What did Jow Forums's IQ mean by this?

What did Jow Forums's IQ mean by this?

Attached: pol_equals_niggers.jpg (1516x1133, 1.06M)

I can hear the gears in heads turning and skipping cogs

Hmm. Well.. you seee... ya i got nothin.

>Mental gymnastics in 3...2....1

Jow Forums btfo

Attached: highresaiden.png (331x403, 151K)

Google is a large influential company so they should be impartial

Google and Social Networks describe themselves as public formus, therefore, they must follow the rules according to such formus.
On the other hand, a private business as a bakery works from a different legal point of view, specially as an "artist" as some have qualified baking cakes.
OP is a retard for thinking two different scenarios work the same

my guess is people stupid enough to support regulation, and expect the gov stepping in will actually HELP them for the first time.. my guess is those people will simply ignore the thread because they know they are BTFO.

That's funny, I don't recall anyone forcing Google to make content it doesn't support.

the supreme court ruled that baking a cake as is an artistic endeavor equivalent to speech and that compelling someone to make a cake can be interpreted as compelled speech. that's why you can't be forced to bake a cake. google does not compel speech, only transmit it. by claiming to be a neutral carrier but then proceeding to editorialize content, google is trying to have their cake and eat it too. either they are not entitled to the protections of a neutral carrier or they must stop moderating content.

>google be BIG yo.. yo LOTS OF NIGGAS be usin dat shit.. and they TALKIN ON IT TOO

>so lets burn up that gas constitution my nigger!!


it shows

Dilate tranny.

Why does Google get to violate the terms of the law under which it operates tranny?

thanks user, couldn't have said it better

I know you don't believe your own bullshit, so just kys

>yoo... fuck listen to this legalise yo.. THIS is why gov should force private enterprise to change instead of me using my own power of boycott..

ever heard of the boston tea party? that kind of shit works.. asking gov to clamp your balls and control more never works.

Is Google censoring based on religious principles?

I just switched to duckduckgo.

Sorry faggot, I’m not even a hypocrite.

Attached: B798DC2A-538E-4DA1-8F41-AC6EBE9232EA.jpg (317x267, 12K)

Yes, except Islam.

you're being obtuse. the issue is that google benefits from declaring themselves a neutral carrier while not being a neutral carrier. they are already possibly in violation of existing law

good, fuck google, i encourage everyone to boycott it.

>dumbdumbgoy

Attached: berg.png (520x556, 277K)

shut the fuck up idiot, if you dont like it.. BOYCOTT IT

stop asking government to save you, they NEVER DO.

also this

Attached: 1518581500892.jpg (1120x1120, 358K)

If google want's to be a "private company" and editorialize the content on their platforms they must follow the rules of being classified as a publication. But that wouldn't work for them, because that would make them, as a publisher, accountable for the content they provide. So they always try to push the narrative to be a forum, a platform (and can thus ignore all the laws or publications) but sadly being a platform would mean they can't editorialize the content.

Google and the other platforms as well, have to decide what they are and act like it, instead of always turning around shifting when some law doesn't match their intent.

Jow Forums is a natsoc board
that pic is actually consistent with natsoc economics
fucking kek, you are in fact retarded

google violated a legal law, the bakers violated an illegal law

>boycott google
you can only do this by disconnecting from the internet, otherwise they are making money off of your even if you never directly use their service. you would need to stop using any website that does anything from directly integrating google services to doing something as simple as using google's CDN for jquery. google still tracks you and profits from selling your data in either situation.

its almost like the term boycott isnt used anymore.. that is the ONLY method that ever has worked historically

id imagine thats why anti-BDS laws came about.. they fear the boycott..

idiot, if people boycotted google en masse, they would fucking wither and die. the only reason google continues swallowing shit up is people making it out to be divine like yourself.

idiot.. holy fucking shit.

you're on a website using google right now. are you willing to stop using Jow Forums to participate in the boycott?

>just maek ur own guugel
The retard here is you, I'm afraid.

Attached: 1548918731066.jpg (215x200, 4K)

Plebbitors, this is what a shill thread looks.

Two completely different things
As usual, complete horseshit as an argument from you
Sage and hide

Yes. But considering everyones IQ is so low, I don't see a large scale boycott happening, all I can do it talk about it and hope people fucking learn.

marianas trench called, they found your fucking IQs you useful goys.

>just maek ur own guugel

never said that now did it.. retard.

Noted

>im the government and I'm here to help

>Jow Forumspol/: GREAT

>one bakery in a country with millions of bakeries doesn't want to bake a gay cake
>mega-corporation with monopoly on search engines and video streaming is openly declaring that it intends to use it's power to prevent Trump from getting re-elected
what did OP mean by this?

>Calls for government action
>"YOOOOO Why ain't you jus doin violence and shiet?"
The only nigger here is you. Fucking shitting up the board because you can't stand people having conservative views. How pathetic.

>thinking elections have been legitimate in the last 100 years

this isn't about trump, this is literally just a setup to make the people implement their own 1984 and make google the de-facto definition of "the internet", now publicly sectioned off and managed by the government.

expect even less freedom when that happens.

Also, I bet you think standard oil was really broken up.

Everybody pushing this argument is extremely disingenuous. First off, at a basic level, the two situations are not analogous. The cake shop owner does not have a national, regional, or even street level monopoly on cake making, so nobody he discriminates against suffers at all

Google on the other hand has basically an international monopoly on this form of communications. So when they discriminate, it actually damages the victim.

Another difference, the cake shop owner doesn’t try to prevent homos from getting their cake elsewhere, whereas google does try to threaten other companies to prevent them from providing service to dissidents.

Another difference, believing that marriage should be for the purpose of natural procreation under god between man and woman is a reasonable moral view, whereas google’s position that criticism of them should be silenced, that any push back against the globohomo agenda should be silenced, is an evil position. You think you have made this brilliant point by saying “ha, private company, private rules”, as if we should just abandon our moral concerns because you appeal to some vague libertarian principle.

>tossing leafs into water is violent

also, this was an analogy. if you hadnt caught on, i was actually saying people should go throw lipton in their bathtub.

Imagine unironically being a phoneposting nigger
Stop what you're doing and visualize it

You can't accept the fact that they're breaking the law. The whole crux of your argument is that this is somehow our fault, and that we're powerless to stop it, so it is our fault. Nice circular logic.

>leafs
leaves* i guess i subconsciously thought you were a fucking leaf due to your innate need to be cucked.

>im the government and I'm here to help

>Jow Forumspol/: GREAT

Kill yourself, exactly as your image shows, if google can discriminate against right wingers, then businesses and governments can discriminate against niggers.

>here is my word salad explaining why I believe the government taking more control of the country will help me

wonderful.

They won't boycott it in masse. Do you think only the U.S uses Google? Are you going to convince all of Europe and Asia to stop using it? Do you realize how many people use Google?

They still had to provide cakes to all customers regardless of sexual orientation, they simply were not, as artists, required to produce cakes that were themed and decorated in a fashion unrepresentative of their brand and values
Big Tech, as a public forum, must host conservatives fairly and neutrally. It does NOT have to brand or style itself conservatively.
Likewise, I'm entitled to reply to this shitty bait thread, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to bump it with my post - I'm allowed to make that decision when I come across threads that are extremely low effort, low quality, and made in bad faith.

There you go.

>quoting other people and me at the same time

yeesh, also.. yes i think businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they fucking want. are you a cuck or something?

>They won't boycott it in masse

sadly, i would bet this as well. As I said, the IQs are too low

>people will learn to love their enslavement

oh, huxley, it shows.. indeed it shows.

>???
I have no idea what you could even possibly be implying at this point. I should throw some leaves into some water? What the fuck are you even suggesting?

Bakery was forced to bake the cake in the end, so Google should be forced not to be pieces of jewish shits.

>yoo its FUCKING BASED that he was forced to make cakes he doesnt agree with!

>iq

clear difference, they did not deny faggots to buy a cake but to make special faggot cake with nigger dicks on it.

>im the government and I'm here to help

>Jow Forumspol/: GREAT

You reek of CIA and write like a 50 years old.

Do what the fuck I say or go to Gitmo.

Free speech is in the Constitution, but cake isn't.

Yeah? So? It's already been made an issue in the government. You're just saying nonsense now you stupid kike. No matter what my response is you'll just keep saying dumb shit and acting like you won, as is the norm with kikes.

>he is saying something other than the 99% of retards out there, whom I agree with!
>he is .. a spy!

your IQ. .. ......

BASED

>You're just saying nonsense now
false. you are just incompetent at critical thought.

theobjective common good is my argument, you degenerate subhuman

kill yourself

>im the government and I'm here to help

>Jow Forumspol/: GREAT

Damn dude, you got me by saying literally nothing over and over. Do you get paid for this?

he wasn't

This thread was quite useful because every poster other than OP articulated good reasons why the two cases are not the same.
▶ Google owns so much of what I need in order to use the internet that it should be broken up through anti trust legislation anyways, if the law is to have any meaning at all.
Even more than that, there cornered the tablet and cellphone market with Android. They're too big to start act as a global censor. Microsoft was broken up for monopolizing less.

You can't be a publisher that curates content yet claim the protection of a public forum at the same time.
Either
google is a publisher that curates and is therefore by law responsible for any and all of the content
or
a public forum that is just a platform for other people to create content they are not responsible for.

idk ur just cringe boomer, either trolling and its cringy as fuck or legit retard so not rly different.

Attached: 54d5d55d.png (694x204, 115K)

>im the government and I'm here to help

>Jow Forumspol/: GREAT

^quite literally all I need to say at this point..

Whats good should be enforced
Whats bad should be punished

Faggotry is bad thus cake bad
Google supporting faggots thus google bad

Very simple unless you are retarded muh morals muh rights muh equality faggot

Can websites have IQS?

We have laws which Google is beholden to. They have broken the law. It has been brought to the attention of the supreme court and the president himself. Why the fuck are you mad at random Jow Forumsacks? Because I don't boycott Google? What good would that do, they've only got the rest of the fucking planet using their services. All we can do is wait now, and keep exposing their anti-consummer practices.

> YO FUCK HE BE POSTING LIKE A LOT N SHIT IN HIS THREAD HE MADE..

>YO FUCK THIS IS -NOT- GOOD BRO NIGGER

lol, hilarious.

t. 40 yo incel. have sex

That google has a legal agreement to not act as a publisher with the united states government while the bakery does not.
This is a false comparison.
Imagine there is an endagered species of ants, and it becomes illegal to kill them. Now imagine another species not endangered, mutates to grow to the size of buses, and chops children in half while drinking their blood. Now imagine you, running in like a retard chasing tendies, to a congressional hearing on how to exterminate the mega vampire ants, saying it's hypocritical.

Are you going to volunteer to stop the spread of incels by using your body as service?

gay lefty here
to be fair, this seems disingenuous
there are many bakeries, there aren't many googles, so it has an effect on how often things will occur
not baking a certain type of cake isn't the same as actively manipulating data to further your agenda. not baking the cake could do the same, but isn't actively in your life at every moment like google's services. also the cake forces people to openly sexualize things, which isn't fair to impose, while google imposes the ideas for you to only agree with them and have no agency
in general i don't think they should be compared, much different scales, aspects of life, and active vs single events and as another user wrote, along with what i wrote, handling data at large scales should be neutral, because google is only a carrier for that data, not a creator or controller, or arbitrer that gets to change the "truth", where baking a cake doesn't involve truth in the same way, usually ethics and morality, that don't involve disinformation to reach a moral goal (which goes back to the old question, fair if you say no regardless of the goal)

Did your in house designer choose that piss yellow background?

ye but 6 inch + only. op is probably 4 inch acne face incel

They broke the law and should be punished. Do laws suddenly not apply to corporations? Here, I'll give you an easier example since you don't have two neurons to rub together to create a thought.
>"I have just murdered someone!"
>"Now you must go to jail."
>"Oh no, this is what happens when you break the law!'

your such a faggot kek
>6 inch
probably smaller.

Attached: 1551790088913.jpg (500x447, 63K)

>Google has the same influence on people's lives as a fucking bakery
What did OP's IQ mean by this?

no op is 4 inches at most.

>pol is literally one person with a single opinion

Glad to see summer is finally here

the civil rights act contains parts that are unconstitutional

Cake baker was a case of the government compelling speech from someone (making an artisan product with an specific message).
Social media, other hand, the speech is produced by users (which is why facebook won't be sued for defamation for an user post.)
The fundamental differences between these two cases are what makes them different. Now if social media companies want to exercise editorial control over content then they'll have to accept being legally liable for any statement made on their platform regardless if they remove it later.

Either you are a neutral party and not responsible, or you are a publisher and responsible. You cant be both.
This isn't very hard to understand.

Attached: sip.jpg (200x207, 12K)

mad m8?

Attached: 1557524536864.gif (435x250, 1.04M)

>if you don’t exclusively think in extremes then you are a hypocrite
Brainlet bait

First is freedom of religion, second is censoring free speech!

>im the government and I'm here to help

>Jow Forumspol/: GREAT

why would i be mad about OPs tiny penis