It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I warned trump haters; trump now may take action against social media companies

page: 10
68
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   
This is goofy - don't like Google - use something else -

Here's a list of 140 search engines you can use.
mashable.com...

This nonsense sh*t-fit is no different than a liberal complaining that Briebart is not posting positive stories about the left. I've never in my life seen such easily bruised cry babies.




posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Speedtek

Many of those in the list are Google "products". A great many more are specific sorts of search tools (such as for drivers, and for blogs, etc).




posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ah the wit of a meme.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

Putin is a ex-KGB colonel and the mastermind behind this mayhem. Technically that counts . Lol



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Speedtek

The meme adds a laugh (hopefully) to an otherwise mundane and downright gruesome world, all of this stuff going on in this place. The ruthless world Google works overtime towards ensuring yet further blossoms, and so many commoners almost seem to relish in, in such a world memes are like the voice of reason.




posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That logic I can agree with - I am merely pointing out that there are other options out there, the internet works like a herd - websites maintain their power from people going to them - but, at the same time they are private businesses. If people want change - then a better product needs to be developed. Again there are alternatives, nobody is forced at gunpoint to use google or facebook.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Speedtek

Google is a Public Utility.

Your local power company is also a "private company". Go look up how your state and local government is all up their snip ensuring they dont completely utterly bend you over.

And your local power company has not even one percent the scale and potential impact Google has over the nation / world.



edit on 29-8-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You cannot compare the two, power companies are essentially embedded monopolies in areas because of infrastructure, protections are put in place to prevent them from scalping customers with prices (in theory) - Google is a website, there are alternatives you are not forced to use them or their products if you do not want to.

Enforcing regulations on CONTENT of a private website is a major slippery slope.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Speedtek
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You cannot compare the two, power companies are essentially embedded monopolies in areas because of infrastructure, protections are put in place to prevent them from scalping customers with prices (in theory) - Google is a website, there are alternatives you are not forced to use them or their products if you do not want to.

Enforcing regulations on CONTENT of a private website is a major slippery slope.


But google has such a large share of the market that that to be cut off from them could bankrupt a business, etc.

And the same argument you are making here could apply to the power company.

You dont have to use them. You could go totally with wind or solar power, or no power at all. So why doesnt the government just stop any regulation of them and let them do what they want.

And if the power company decides to only provide power to democrats, thats ok.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You are comparing apples to hand grenades - its a false equivalence. Regulating content by the government vs utility company.

Secondly the first amendment to our constitution is there to prevent exactly this from happening. Its a slippery slope - where would it end? Should Briebart be forced to post positive Bernie Sanders articles?

The entire concept of government regulating news content is abhorrent, and the fact people are actually for it is more than a bit disconcerting. Are you seriously down for China-level information control?
edit on 29-8-2018 by Speedtek because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Speedtek
a reply to: Grambler

You are comparing apples to hand grenades - its a false equivalence. Regulating content by the government vs utility company.

Secondly the first amendment to our constitution is there to prevent exactly this from happening. Its a slippery slope - where would it end? Should Briebart be forced to post positive Bernie Sanders articles?

The entire concept of government regulating news content is abhorrent, and the fact people are actually for it is more than a bit disconcerting. Are you seriously down for China-level information control?



The irony of this entire thread is that I have actually sided with the same people who have no problem seeing statues knocked down, or seeing conservative talk radio silenced.




posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

This should be found offensive by every American, no matter which part of the political spectrum you are on. While it may be a boon for one side now (in the dystopian future that would allow it) - the very same control and regulation could be used by "the other side" when the power eventually rolls back in that direction. Rule #1 - do not trust the government.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Soon, liberal pundits on Twitter will have a lot of angry followers. Been watching them telling lies. Poor followers not questioning. Very saddened by what will follow upcoming revelations.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Speedtek
a reply to: DBCowboy

This should be found offensive by every American, no matter which part of the political spectrum you are on. While it may be a boon for one side now (in the dystopian future that would allow it) - the very same control and regulation could be used by "the other side" when the power eventually rolls back in that direction. Rule #1 - do not trust the government.


That's what I've been saying.

We get a Hillary or Warren in office and if control of speech is already under the auspices of the government then we might as well say "see ya" to the 1st Amendment.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Speedtek
a reply to: Grambler

You are comparing apples to hand grenades - its a false equivalence. Regulating content by the government vs utility company.

Secondly the first amendment to our constitution is there to prevent exactly this from happening. Its a slippery slope - where would it end? Should Briebart be forced to post positive Bernie Sanders articles?

The entire concept of government regulating news content is abhorrent, and the fact people are actually for it is more than a bit disconcerting. Are you seriously down for China-level information control?


This isnt regulation of news. It is telling what could be argued as a public utility that they may not censor people based on political ideology.

Just like the government doesnt tell the power company what they have to say or cant say, they are allowed to regulate them to make sure people are not discrimated from tehir services based on things such as ideology.

I am not for china level control, that is were we are leading now with democrats calling the tech leaders in and telling them what they need to censor, and then the tech companies doing just that.

I am for a system that says these companies cant discriminate and censor based on political ideology, because they are basically a public utility.

Well maybe I am for that, probably more accurately. I am still thinking through it.

But telling people they cant censor people is not the same as china were they tell these comapnies they have to cesnor certain people (like the dmeocrats are doing now)



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Speedtek
a reply to: DBCowboy

This should be found offensive by every American, no matter which part of the political spectrum you are on. While it may be a boon for one side now (in the dystopian future that would allow it) - the very same control and regulation could be used by "the other side" when the power eventually rolls back in that direction. Rule #1 - do not trust the government.


That's what I've been saying.

We get a Hillary or Warren in office and if control of speech is already under the auspices of the government then we might as well say "see ya" to the 1st Amendment.


So warren comes into office next and says "Using precedent, II too will say google shouldnt censor people based on ideology"

Ok sounds good.

If I was advocating for trump to tell google they have to censor people or articles he doesnt like, you would be absolutely right.

Again, should the telephone company be allowed to refuse service to people based on political ideology?

How about the power company?

If you say know the government shouldnt allow them to refuse service to people based on their politics, I could say.

"But what if warren becomes president!, She will the censor the power companies!"

It doesnt make sense.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Again, you are making a 100% incorrect equivalence. If it is not regulation of the news what is it??

What would be the perfect outcome of this for you? I've never seen people argue against their own self interests as much as in this thread, not to mention the decimation of constitutional principles.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Warren would say that the precedent would have already been made for the government to determine content.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Exactly, once you open that door it cannot be closed.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Speedtek
a reply to: Grambler

Again, you are making a 100% incorrect equivalence. If it is not regulation of the news what is it??

What would be the perfect outcome of this for you? I've never seen people argue against their own self interests as much as in this thread, not to mention the decimation of constitutional principles.


If facebook is a news site, then I guess they can be charged with libel for any libelous claim made on thier, right?

I dont know what I would want exactly.

Probably something like an internet bill of rights that says that it would be illegal to censor someone from these social media platforms based purely off of political ideology.

But it is a difficult situation that nees to be throughly debated.

What I do know is that the status quo that you are defending, where democratic congressmen can tell these companies they have to censor conservatives (or non establishment liberals is a disaster. Yet somehow this intervention is deemed acceptable by you.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join