James Yeager banned from YouTube

[Frederick]

Very good; you can cut-and-paste. Now, try for comprehension, particularly of the word in red. From dictionary.com:

exclusive
adjective
1.
not admitting of something else; incompatible:
mutually exclusive plans of action.
2.
omitting from consideration or account (often followed by of):
a profit of ten percent, exclusive of taxes.
3.
limited to the object or objects designated:
exclusive attention to business.
4.
shutting out all others from a part or share:
an exclusive right to film the novel.
5.
fashionable; stylish:
to patronize only the most exclusive clothing designers.
6.
charging comparatively high prices; expensive:
exclusive shops.
7.
noting that in which no others have a share:
exclusive information.

Note how the words "no others," "shutting out all others," and similar come up. I've already demonstrated that others exist; if you need more examples (including independent reviews!), this may help: http://bfy.tw/FTF4


You obviously missed the meaning of the metaphor; let's try using the Latin terms instead: hosting libre vs. hosting gratis. Free to do what you want vs. free of charge. The "net neutrality" argument doesn't apply here; net neutrality refers to carrying data, not hosting it. It applies to Cox/AT&T/Level 3 Communications/backbone providers/etc. Nobody is proposing to block or drop packets based on your viewpoints; a hosting provider is saying "we don't want to run this under our name."


The number of domain names available is growing rapidly as new TLDs are approved. I'm sure you could come up with something you like, even if you have to go to a subdomain (hint: WordPress will give you a freebie, and even provide free hosting, at least to a point). As to the "limited number of registrars," well, yeah; there are also a limited number of blades of grass in my yard. The limit isn't meaningful, though, and you can even use a foreign registrar if you thing fed.gov is censoring you (hint: it isn't).

Google doesn't own the pipes that deliver the packets to your house, either. See above about Cox, AT&T, L3, etc.

Again, research will help you understand.

If you want to host Public content in the United States as a corporate business(non-private entity), you should do so in a manner that is politically neutral. If you aren't prepared to do that, your business license should either be (a) not granted or (b) revoked.

whether you're a T.V. channel or Youtube, i don't think that should change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

 

[Annie]

ROTFLMFAO! And here I thought this thread would be much ado about to nothing! You guys NEVER fail to crack me up! Thanks!!

 

[Glocktogo]

All I know is I don't think a commercial baker should be forced to decorate a cake in a manner they disagree with, but if so, then I don't see why a commercial web host should be able to deny content that's protected under COTUS?

 

[caojyn]

you forget "because of this law, which i don't really understand, and which really doesn't apply here. But it should!"

seems to be a shared way of thinking 'round these parts

 

[Dave70968]

If you want to host Public content in the United States as a corporate business(non-private entity), you should do so in a manner that is politically neutral. If you aren't prepared to do that, your business license should either be (a) not granted or (b) revoked.

whether you're a T.V. channel or Youtube, i don't think that should change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine has been dead for 30 years (i.e. since before you were born); if you "don't think that should change," then we're just fine. Again, if you'd do a little research--even just reading your own links--you'd know that.

As to corporations being allowed to express political viewpoints, I would direct you to something much more modern: Citizens United v. FEC.

Go. Read. Move your lips if you have to. We'll wait.

(Also, corporate businesses are private entities; "publicly-traded" is not the same as "public entity." The latter implies government support, such as a government-sponsored business, government-run utility, etc.; Google is not. It's a private entity, even if its stock is available to anybody who comes with the money to buy it.)

 

[Dave70968]

All I know is I don't think a commercial baker should be forced to decorate a cake in a manner they disagree with, but if so, then I don't see why a commercial web host should be able to deny content that's protected under COTUS?

For complicated reasons including anti-discrimination statutes that cover sexual orientation, but not political viewpoint...statutes that will hopefully be found in violation of the First Amendment soon.

 

[Frederick]

The Fairness Doctrine has been dead for 30 years (i.e. since before you were born); if you "don't think that should change," then we're just fine. Again, if you'd do a little research--even just reading your own links--you'd know that.

As to corporations being allowed to express political viewpoints, I would direct you to something much more modern: Citizens United v. FEC.

Go. Read. Move your lips if you have to. We'll wait.

(Also, corporate businesses are private entities; "publicly-traded" is not the same as "public entity." The latter implies government support, such as a government-sponsored business, government-run utility, etc.; Google is not. It's a private entity, even if its stock is available to anybody who comes with the money to buy it.)

To me, a corporation becomes a public entity when it does business in the United States, when its purpose is to make money. A private, non-profit forum would be different.

Citizens United was a sort of mistake.

I was using the fairness doctrine as an example of what i believe should happen in regards to regulation. If you want to operate your a toll road, you can't discriminate on who uses it. If they pay the fee, they get to use it with certain allowable limitations. I can't create a toll road and say 'delivery trucks not belonging to UPS can't use this road' or 'black people can't use this road', or 'cops can't use this road.'

If i want to operate a toll road in the United States, i should be required to follow certain regulations and conduct my business with the public in an appropriate and neutral manner. I think hosting services should operate the same way to a certain extent. Google shouldn't be allowed to ban people from Youtube because they're a gun channel or because they don't like conservative/liberal/anarchist/communist/nazi whatever views.

 

[caojyn]

Public Entity Law and Legal Definition
“A public entity is defined as follows:

(A) any State or local government;

(B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and

(C) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority.” Vartinelli v. Stapleton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88553 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2009)

To me, a corporation becomes a public entity when it does business in the United States, when its purpose is to make money. A private, non-profit forum would be different.

Brantism:
To make up a definition or story when one doesn't know the real answer or truth. "To baffle with buffoonery".
Do you really know what you're talking about, or is that a Brantism?

#synonyms: baffle#confuse#pull the wool over#befuddle#bewilder

 

[Dave70968]

To me, a corporation becomes a public entity when it does business in the United States, when its purpose is to make money. A private, non-profit forum would be different.

You're entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts. Words have meanings; use them.

Incidentally, non-profits are required to be politically neutral, at least if they want to keep their non-profit tax status.

Citizens United was a sort of mistake.

I was using the fairness doctrine as an example of what i believe should happen in regards to regulation. If you want to operate your a toll road, you can't discriminate on who uses it. If they pay the fee, they get to use it with certain allowable limitations. I can't create a toll road and say 'delivery trucks not belonging to UPS can't use this road' or 'black people can't use this road', or 'cops can't use this road.'

If i want to operate a toll road in the United States, i should be required to follow certain regulations and conduct my business with the public in an appropriate and neutral manner. I think hosting services should operate the same way to a certain extent. Google shouldn't be allowed to ban people from Youtube because they're a gun channel or because they don't like conservative/liberal/anarchist/communist/nazi whatever views.

So, to my previous question...what don't you think the government should regulate?

 

[RETOKSQUID]

For complicated reasons including anti-discrimination statutes that cover sexual orientation, but not political viewpoint...statutes that will hopefully be found in violation of the First Amendment soon.

But what about all the/us ammosexuals that are being discriminated against every day by those opressive left wing fanatics? #ammosexual lives matter #hoplophobia is discrimination