STOP DO NOT TAKE THE BAIT

Fuck I love Dan Boingino. Honorary Arian all the way.

Yeah I read it, it still doesn't make any sense user. Can you be elaborate?

>Conservatives will want the government to step in
Conservatives =/= liberals

FREE SPEECH FOR ALL, EVEN RABID COMMUNISTS

THIS IS ILLEGAL RACKETEERING BY BIG TECH MONOPOLIES

BREAK THEM ALL UP

Wow, great thread Jonathan.
Your mom said that you need to go clean the bathroom, so get to it.

The laws won’t favor Conservatives. Think of it as a FF. Banning AJ makes us the victims, it makes the shooter Facebook, Apple, Google etc. They want Conservative news shut down completely EVERYWHERE not just private companies. So they want to squeeze us until we call for regulations to stop the censorship. It will end up with more government regulations that allow banning EVERYWHERE

...

See

Dan Bongino sounds like a cuckservative. These faggots always come up with a "reason" we shouldn't fight back.

Hegelian dialectic. That create a problem (conservative censorship), get everyone rolled up about the unfairness of it as liberals are given carte Blanche to say whatever they want, then offer sweeping regulations to reduce censorship by tamping down on websites ability to police themselves.

THIS

Attached: 2E1E01A1-740A-48E6-962B-E22D8E025228.gif (300x186, 445K)

this.
OP is autistic

See:

See:

>It will end up with more government regulations that allow banning EVERYWHERE
What do you mean by this, what regulations specifically, on what?
>reduce censorship by tamping down on websites ability to police themselves
????
Quit linking and just explain yourself faggot.

New laws doesnt mean censorship you fucking idiot. Its reverse censorship to demand someone to host your words

Saying lies about people like Alex Jones did will be banned. Fighting lies and fake news is important to protect democracy and the legitimacy of elections.

>Hegelian dialectic. That create a problem (conservative censorship), get everyone rolled up about the unfairness of it as liberals are given carte Blanche to say whatever they want, then offer sweeping regulations to reduce censorship by tamping down on websites ability to police themselves.

We don't need gov't regulation, but an Internet Bill of Rights that restricts the gov't ability to control the internet and which applies also to corporations.

If corporations want to act like little gov'ts, then have them operate under the same restrictions as gov't.

#InternetBillOfRights
It's happening.

We are trying to get the word nigger mainstream, no way in hell we want censorship.

but those websites are policing us
how is removing their ability to censor us a bad thing?

since republicans control Congress they must repeal all hate speech laws.. problem solved.

I don't think he can elaborate. This sounds a hell of a lot more like "don't complain about censorship goy, or we'll only make it worse." Fucking retarded to say that an outcry about censorship will bring about hate speech laws.

To free market thinkers, most/any government regulation is bad. Most free market thinkers are (at pray relatively) conservative. If you want to get conservatives to accept government intervention, you have to center it around an issue that's really important to them, i.e. getting the shit kicked out of them in social media. The idea is to take the power of speech regulation from private industry and put it into the hands of big brother.

fuck all that

its time to break up joogle and apple like momma bell

To free market thinkers, most/any government regulation is bad. Most free market thinkers are (at pray relatively) conservative. If you want to get conservatives to accept government intervention, you have to center it around an issue that's really important to them, i.e. getting the shit kicked out of them in social media. The idea is to take the power of speech regulation from private industry and put it into the hands of big brother.

This. This is what I’m failing to explain

Umm no sweetie. Also, your I’d almost got cuck, so close.

OR people will realize that the best way to confront this is a steadfast campaign of non-participationism. Take a look at that new doom game for instance. Games loaded with sjw bullshit have not been fairing well at all so now we have bethesda, of all fucking companies, publishing this doom game. And the leftists are crying that there are 2 anti-leftist jokes in the gameplay demo. They are wrong there are more than that. >earth is a melting pot >dont call them demons call them mortally challenged >lets help our new friends so that their transition is easier etc

Point is lads not buying faggotry filled games started to hurt their corporate pocketbooks. The only way to pushback against this shit is to not use their services. No more youtube, period. No more, goybook period. If a whole bunch of people just started cancelling their cable subscriptions the kvetching would be astronomical. Because it goes beyond subscription payments. If say just 5% of cable subscribers pulled their dicks out of that filthy pussy stock holders would dump stocks accordingly.

Furthermore, in regards to youtube, what alternatives are there? A whole lot of normalfaggots have those firestick tv bullshits on their televisions. The way those things work is it is basically a thumbdrive with enough ram and harddisk space to be able to buffer and stream a movie. With it and the right programs installed (plex) it works as a hub to a server. You can set up your computer to be a server and stream to a television on the other side of the world.

So, with that being what it is, how hard would it be to set up a p2p sort of youtube clone? I couldnt see it being very hard at all. Get a decent server, host videos and set up a patreon for server costs.

I dont see why that couldnt not only work but work well.

Uh what? Pretty sure we need some sort of government involvement in dealing with the internet censorship. If it becomes nationalized, and no longer controlled by the free market jews in silicon valley, then your freedom of speech is guaranteed. Well that is as long as your government will make good on protecting your first amendment rights.

If they think they'll impeach trump eventually and remove him from office, it's the perfect Trojan horse as conservatives would have only themselves to blame down the road when a new liberal messiah takes over.

While I don't think this will actually happen I'm glad you at least answered my questions where the other user couldn't, appreciated.

I can quote people too
see seeand then

>The idea is to take the power of speech regulation from private industry and put it into the hands of big brother.

But look what the private industry is doing with it.
either way we are getting censored
so it really doesnt matter does it
either or, we dont have a voice while the left does.

Fuck off commie and read the thread

I’m the OP. it’s my fault I failed to explain it well. My bad

I think the potential for unintended consequences would be the compelling factor here. There may not be an immediate objective to it, but we are where we are because we failed to see the globalists playing the long con. They see around corners better than we do.

he is reading the thread, so am i
you guys are making no sense and being vague
>dont complain about our private globalist businesses silencing you or the government will take control from us and .......silence you.

seems like the same outcome for us regardless if government decides to silence us.
who do you trust more, the government we are taking over or he globalist commie kike corps?

Your argument is
>dont attack those you KNOW are trying to censor you because the people that would take over MIGHT censor you.

Would you even be able to pass a law as basic as
>'all users of must be allowed equal access, except in cases where US law is broken (CP) no citizen can be banned from '
because I don't think that could pass, the argument being the private company does as they please. The only case I could see would be someone trying to get sites like FB or YT turned into public resources but again I don't think that'd ever get the traction to become law.
What sort of law are you afraid of getting passed? Not being sarcastic either, genuinely curious.

I did. It makes literally no sense. You're worried about more censorship after the backlash to censorship. Doesn't compute.

Attached: lordhelpson.gif (300x188, 1.18M)

Stefan Molyneux is currently on the youtube chopping block now. He has done nothing against the youtube community guidelines ever.
He is very articulate and respectful.
This is prof that it's not Alex but anyone that speaks common sense against crazy liberal ideals.
It doesn't matter if you like or dislike alex, This is outright censorship and the USA FCC andd Telacommunications commission needs to act NOW and stop this.

some fucking tranny liberal with purple hair is abusing it's power and doing this. That or a big nosed liberal kike bitch.

Attached: stefan.jpg (663x576, 117K)

>& call for government censorship
thats not what they would call for. They would call for classifying online platforms as the new public square so large private companies cannot infringe free speech under the guise of 'disobeying the TOS'

>Liberals will call for use of the regulations to hide behind by banning ALL Conservative websites etc. They will hide behind HATE SPEECH laws.

That's the part that makes no sense. Complaining about censorship is going to bring about unconstitutional hate speech laws.
They're using the hate speech boogeyman to shut down everything they don't like. I'm with you in that I'm torn myself between the right of someone to determine what shows up on their site and another person's right to say what they want. I think the best answer is to come up with alternatives that believe in free speech, but it hasn't happened yet. I'm no IT guy but that looks like an opportunity for someone.

Listen superfaggot, muh free market isn't going to fix this one. The social media giants hold natural monopolies over one of the most important tools to ever be produced. They now hold an essential piece of the public square under private ownership, and as such must allow people to use their services to express themselves. Social media must be regulated as a public utility. There is a wide variety of precedent to support this
>Trump is not allowed to ban people off his twitter, as people MUST have access to social media
nytimes.com/2018/05/23/business/media/trump-twitter-block.html
>(the judge found that) the president’s Twitter feed is a public forum
This will inevitably be extended to mean that Twitter and others cannot ban people lest they violate their first amendment rights to access the public forum. There are many other examples I can give of precedent to be used in this inevitable legal battle. This is child's play. Social media is now a part of the public square, protected under the First Amendment, and libshit corporate faggots have failed to protect and actively attacked the rights of American citizens, and as a result their platforms will soon be regulated as public utilities.
Fuck you and your market solution shit. Either we run the government and make the laws or they do.

Attached: 1533749906636.gif (360x202, 1.58M)

this

>people considering Alex Jones an actual viable political source
>aliens, CIA niggers and tinfoil

I trust neither, and to be fair, I don't know that there's actually anything to this, I'm just spit-balling. But right now tech is taking a hit in the court of public opinion. If we beg for legislation that regulates such things, we open a Pandora's box for which we would (in theory) only have ourselves to blame.

way to miss the entire fucking point

This thread is fucking retarded. Can we make a law about banning liberals?

Anyone watching live rn? Where's Alex? Wtf is up with this homo guy?

the USA FCC and Telacommunications commission needs to act NOW and stop this.
Only Americans can make complaints.
File thee complaints , every american should. Make them act.

this image needs a road block added labeled "youtube"

Attached: 1533490845276.jpg (1080x776, 115K)

*Oops I meant to write Americans. Ban Americans. Sorry about the Freudian slip.

But maybe that's the checkmate part. They get more government control over private industry and it was all our doing. Again, maybe it's all horseshit, but the best subversion is that which lulls you into thinking it isn't a threat at first.

>USA FCC andd Telacommunications commission needs to act NOW and stop this.
NO. No they do not. Deplatforming alex jones is one thing but if they do it to less glow in the dark people like molyjew then the backlash will be insurmountable. People will have to make a choice, do they really need to use youtube or any other such service? No, they do not.

be less of a shill

Who is this podcast faggot and why am I supposed to care what he thinks?

somebody needs to take this video and pepe trump it and use it as a free speech freedom inspirational video to inspire people to rise up against the censorship. That would be awesome. Im not tech savvy enough to pull it off.

I'm not even slightly concerned. The Supreme Court can simply say
>you can't ban people off your platforms
>unless they are breaking US law i.e. spreading child pornography or making specific, actionable threats
>otherwise the can sue the fuck out of you for infringing on their rights
'government intervention' doesn't mean they're going to send in the FBI to run Facebook, they'll just create rulings that allow people to go to court to sue for their right to speak. They'll get in line real fucking quick once their money is threatened. I'm much less afraid of government intervention than I am of communists in big media. The government never shut down the Daily Stormer, they never shut down the distribution of books like the Turner Diaries, they never shut down any variety of crazy far-right fringe newsletters or podcasts, the private sector did that.
I honestly think that our humble fluoride advocate is going to be the one to set this precedent. The memes have become reality, the guy has millions and nothing better to do. After collecting money for 2 weeks and seeing who bans him and how, he's going to sue the fuck out of these people. He was already planning to sue Spreaker of all people when they kicked him a few weeks before the big giants banned him. He's absolutely got a legal team already working to take the giants to the highest court he can reach, the man has nothing to lose and so much to gain.

Attached: 1533741301571.gif (448x252, 2.84M)

oops sorry about that

youtube.com/watch?v=lEOOZDbMrgE

I hope you're right, but I'm a man with little faith left in the world. It's my default to assume the worst.

Most accurate post itt so far.
I know the feeling user, it's often hard to hope.

Attached: space x reuse.webm (640x360, 765K)

>the biggest Trojan horse in history
The ADL was founded in 1913 to fight antisemitism, and the ACLU was founded in 1920 to prevent physical removal of communists.

THIS....

>I trust neither, and to be fair, I don't know that there's actually anything to this, I'm just spit-balling. But right now tech is taking a hit in the court of public opinion. If we beg for legislation that regulates such things, we open a Pandora's box for which we would (in theory) only have ourselves to blame.

This is the exact idea behind it

>>The liberals are banning people like Alex Jones so Conservatives get angry & call for government censorship, this will backfire!!!!
On them yes, Who would respond with the desire for more censorship after being censored?

bump

He means that by regulating them they can be opened up to lawsuits by any lunatic left winger who doesn't like what they allow up there, so it legally justifies them in shutting down conservative talk, whereas now, nobody has any legal recourse. At least, as far as any proposed legislation, that is. Also, another point is raised by Bongino, which is, be careful of the people bringing these proposals up. One of whom is Mark Warner, who is a massive liberal scumbag.

Thank you. I’m retarded today and can’t make my point obviously

>freedom of speech
>protected by the government

Good idea! What could possibly go wrong?

I must be retarded too because I still don't know what the fuck any of you are talking about.

>He means that by regulating them they can be opened up to lawsuits by any lunatic left winger who doesn't like what they allow up there, so it legally justifies them in shutting down conservative talk, whereas now, nobody has any legal recourse. At least, as far as any proposed legislation, that is. Also, another point is raised by Bongino, which is, be careful of the people bringing these proposals up. One of whom is Mark Warner, who is a massive liberal scumbag.

user just greentexting the post above doesn't make it clearer.

Basically, don't give the government an inch, because they'll take 10 fucking miles.

You're better off just deleting your social media accounts in protest than having some 800 year old boomer making up laws about something they know absolutely nothing.

Ok it means that if Conservatives get pissed off about censorship and want the government to step in and regulate what ALL companies can remove etc, they’ll get fucked over by liberals who file lawsuits saying they’re offended etc. They’ll be able to remove ALL Conservative material.

What if all the law says is "equal access or no platform"? How would anybody get blacklisted/removed under that?
Sorry if I seem slow but none of this shit makes a lick of sense to me. I dislike that companies are being dicks to their users but I don't need or want the state to step in on their behalf, even if all they did was say "quit banning people".

So we should just give up oh ok. Im site this no-name neocon isn't a never trumper or a kike shill

He’s neither. His solution is to hit them in the pockets by canceling all FAGS account. Avoid fighting back by asking for government regulations.

>I trust neither, and to be fair, I don't know that there's actually anything to this, I'm just spit-balling. But right now tech is taking a hit in the court of public opinion. If we beg for legislation that regulates such things, we open a Pandora's box for which we would (in theory) only have ourselves to blame. More regulation could equal giving liberals the reigns to cancel whatever they want based on whatever nonsense they put in regulation

Attached: E9CB9FC6-565F-4822-8DA3-41BDF59324F1.png (584x219, 12K)

>Good idea! What could possibly go wrong?
It's either that or you could have your opinions censored by private companies. It's not a big deal though, you can just build your own social media platforms right? That's why so many people are doing it and having great success. Gotta love the (((free market))).

>More regulation could equal giving liberals the reigns to cancel whatever they want based on whatever nonsense they put in regulation
This is the part that makes no sense to me.
Also please stop greentexting other user's posts as answers, I already read it the first time and it doesn't tell me more now than it did before.

This is just the evolution of the censorship shilling.

>follow the TOS
>TOS can be changed at any time
>They don't need a reason anyway lol
>go to a different service
>go to a different service
>go to a different service
>go to a different host
>DDOS is teh free market
>bury cables in the ground
>you don't need it anyway
>its all free market
>you can't change the law
>please don't change the law
>changing the law is the real plan
>don't change the law or you'll get censored
>stop taking about Alex Jones
>you're not a real conservative
>its the kikes i swear!

It already is protected by the government. Hello?
Oh yeah let's just infringe on our rights voluntarily. That'll show them. Hello?

Hate speech isn't in the law. They can get offended all they want, people can't do this. Why do you think the Westboro Baptist Church can still go around with signs saying 'God hates fags'?

Attached: 1534302815492.jpg (409x618, 58K)

Nice ID CUGK

Nobody wants censorship(other than the loony left). I do however want the supreme court to rule on whether or not free speech is allowed. In a private area that is otherwise open to the public.

News flash there's legal precedent that privately owned areas that are otherwise open to the public CAN NOT limit free speech. Malls and corporate owned and operated towns being prime examples.

It’s like net neutrality. Hidden in the legislation it gave Obama the power to cancel any website he deemed inappropriate. Pic related is what NN actually was explained by Ajit Pai. Trump isn’t attacking this issue I suspect because he’s aware the liberals could do shit like this again. Hidden words etc could give them unfettered permission to shut down anything they want. This censorship is literally a trap. The want Conservatives to get angry & call for regulations, they’ll swoop in, promise they’ll fix it, but the real agenda is the opposite.

Attached: C7B5CA0E-4FA8-4AB6-8298-EA7922222B09.jpg (1307x3884, 1.49M)

>The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. - Ronald Reagan

Attached: Help.jpg (500x382, 35K)

You got it

Attached: C91B7954-3C5D-402C-8654-A9786EF49325.gif (480x272, 2.14M)

Alex Jones presents his own theories that are based on flimsy evidence. Not broadcast on cable.
>Coordinated takedown by big tech and smear jobs by MSM
>MSM deliberately edits videos, audio, writing, text, etc (Trump-Abe koi pond fiasco). Broadcast worldwide in airports.
Absolutely nothing happens
We know who the enemy is. Asking these companies to regulate themselves in good faith is not working. Government regulation is not the answer. We need websites like twitter and facebook that are being used as public forums to have the freedom of speech of a public forum.

I guess I'm just dumb because I still don't know what the trap is, what the proposal is, what the legislation would be, what would result in censorship.
This sounds like the most straight-forward solution.
>We need websites like twitter and facebook that are being used as public forums to have the freedom of speech of a public forum.
This too, I guess my confusion at the other user's point is that I don't know how guaranteeing uniform access to a platform would result in censorship of some.

So with a conservative president house and senate and soon to be supreme court we should stop now... president doesn't have a line item veto

You do it. I won’t take my chances. Less government regulations the better.