Trump supporters when players are forced to not kneel for the anthem
>IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY IF YOU DON'T WANT TO OBEY THEIR RULES THEN QUIT
Trump supporters when alex jones is kicked off the platform of social media companies for not obeying their rules
>THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE, WE CAN'T ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS OR THEY'LL COME FOR YOU AND ME NEXT
which is it?
Can companies impose their rules on employees/users or not?
>expecting consistency in morals from racists
>Tyrone
Seems like the judgment to call Trump supporters racist is a bit swayed.
I often browse there as well as here and I think they would just love to have a friendly conversation with you, user!
desu, Alex Jones is a grown man and should take care of himself. he laid down some pills
What a retarded argument. The NFL is funded by taxpayer dollars, without us they literally don't exist so of course the niggers should obey the rules and respect the flag at their job. We pay their salary.
(Nigger)
Are you happy now?
its a private company they make their own rules(mostly) and employees should listen or get fired and they should always have the right to refuse service to anyone
Why would he be happy? you think using the world nigger on Jow Forums somehow makes you special?
Do you not understand the difference between a monopolized cabal of companies controlling a communications medium selectively censoring freedom of speech versus a sports organization preventing politicalization? Maybe you don't. Maybe you're too dishonest to acknowledge the difference. I don't know.
This reminds me of a middle schooler thinking he just came up with the most brilliant insight ever, then he busts out his rehearsed "GOTCHA!"
Freedom of speech should be more important than freedom of action desu. You should not be allowed to fire/ban someone for something they said. The first amendment should be enforced even upon businesses. That and the second amendment, any amendment really. Owning weapons is not a valid reason to ban someone, and companies should be held to the same standards as the government.
Trumpf is a moron and everyone knows that.
That does not however mean that censorship is suddenly a good idea
>companies should be held to the same standards as the government.
>Private companies
Go to hell faggot no one gives a fuck if it's private it belongs to you
Do businesses have a right to impose their rules on their employees/users?
Should the baker have been forced to bake a cake for the gay couple?
yes or no.
says the kid posting on boards.Jow Forums.org/r9k/
oh the irony
There's no such thing as a private business, only private trade.
>implying the people who own the media and don't also own the government
>inb4 you assume I mean "IZ DA JOOS" based on the pic I posted
en.m.wikipedia.org
Yes there is and you shouldn't be required to let someone speak out through your company or business if you don't want them to and you have the right to do it at that point it's up to whoever is in control
I'm not talking about what is legal now, I'm talking about what I think the law should be. Fuck businesses getting to do whatever they want, that's how jews take root. No private business should be allowed to have rules contradictory to our amendments. Don't like it? Only engage in provate trade. A business is not above the law.
google is approaching, if it has not already attained, monopoly status. Because it is so ubiquitous it either needs to be forcefully serpareted into competing companies, or be treated like a public utility in which case it loses various protections and autonomy
Yes, they do.
No, the baker shouldn't have been forced to do so.
However, you're conflating a MONOPOLIZED COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM (note that there are no viable competitors, or even the possibility of such popping up due to it) selectively censoring freedom of speech versus a private baking or sports company imposing rules of conduct for their employees.
One is a communications medium that very well may (and probably should) be legally declared a public form of communication soon due the monopolization aspect, the other two bake cakes and play football. washingtonexaminer.com
Your head is so far up your own ass that you can't even see light at this point. You're a partisan hack.
>first statement is saying they can quit
>second statement is forcing them to quit
Free market, voting with the wallets. That's how it goes.
Players submit fidelity to the United States just like knights of old to kings is rather unAmerican. So people stopped watching the NFL, stop buying merch, and stop buying tickets. The ratings started to go down and advertisers started pulling out. So changes were made.
Alex Jones gets banned off of mainstream media platforms which has caused massive controversy which has gotten him more attention and to platforms he isn't banned on. Twitter, Bit Chute, InfoWars website, and other alternative media platforms.
But its too early to tell the effects of this since its rather recent. Odds are this will increase alternative sites as the culture shifts. Facebook is feeling the heat since it sold user information and a few other controversies is pushing it to suffer the same fate as MySpace. YouTube will stick around until another video sharing site makes a profit and capitalizing on being the Free Speech platform.
This, the line is clear and anyone going extreme to either side is just being ignorant on purpose.
>The NFL is funded by taxpayer dollars
This better not be true. Why are Amerimutts so retarded?
I don't get it bro. If you don't like the business go somewhere else. There are plenty social media companies. Like the the gay couple you can go to another bakery. You don't need to have your cake baked by that specif baker. Similarly you don't need to use Facebook.
There's a difference between Facebook/twitter/youtube owning all social media companies and them having the largest user bases.
You don't HAVE to use these specific social media sites. You choose to use the.
>The NFL gave up the tax exempt status in 2015 following public criticism
en.wikipedia.org
alex jones was part of the media and purpose was to spread info and it was quite clear he was right leaning and that those were opinions
the nfl is for entertainment you dirty reds menaces want to politicize everything you can get your hands on hell movies and tv shows are already at least left leaning now a sport were the viewers are a majority republican are attacked during a time they shouldnt be
Alex jones was given many opportunists to not break the rules of the sites he uses but kept doing so ( claiming sandy hook is a hoax) and so was 'fired' Likewise if kapernick was "fired" and can no longer find work in the nfl.
Not so hard to comprehend my guy
That's like saying if the baker made really Delicious cakes that most people liked to eat (even though there are other bakeries) this would then give the government the right to force the baker to bake the gay couple a cake.
There is a difference. Youtube, Facebook (and all entities), and Google (and all entities), have pretty much complete monopoly over the internet media industry. If any or all of those companies decide that they do not like you for whatever arbitrary "quality filters" they set, you are pretty much irrelevant as far as the internet goes, and you always will be.
The NFL, on the other hand, is not a speech platform at all. The players on the individual teams are paid to play football, and thus, they are employees (and not users, like Alex Jones is to these sites). Therefore, when football players kneel during the anthem, they are doing so on the company's time.
A similar analogy would be if I worked for, say, IBM, and decided to use some of my work hours to post on a political board, and organize political activism, for, say, a civic nationalist group. Of *course* this would be ridiculous. I would be essentially using IBM's time for my own purposes, working on something they likely don't agree with. It would be absurd for me to claim I have any sort of authority to be doing this.
That being said, the principle of the NFL players kneeling is greatly over inflated. To be honest, if the players don't want to kneel, I don't really care. To claim they have some authority to do so on the NFL's time, however, makes little sense.
The principle of about a half dozen private trusts and monopolies controlling almost all speech on the internet, however, is far more concerning. The fact that Alex Jones was banned for hate speech (not exactly a viewer of him myself, but I have yet to see Alex Jones actively engaging in true hate speech) is a dangerous concept. To believe that there is not potential for these companies to do far more damage is short-sighted.
Why the fuck should I care OP? Kill liberals, rape liberal women.
>I don't get it bro
Of course you don't. You're an intellectually dishonest partisan hack with the mental acuity and political insights of a middle schooler.
Your argument basically boils down to "HURRDURR, GO TO GAB OR BITCHUTE INSTEAD!" If you think Gab or Bitchute are viable competitors to Twitter or YouTube given their established userbase and the dollars behind them, your IQ must literally be in the double digits. The point is that viable competitors don't exist, and YouTube and Twitter have reached the point where they should be declared public utilities due to their reach and size. This is especially crucial given that they're THE platforms for all sorts of communication, political communications being paramount.
You're like the people in the robber baron days saying "DON'T WORRY, A COMPETITOR WILL RISE UP AND TAKE DOWN CARNEGIE AND ROCKEFELLER SOON! FREE MARKET, BROSKI!" There's a reason the government had to step in. When the point of monopolization is reached (and yes, Google and Twitter have every bit the monopoly at the robber barons had back in the day), and viable alternatives are impossible, the government has to step in and break them up, or declare them a public utility. Especially given as important a role as the social media companies play.
This isn't even a duopoly situation, either. It's not like "I can get Coke or Pepsi." It's "I can get a Coke, or I can get a couple of drops of dirty rain water." This is a fucking monopoly. The choices are break them up, or declare them public utilities. The "competition" suggestion has clearly failed, and anybody with a brain in their head sees that no competition is going to be viable going up against fucking Google or Twitter.
Trump himself said the govt. shouldn't force their views on the NFL when Obama was president, but when he was president he changed his mind.
That's actually not at all like saying that, you fucking imbecile. The point is that they're a cake company rather than a monopolized communications medium.
A) Tons of other cake shops and viable competitors to that cake shop to get a cake baked.
B) A cake or football is not comparable to a monopolized communications medium censoring political speech.
False equivalencies everywhere. How hard is it to grasp that a quasi-monopoly that is nearly ubiquitous and strictly deals in the business of communication =\= football or cake? You're a fucking idiot.
>speculate about an entity that controls the media
>people immediately rush to call you an anti-semetic
>speculate about the murderer of an unsolved case
>the young black teen suspect starts calling you a racist
Yes because it shows me you're all too intimidated by a REAL MAN so you are forced to display your sissitivities on 4ch
they're legitimately should be legal constraints on companies that control 90% of the flow of information, the libertarian meme doesn't cut it
The type of dishonesty the opening post shows means there will never be adequate conversation about these matters
None of these social media platforms are a monopoly and censoring has a pretty specific definition. Only a govt. can censor you. Also when you sign terms and services you basically signing a moral contract saying you will use a website a certain way.
>None of these social media platforms are a monopoly
All credibility lost. Do you want to tell me how you think a viable upstart competitor is going to rise up and compete with a platform that has hundreds of millions on it? Especially going against the dollars that Google and Twitter have? While drawing a profit? You're living in a fucking pixie dreamland. Sounds like a terrific idea, though; go pitch that to investors and see how far you get.
>Only a govt. can censor you
Genuinely, were you in the special education courses in school? Holy shit. This is one of the most ignorant things that I've ever read in my life. "Government censorship" is what you're looking for; private censorship also exists. Together, they exist under the banner of "censorship."
>Also when you sign terms and services you basically signing a moral contract saying you will use a website a certain way.
Indeed. However, when they engage in selective secret political censorship and have a monopoly in which no viable competitor can rise against them, and their platform becomes a de facto communications medium with their product being speech, the equation changes. That's when the government needs to step in and fuck them due to their practices.
There is a difference between people CHOOSING to use your particular service and you owning all services of the kind you provide.
If a baker in a small town has a bakery that MOST of the people in the small town prefer over the other bakeries because of the quality of the cakes you believe he should be FORCED to bake a cake for a gay couple.
The best part is when they call multi billion dollar megacorporations "leftist" or "communist".
My fucking sides. Your false equivalencies and paper-thin defenses are really something.
See or for further explanation as to why they constitute monopolies. Tell me how you think a viable competitor is going to rise up against them and draw a profit given their established userbase and the money behind them; I'll wait.
Further, you're once again off the mark with your bakery analogy. We're talking about a national/global literal monopoly rather than a small town company being the market leader based on preference. This isn't a "Coke or Pepsi" situation where you prefer Pepsi and can't get it for whatever reason; once again, this is a "Coke or a few drops of dirty rainwater" type of situation. You're a fucking complete and total intellectually dishonest dumbass and need to either shut the fuck up and stay quiet on political issues or educate yourself and learn to think critically. You're embarrassing yourself.
So if i build a business and people CHOOSE to use my service over many other similar services that they have the OPTION to use this should give the government the right to FORCE me to do what they want?
it's a simple yes or no question.
>america
>making sense
rest of the world lols at your retardation and division of populace
Once again, you're using faulty analogies and hardline absolutism whilst ignoring any actual points that are presented to you. Then, you pivot to your simplistic "gotchas" which have already been addressed and answered multiple times.
Further, to answer your question, boiling it down to a simplistic and absolutist mentality of "SAY YES OR NO RIGHT NOW WITH THIS SIMPLE ONE SENTENCE SCENARIO!!!!!" is absurd. There are a lot of variables at play in any given situation, especially this one. When you establish a monopoly where no competitor can rise against you, and your "product" now constitutes a public utility that directly impacts the public good, absolutely. The government has the right to put a stop to harmful selective political censorship that plays a massive role in the public good's interest and the country's direction, absolutely. The government needs and has a duty to step in and fuck you in the ass for what you're doing. It's also not "whatever they want," it's "preventing you from selectively politically censoring a public utility."
You're a fucking child with no grasp of nuance.
Partisans are biased and hypocritical retards. Who would have thunk?
If you can weaponize 'nuance' such that it allows the government to Force you to change your behavior what's to stop 'nuance' form being weaponized to the degree that the government can take over your business for some fabricated reason?
Nice, speaking on behalf of the whole world. What part of it are you shitposting from? Because there's a good chance that the rest of world lols at it too.
The major internet companies all enjoy substantial safe harbors protecting them from liability for the content posted on their sites under the Communications Decency Act. The legal theory is that they're just communications platforms, and not publishers - so while a newspaper might be liable for the content of a reporter they publish, internet companies are not liable for the content posted by random citizens on their sites.
Google (via YouTube), Facebook, Twitter, etc. all have taken advantage of this safe harbor.
However, by choosing to exercise their right, as private companies, to micromanage the content on their sites and platforms, they have abandoned this safe harbor. I fully expect, however, that the state will protect them from the consequences of doing so, since they are doing so at the state's behest.
Taking advantage of unequal protection of the laws (cough, cough, cough, "discretion") in order to serve as a cat's paw of state power makes you a capo. I'm not particularly concerned about the property rights of persons or organizations operating as capos.
I knew you wouldn't respond to
All social media corporations should be abolished and their owners jailed. Prove me wrong
You're wrong. All media executives should be executed.
These racebaiters, I tell ya. Go back to trolling on
Also kill and rape right wing women. Who fucking cares about political shit just let me keep evading taxes and idgaf
>Expecting integrity from trumpcucks
They simply don't care so long as no one says mean things about their great leader.
This is way trump will win in 2020.
Because its censorship of opinion
You fucking dunce
If you can censor what one person has to say you can censor them all, this is a very clear and direct attack on one single person by these companies to silence him into obedience
alex jones can spout his retarded opinions and conspiracy theories on websites that have no problem with people doing that (Jow Forums) and likewise a gay couple can get their cake baked by a baker who has no problem with gays
i'm shitposting from sweden
So a coordinated attack on one single man to pretty much digitally shoot him in the back of the head (as hes been banned from almost all social media including his linkedin for some reason) is okay and not an abuse of power?
If social media sites can band together and in one day ban all of the accounts of one person that they disagree with, why stop at alex jones?
there's one good thing about this shit orgy and that's that it has permanently killed the "dude just go make ur own site" meme stone fucking dead
Just replace "racist" with statist and you're right.
>Trump supporters are retarded.
Color me surprised.
Who's going to regulate them, faggot?
Man, don't even try to understand them, OP. They're just the latest iteration of Bush voters. They know deep down that they've fucked up, but they're in too deep at this point to gracefully admit it. I guarantee you that in a decade, all of the Trump supporters will have mysteriously disappeared the same way Bush voters did.
>Jow Forums has belly girl threads
>Jow Forums has fat hate threads
Wow! Fucking hypocrites amirite? Its almost like multiple people from the same group cannot have different opinions on some topics. Also FUCKING STOP MAKING Jow Forums THREADS ON Jow Forums!
Bernie supporters when Alex Jones is kicked off the platform of social media companies
>IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY IF YOU DON'T WANT TO OBEY THEIR RULES THEN QUIT
Bernie supporters when James Gunn is fired by Disney for saying sick shit on Twitter
>REEEEE I CAN'T BELIEVE THE ALT RIGHT WOULD ATTACK SOMEONE FOR MAKING PEDO JOKES IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER BECAUSE IT HAPPENED YEARS AGO
which is it?
Yes, bernie supporters are also hypocrites. What now?