I don't get it. Is Big Tech just begging to be regulated out the ass?

Facebook isn't a library, just delete your account and use a different platform.

These tech companies grow and grow because you demand the Government force them on everyone and make them manditory, instead of just not using them.
Use a different product.

Attached: 6452C278-6788-4565-859D-C554B78B8A05.jpg (800x761, 202K)

Endorsing a politician isn't a crime?
Free speech, he can endorse whoever he wants.

>These companies are gonna be RICOd
There's no one in any government agency with the balls to attempt it.

Attached: 1519299915062.jpg (1367x855, 314K)

No Republican is going to save you. They're all cowards.

they own our government

They drank the media Kool-Aid and 100% honestly think Trump is going to shoah them.

They honestly believe they need to roll out their big-time plans NOW and consolidate power to prevent 2018 elections from going against them and giving Trump the republican super majority he needs to utterly dismantle them.

In a blind panic, they're pushing too hard.

Only problem is that it is called a public accommodation. The same policy which says that store owners must serve the general public, and allows the government to ban smoking in bars. Libs will find out that the law cuts both ways. If you want to make profits from the public, you need to sell to the public, whether or not you like some members of that public. They can either allow public use, or stop conducting business for profit in the US. The choice is theirs.....

Incorrect. AT&T cannot censor a phone call they don't like that I'm having with someone else.

Phone lines are managed by the Government, Facebook accounts are not.
Facebook isn't a store, you don't need to use it for anything. If they are banning individuals for their political beliefs, and that prevents them from using a Facebook account required service, your logic would apply. Banning a company website is irrelevant.

>Facebook accounts are not
And there inlies the solution.

Once some critical number of couples are race mixed, the long-term population will converge on mixed race. They don't have to play a long game. They can create a gene pool disturbance now that isn't even realized for 20 years and given how far things have gone, they don't even have to push that hard. The long term damage is done. Children are already being directly taught in elementary school that whites are evil and oppressive. All the left has to do is demoralize a majority of the young population wait for those to replace the old.

>The solution is bigger Government
Fuck off, don't regulate Facebook and let the markets sort it out. We don't need to manage it, just don't use it. It will disappear.

But gen z is more anti left than their parents. You forget how rebellion works.

Here is the legal argument against tech censorship.

Attached: CcKkM6O.jpg (888x470, 107K)

When they control so much connection to discourse on the internet, they are no longer allowed the same rights that a private company has. No one else could host as many videos and support as much traffic as YouTube does. No other search engine has as much control as Google does. Google is like a genesis for the nightmarish megacorps you find in dystopian cyberpunk fiction.

So you are suggesting gov't regulation of the phone companies is not necessary. Why do you think gov't regulation of the phone companies is a bad thing?

They are not monopolies, and the "internet" is hard to monopolize.
I don't agree. I don't agree at all. Controlling the big tech companies is a bad idea, you are only going to give them more power by integrating their services with the Government, and making it even more difficult for start up businesses to get passed the regulations and compete.

If they want to be politically correct, let them be politically correct. If it's a good business model, they will be successful. Otherwise, they will just lose a million more subscribers.

Yeah bro or just stop using your ISP that has a monopoly in your region. Doesn't work that way. It's not a free market when these companies can funnel money to reps to buy them.off thus buying regulations to stamp out competition. You'd need to fix that problem first before the free market would even have a chancr. Regulating the market like the roads, electrical grid, and phone communications seems in the spirits of what the limited function of the government should actually be.

Wrong, low IQ one. According to you, I can ban a nigger from my store because he doesn't NEED ham. If you want to sell to the public, you need to be open to the public. This law was created to force white businesses to sell to blacks. Your reasoning is idiotic, according to you I can refuse to sell a nigger a car, because I decided that the nigger didn't NEED a car.

Good luck explaining that here. Lemmings here don’t even understand ToS or free speech. They think every company should be a platform for whatever the lemmings want it to be for. They don’t understand why the daily stormer can’t have a Facebook page.

>Control
They don't control shit. Once you have ad blocker installed, they don't make a penny on your clicks. They don't control the end user. They don't control your VPN.
Phones are regulated because it's a requirement that every home has one, for emergency use primarily. I don't want to be forced to use Google or Facebook, because they will start to regulate how I access it.

The Government regulated Phone lines, now AT&T owns the entire phone infrastructure and no one can get a permit to build any type of competition. It wasn't under technology radically changed that we started to see alternatives to the landline telephone.

Just like Facebook and Google do whatever they want, alternatives will start to appear because of the void they create. Don't force everyone back into Google and Facebook. We don't want to be there anyway.

>They are not monopolies
Any company with greater than 50% market share is a de-facto monopoly in Us law.

Facebook holds 70+% of social media market share.
Youtube holds 78% of video streaming market share.

That's a monopoly.

>Free trade man!
Milton Friedman leafs must die

If the regulation is simply: search results cannot be manipulated and SEO a criminal activity, then how is that a bad thing? If one cannot be censored for a political opinion, how is that a bad regulation?

>If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
>If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
>They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Yes, because once you are on top, you want to extract rents without fear of competition to keep you productive and efficient. Regulation is painful, but it's far more painful on your enemies without the resources to deal with it whilst you have an army of lawyers and middle management to shuffle the necessary papers.

It's how you dig your heels in and escape the free market.

Facebook, Youtube, Apple and Spotify all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other. Supposedly each for a different reason. Coincidentally.

Attached: festisite_google - Copy.png (1014x435, 94K)

they (Google and Twitter) are like telecommunications operators and are a dominant market force
and deserve even more regulation than those, who just pass electricity in cables...

Attached: goolag_patched.png (690x245, 136K)

Facebook isn't a store, you don't need anything.

If you can't delete accounts on an public platform for speech, how are you supposed to manage spam?
It's impossible.

If a nigger comes into your store, and robs you, you have every right to ban THAT nigger. Cars are regulated by the Government also. But you can refuse a car to a nigger that doesn't have insurance or a drivers license.

If you are in the business of driving, and you don't like the way the man drives, you don't have to sell him a car.
If you are in the business of money, and you don't like the man who doesn't pay, you don't have to serve him.

If you are in the business of speech, and you don't like what people have to say, you can block it.

Exactly. These big tech companies work like a cartel, and RICO should be implemented.

(((berg)))
Every single time.

Conspiracy against rights.

... and Facebook, need to add...

Attached: fakebook.jpg (796x395, 25K)

A monopoly on what? That's retarded, having a monopoly on something you don't even pay for it absolutely stupid.
That's like saying Linux has a monopoly and free OS distros.
Just don't use it. You don't have to have a social media account, it doesn't do anything.
Why can't they be? They are already manipulated for advertisers.
It's a free service, it's a Library. If you want to use Google and see the sites they sponsor, do so.
Otherwise, just type the URL in the bar and skip them entirely.

Why not just a new amendment saying private companies that are used for data collection and social media cannot censor anything. All censorship is on the user end.

I'd wonder tho how many women would allow themselves to fall for the group bias trick. Guys will never fall for the "darkies are hotter than whites" as we follow our own desires. Also, remember that if a majority of darkies gets laid over whiteys and those white guys refuse to date weird asian chicks or fat black chicks. Then you get a clear separation between complacent blacks/browns and hardened white boys.

You can already see this. I remember a time where minorities were truly minorities. They were truly exluded in a way and had to fend for themselves. Facing their own shortcomings in the intelligence and physical department (stupid, short and ugly). You got a very specific type of shitskin, like a rabbid dog. The problem is that the generations after that could surf on the gibs/diversity/positive social bias wave. Thus actually living a generally nice life. Compared to this generation of young white boys who have to endure this spartan treatment. And you can tell. All the lefties/people in on this anti white spree grew up with nice-pacified-whitey. They simply assumed white men have always been like this, ignoring history. They've never witnessed the super saiyan transformation

Rob a man off everything and he'll change into a monster if it means he'd get it all back

Google is what it is, but Fakebook and Twatter are slated to go the way of MySpace. It’s already happening

If you force the government to start regulating free speech on social media, that will ultimately make Facebook their biggest lobbyist in 6 years and they will monopolize everything by passing laws no one can comply with except them.
It's a terrible idea. Just unsubscribe and use something else. Companies will drop Facebook intrigration for whatever other company comes around once the numbers start dropping.

Tech companies come and go all the time, just like Yahoo!. Just let them die.

Because ideological subversion is a dangerous weapon and being used to manipulate cultures. And it must be fought back or the west dies. You can say "free market" all you want, but we do not have a free market so long as these conglomerates have the gov't in pocket. I can't choose for a school to not use Google, for instance. This is a bigger problem than simply "not a good product then don't use it". Psychological warfare in a population must be dealt with.

>hey, let's get Rick and Morty taken off the air!
>hey, you can't take Infowars off the air, that's censorship!

Thing is, a good couple of them have a large monopoly. Youtube is pretty much the video hosting site for anything longer than a minute, nothing can compete, except for maybe bitchute. But for serious video content creators, it's either youtube or their livelyhoods are pretty much over, many rely on youtube as their source of revenue, and most who get fucked are small content creators who usually had nothing to do with shit like this, when pewdiepie and Logan Paul controversies surged, Felix and Logan ultimately got no lasting penalty besides free advertising, meanwhile smaller content creators who made a decent sum of money got fucked over just because google suddenly has a problem with them saying "ass". Removing Alex Jones is a whole other can of worms all together, regardless of what you think about him, infowars is still a publication, and with that terminated with the whole sandy hook thing as an excuse to justify it (Even though he already backed away from it long ago), they very much could come after just about anyone with thoughts that are "Incompatible" with google, shit's bad for PR and you can either expect Google backing down or going all out and mutilating their platform further, and it's obvious the latter will most likely happen, and when it happens, they'll gain a bit of power, but then lose all of it afterwards.

We cant win. We are powerless. We are pathetic.

>holding lefties to their own standards to showcase their hypocrisy is bad

What? I thought Dan liked people getting censored for wrong think.

They'll never get that.

Hence Oxycotin. Got to keep him drugged so he doesn't rebel.

>doing things that you think other people shouldn't be doing isn't the definition of hypocrisy

>global corporations banning content from their property is communism

Rules for radicals. Harm your enemy by making them live up to their standards.
Lefties love govt. regulation.

Only if you are too young to remember a world where Google and Facebook didn't exist, and to naïve to assume everything you read on the internet is bullshit anyway.
It's my the companies fault the consumers are idiots, but don't regulate anything on the internet. Just let it be unregulated with a warning symbol, and don't intigrate the services with every day.
You are going to inadvertitly create a Government managed, fully monitored, controlled network (like China).
You can't have a monopoly on online data. You can bittorrent all of that, you can block all the ads with ad blocker.
Just because the average user has no idea how the internet works passed Google, doesn't mean they own a monopoly. They only get a monopoly if you regulate the internet and give people no other alternative.

If I want to read infowars, I'll just go to infowars.com and read it there. They can upload to some other streaming service. It's irrelevant if Twitter, Facebook, Apple and Google censor them because I DON'T USE THOSE SERVICES.

Besides, Google and FB were already massively funded by the government. They're pretend private companies. FB opened the day after DARPAs program just like it ended. This is all government crap to get around rights anyway. We need to call a spade a spade and stop pretending this has anything to do with our non existent free market.

>a pedophile
>someone who i disagree with
Those things are not the same buddy, its not even the same discussion

Goolag is run by Jews, runs mind control ops, censorship, accretion of centralized control of means of production and communication, international in scope, no loyalty to any nation.

How is it not different to communism?

Jews are paranoid and often make rash decisions. Their urge to silence white goyim identity, or even just basic CivNat stuff (opposes Jewish global oligarchy) was too hard to control.

Of course, the Government wants you to use them because they can monitor the servers.

If you want to host videos online, download the open source code, but some big Harddrives, get a good internet connection and you are done.
You cannot monopolize data online, anyone can put anything they want online. And anyone can remove things they don't like.
That's how the internet works. It's a good thing.
The internet runs at a much lower level than Facebook and Google, people have completely lost touch with the hardware layer.

Here's some of the people who work at high positions in Google.

Attached: Google executives.jpg (1024x704, 112K)

Here's some of the top CEOs of Google.

Attached: Google Jews.jpg (1536x1569, 713K)

>play by your rules, goy! my "rules for radicals" book doesn't have a chapter for when you don't!

And who is going to regulate them? Conservatives won't, because of "muh free market." Liberals won't, because they support censorship. So... who then?

I think in retrospect pushing that cake guy who didn't want to do the gay wedding thing has had some unintended consequences for you dummies

It's really funny how Google has a TOS for it's employees that tell them not to encourage violence, yet you have the guy on the top right encouraging violence.

Your fears are legitimate, and probably what these banking overlords are relying on. It is a conundrum in that sense. But addressing positive rights of the people is never a bad thing. This can be addressed in that sense. In the same way we have the right to converging protests in public or the right to stop from illegal searches and seizures, we have the right to be heard on the internet. Just because private companies own this infrastructure it is too important to then give over our rights of communication to them. your theories would work if it wasn't so well connected in the cartels of technology. For instance I need a Facebook to get certain jobs now. This will only progressively get worse.

but again this can be solved with positive rights given to the people to not be censored.

So much this.
CIA is linked to Google, Google Maps came from a CIA developed program that was transferred to Google.
Youtube was and is always part of Google. It was developed by Google linked people and then transferred back to the mothership when the time was ripe.
23&me was developed by people linked to Google.
Amazon is linked to CIA, Amazon hosts the CIA cloud on Amazon AWS.
Facebook is a DARPA program called Lifelogger.

Your search, location, viewing, purchases and network of friends is logged into a threat matrix.

If one wants to do business as a social media company, they must adhear to the rights of the people for free communication. This would be a great positive right for the people.

Attached: images.jpg (197x255, 11K)

> social media
> publishing company

Pick one. If they censor what's on their sites, they're responsible for it. By doing all this political interference, Facebook and Google are showing they can be held responsible for everything anyone posts.

Thats acceptable violence. Nazis aren't people.
Everyone they want to do violence to is a Nazi.

They are trying to stop Republicans keeping control in the mid-terms.

That will never fill the hole that used to be the white mans pride. If you are smart enough to think creatively you have a tendency to have pride in yourself to. Eventually allot of guys will look for that which does satisfy. Women and family. If they have taken this. White men will take it by force. And we tend to use an excessive amount of force.

You don't even need internet to vote so it seems pointless

Spot on

KIL,L THEM WITH FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Attached: jew talking about ritual killings.jpg (531x351, 101K)

>TFW Zionist open-borders neocons with Mexican wives are "Nazis" now.

Attached: Jeb Peanut Butter victory 4chan Easter 2018.gif (512x512, 622K)

NAZIS DON'T EXIST AND HAVEN'T SINCE 1945

Media can influence people's thoughts, having it to be exclusively one side is generally a bad thing.

There should be a regulation stating that since anyone has the ability to use their website without paying, content on the website is considered public platform and thus companies have no right censoring anybody on the platform.

>having it to be exclusively one side is generally a bad thing.
And so is eating crow every day

This. A new addressed positive right of the people is the way to go.

This is a real mountain if a problem because even the government does decide to take action, it will be written by the conglomerates and be akin to garbage like net neutrality. Positive rights are the only way to go with this. Not a 40,000 page mess of regulations that will end up worse than where we are now.

So be aware when the gov't tries to suggest that as a "solution".

The hypocrisy here is startling.
>It is very concerning what effect Russian bots have had on the election using these same social media websites
>Alex Jones has no effect on politics anyways! So what if he gets removed from social media?

Bake that cake !

MUH FREE MARKET

No point in bothering, trumptards are the dumbest humans in history.

>I don't get it. Is Big Tech just begging to be regulated out the ass?
There is no goverment strong enough to stand against Big Tech or Big Corporations nowadays.
They own everything.

They're the modern day town square.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
It's reasonable to think Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc. should have free speech on their platforms.

fake earnings tho

They haven't been a private company in years. The only reason they are able to do this is republican treason. How do you like your Obamacare John McCain?