer's specifications; or (e) use your Service in a way that negatively affects our network or other customers. We can also temporarily limit your Service for any operational or governmental reason.

you are wrong.
a tos does not override the United States Supreme Court.
See and

I see you, Shlomo.

Most employers will not hire someone who doesn't have a kikebook or some such social media account and thus it affects their ability to find gainful employment and provide for themselves and their families. It has morphed into an essential service for people to get work and thus it should be regulated.

These companies also have a strangle hold on the media, with them now having the ability to control what people see or don't see and influence hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people on a daily basis. People need to be properly informed in a modern society, this is essential, and these companies provide and totally control the ability for these people to get that information, which means they are providing an essential service and should be subject to strict regulation.

Your "oy vey private company, goyim!" argument doesn't hold weight anymore, judlein, and you can keep panicking because the day is coming when we will seize your assets and punish you like the common criminal you really are.

100% correct. We should also be working on a way to build our own internet infrastructure that excludes kikes on every level possible, such as banning any and all connections from non-White countries, especially Israhell.

>Who do you think *owns* the internet?
Yeah dude, nobody OWNS media, either.

If your employer tried to contact you via twitter regarding an urgent matter you would not be responsible for not responding or receiving the communication because twitter is not a primary means of communication. It is not even reasonable to think that it is.

98% of homes in the united states have telephones.

statista.com/statistics/189959/housing-units-with-telephones-in-the-united-states-since-1920/

Only 7% of Americans use Twitter for example.

convinceandconvert.com/social-media-strategy/7-surprising-statistics-about-twitter-in-america/

Of course no one owns the media, you hateful bigoted conspiracy theorist anti-Semite! Don't you know this is what caused the shoah?

Attached: jewsnews1.jpg (4131x3240, 3.34M)

>Who the fuck demands you own a telephone
>Get a boss who doesn't need you to use electricity in your house
Exactly. And if you can't find a job that dsoesn't require these things then just get on NEETbux/welfare

>Most employers will not hire someone who doesn't have a kikebook or some such social media account and thus it affects their ability to find gainful employment and provide for themselves and their families.

Fucking retard. xD I stopped reading right there. You're wrong. You lose. I've already proven it.

SOCIAL MEDIA REQUIREMENTS ARE ILLEGAL. END OF STORY. xD

No wonder you're unemployed it's because you are a low IQ, low education, low information reject. xD

You don't know what you're talking about.

Dumb fuck. No one CAN actually own the internet. xD

> Most employers will not hire someone who doesn't have a kikebook or some such social media account

I don’t have any social media and I’ve been hired multiple times. They never even asked about it. How does it feel to be this wrong?

I 100% do know what I'm talking about, and I cited relevant case law and even gave an example.
you, on the other hand, have no idea what you are talking about.
In Marsh v. Alabama the United States Supreme Court ruled that the 1st amendment was more than a protection from the government, that it was a guarantee, and that the rights of individuals to express themselves trumped the rights of private companies to censor.
this was later used as reasoning in a more recent case, Guttenberg Taxpayers and Rentpayers Association v. Galaxy Towers Condominium Association, as to why Galaxy Towers Condominium Association HAD to allow a man to distribute political flyers on THEIR private property.

the corner is over there; you have my permission to sit in it.

that's like saying letters or the telephone aren't essential services lulwut?

>Fucking retard. xD I stopped reading right there. You're wrong. You lose. I've already proven it.

You haven't proven shit. I've seen people not get a job because they didn't have your stupid kikebook, Shlomo.

As for me being unemployed, I own my own business faggot. Have fun being a wagecuck, weakling.

what's even more compelling is that in In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it.
in other words, because the mall was not REGULARLY USED TO EXERCISE SPEECH!
if anyone ever took twitter or faceburg to court, they would have to change how they operate.

How retarded are you? Seriously super fucking dumb.

How the fuck can you not see that being able to send and recieve information on a system like twitter and facebook is not a massive means for communication?

What about self employment? What if you mean to communicate with your customers and consumers?

If you are not a shill, you are a terrible excuse for an user who is woke

*not regularly used by the public to exercise speech.

Doesn't feel like I am wrong at all, because I used to work at a big corporation that actively denied people employment based on a lack of easily trackable social media.

Fuck off kike.

Dumb fuck. It would seem you don't understand the difference between physical, and intellectual property.

Marsh V. Alabama dealt with an ENTIRE TOWN, that was privately owned. The circumstances of Marsh V. Alabama do not apply to internet entities. Marsh V. Alabama has already been tried TWICE in suits dealing with intellectual property rights and private ownership rights and has FAILED BOTH TIMES.

Cyber Promotions v. America Online

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner

All Marsh V. Alabama really says is that you cannot own an entire town, as OWNERSHIP of a town would restrict personal liberty. Marsh V. Alabama don't apply.

They aren't.

>No one CAN actually own the internet. xD

United 8200 Mossad and Technion control the internet, idiot. Google Stuxnet.

Unit 8200*

It's impossible to do anything without the internet today. You can't even apply for a job without an internet connection.