[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chicas / dicksea / guarida / late / leftpol / o / strek / sw ]

/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Politics, news, happenings, current events
Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Kek mit uns

File: 1708cd2aae405cf⋯.png (3.67 MB, 1920x1200, 8:5, ClipboardImage.png)

4a380a No.11043319


The point of interest:

>In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech—and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects—the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.

>In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.

>Given that Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other edge providers are publicly-accessible entities that have deliberately pushed for monopoly control over the Internet, it’s clear that Marsh v. Alabama prohibits them from censoring right-wingers. The statute also applies to ISPs, since they wield a monopoly over Internet access. All it would take to shut down online censorship is a halfway-decent lawyer arguing that these left-wing Big Tech companies are literally violating the Constitution.

cada2b No.11043368


Bump. Meme it.

782cd2 No.11043377

As a cuckistani, I look forward to this, because we all know the US does the shit in NA and we follow them

90562c No.11043391

I would like too see how these anti-corperate liberals who totally go against the (((mainstream narrative))) try to frame this if it did seem likely that they couldn't just have all wrong think banned from the internet.

7a5267 No.11043427

>So there is precedent, then.

Meme it. If they're going to argue they need NN because "monopoly" then the law should apply to them too.

830d61 No.11043506

It's a good idea in theory, if you had the funding and the political power it could probably be enforced. The main question would be where to draw the line between a platform with a monopoly on speech that must honor the first amendment and some tiny forum banning autists and the autists claiming they're entitled to free speech.

51c902 No.11043519

File: 374f534ec4b419a⋯.png (128.23 KB, 951x277, 951:277, The Worst against the Firs….png)

Thank you for digging this up, sit. I will cite it at every fucking reasonable opportunity. Cap for the spreadability.

ed9ff3 No.11043572


According to their ruling, any building owned by a business can't kick people who exercise freedom of speech out of their working place because they own a monopoly on the means of freedom of speech? I think this ruling infringes on the private sector's rights too much.

4a380a No.11043604


>Thank you for digging this up

You should thank the Anon who found the link: >>>/v/13985095

I just read it.

d9423a No.11043610


The point is that they've bought the place and opened it up to people to the point where people treat it as a public platform. People enter the place and talk, and the private entity has more or less said "this is what everyone, more or less, does here."

The government is saying "if that's what you say you do, you have to actually uphold that." It's a case where the government is keeping the corporation true to their actions and words, which is good.

e3311c No.11043613



Seconded, thank you anon, I would truly love to see these monopolistic corporations torn down.

ed9ff3 No.11043617


Couldn't they just say that people have to the right to speak freely under their discretion?

377339 No.11043639

What about reddit and shadowbans?

Also, would it be possible for cloudflare or other CDNs to shard off websites and make their own hollaforum type shit? People in countries with outlawed wrongthink only ever get the "go right to wrongthink jail" version of a website?

I can just imagine some poor bastard in a leftist commie country posting on 8chan, except it's just a CDN copy in his commie country, and nobody ever sees his post.

a45642 No.11043721

File: 1ac72a0aacc382f⋯.png (226.65 KB, 578x572, 289:286, 1ac72a0aacc382f3ceccacca59….png)


Simple. No line.

It will be glorious

9db771 No.11043732

Finally, fuck these "private" companies skirting free speech, online or in everyday life.

They shouldn't be allowed to censor in any way.

90131e No.11043756


I have nightmares where this happens.

Please respond to me.

02e69b No.11043761


OP wasn't a faggot today. Meme it far, meme it wide.

a45642 No.11043765

File: 515d50f3c28bbb9⋯.jpg (109.52 KB, 552x364, 138:91, 1502430452516.jpg)


Hate to break it you but theres only two people on /pol/ besides yourself.

Well this shard anyways.

The rest are bots.

7165f8 No.11043774

Just posting this again to motivate you with anger.

c59672 No.11043777

File: 02b42ce3cf356f9⋯.png (62.71 KB, 350x333, 350:333, Cuckchan filth.png)

File: a05e28809b92211⋯.png (280.48 KB, 852x1775, 12:25, NeoFag cuckchan.png)

File: bc7fd1eaf606870⋯.jpg (801.85 KB, 931x2446, 931:2446, Cuckchan.jpg)

File: 7ca428c9cfce6dc⋯.png (322.89 KB, 680x697, 40:41, Cuckchan trash.png)


>As a cuckistani

I remember when Jewt literally censored any racial epithet on your shit imageaboard with TRIGGERED

c59672 No.11043807

File: 58f67e720c21cc6⋯.webm (4.31 MB, 854x480, 427:240, ̸ v ̸ for vidya.webm)




857a25 No.11044081


Base it on monthly unique visitors.

377339 No.11044130

File: 9bac0794acdb8ee⋯.jpeg (4.41 MB, 6517x3961, 6517:3961, anguishbyschenck.jpeg)


I'm here.

dc02d6 No.11044147

File: 98f136294cbb279⋯.gif (897.55 KB, 500x250, 2:1, 34786378.gif)

ba18d3 No.11044154

>>11043777 (checked)

>I've never had a drink in my life or tried drugs

Are we sure about that? No bully please…

782cd2 No.11044178


Oh no I haven't touched that shithole since the day I left years ago

I meant Canadian

4b014d No.11044185


As much as I'd like to think that this will go somewhere, company with large sums of cash tend to make law enforcement disappear. Here's to hoping.

696306 No.11044207


Here I am. Please respond to me.

2541ad No.11044219


A more neutral tone OP for copypasta


The point of interest:

>In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech—and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects—the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.

>In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.

>Given that Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other edge providers are publicly-accessible entities that have deliberately pushed for monopoly control over the Internet, it’s clear that Marsh v. Alabama prohibits them from censoring dissenting opinions. The statute also applies to ISPs, since they wield a monopoly over Internet access. All it would take to shut down online censorship is a halfway-decent lawyer arguing that these Big Tech companies are literally violating the Constitution

24bfb3 No.11044255





02e69b No.11044272

File: 0b2899a8273915e⋯.jpg (312.27 KB, 871x720, 871:720, 0b2899a8273915e87ac3da1e5c….jpg)

>spamming a sticky this hard

First day on the job shill-kun?

e55413 No.11044304


>Simple. No line

So a liberal breaks into your house and starts screaming at you about how niggers are human and that you have to let whites get abortions. You call the cops, but they say it’s legal. You shoot the liberal and they arrest you for violating the first amendment.


750836 No.11044308

9db771 No.11044334

Wow took a whole second to filter those IDs.

92c5a3 No.11044344


>except it's just a CDN copy in his commie country, and nobody ever sees his post.

that happens here, now.

19fd14 No.11044373


Your house isn't deemed a public space, you dumbass.

377339 No.11044375


Prove it.

d62bec No.11044397

2fbe65 No.11044494


Thanks, OP. I have been saying this, and I am not the only one. It is nice that you have the citation.


You are retarded. No one is going to bother arguing with a retard.

e55413 No.11044500


Every business, then, would be. So you’re fine with faggots licking doorknobs at all conservative businesses. The first fucking amendment says you have the right to freedom of association.


Reported for obviously being a leftist. You’re too goddamn retarded to comprehend the discussion.

377339 No.11044505


The funny thing is that by definition imageboards aren't subject to this because each board is technically a private/public area like a bar. 8chan itself is the town, but /pol/ is the biker bar which you have no right to be in since it's public/private property.

082fa8 No.11044518

File: cff667282640913⋯.png (438.71 KB, 495x807, 165:269, 1437350936702.png)


By calling you a faggot, I am acknowledging that I see you, thus affirming your presence among the rest of us.

You gigantic fucking faggot

f97c71 No.11044532

This is interesting, so what are we gonna do about it?

Also can I get some free (you)s? Your donation matters.

19fd14 No.11044545


>licking doorknobs

Anon, don't bring your fetish into this. The left has been holding these things back because they want to force righties (or just anyone they don't like or agree with) to have no platform. By holding this against them, they'll go insane. Let them lick the doorknobs if it means rational and logical people get that very freedom of association they wanna deny.

85bdc8 No.11044580


>respecting the constitution in the current year + 2

If you gain a monopoly over your enemies, they win (???)

e55413 No.11044599


>your fetish

You call yourself a /pol/ack and don’t even know what faggots do. Get out.

>they want to force righties

>to have no platform

Yes. THERE’S A REASON WE HAVE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION IN THE CONSTITUTION. There’s a reason jews have ignored it for the last fucking half century. If you try to enforce this unconstitutional ruling, say goodbye to all freedom of association. All businesses will have to serve niggers, kikes, fags, feminists, etc. All websites will have to allow leftist spam. THEY HAVE POCKETS, MOTHERFUCKER. If you think it’s bad now (and it is, what with their ability to utterly SNEAK their way into every single position in every single website and control the narrative), what do you think the Internet will be like when they can operate OPENLY?

c1dec3 No.11044601


>faggots licking doorknobs

Is this a euphemism for gay blowjobs?

Because that's indecent exposure and isn't protected under 1st Amendment.

c1dec3 No.11044611


It's okay /a/non, I see you

Of course not the issue is am I just a shill of your local government placed to maintain the illusion? Am I perhaps another fellow countryman and we don't realize our own isolation

Does 8ch even run through Cloudflare?

e55413 No.11044616


No, they actually lick doorknobs so that people they don’t like get GRIDS.

f97c71 No.11044650


You mean AIDs?

c1dec3 No.11044653


That's definitely illegal too.

f8be5d No.11044682

Are they really monopolies? They're popular sites, but there are alternatives.

e55413 No.11044686


That’s not the only disease faggots have or want to spread, anon.

c1dec3 No.11044719


Twitter maybe, but FB and Google have no viable alternatives.

I'd say Youtube is the one you can most argue for absolute monopoly.

d9bc09 No.11044729

>Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other edge providers are publicly-accessible entities

So they would have to deindex their content from any form of public access to have the right to censor content?

I doubt the supreme jewed court would agree.

19fd14 No.11044752


Just report me then, you midget.

f97c71 No.11044759


I thought GRIDS is what AIDs was called before tho?

24bfb3 No.11044813


Isn't that illegal already? Bio-terrorism or some shit?


Whether or not it's worth it to push this depends on how much we're willing to have it fuck us over too, and I'd bet good money that niggers kikes and spics would put this to use MUCH more than we would.


It's not a euphemism, see >>11044616

24c515 No.11044820


vid.me just shut down basically

6d93e5 No.11044888


you are retarded please never post here again

e55413 No.11044901


Reported for being a leftist “net neutrality” shill.

9fb694 No.11044904

So many fucking retards and autists. The ruling clearly specifies that the business must

>own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place

and be

>open to public use in all other respects

A small mongolian fingerpainting board would not fall under this ruling as it does not hold a monopolyon discourse under any reasonable definition, nor would a person's home or even business as it is not open to the public in all other respects. (Emphasis all. A town as in the ruling is open in ways a place of business is not).

e55413 No.11044906


Owned by ✡Medium✡, so who cares?


e55413 No.11044909


>or even business

Explain how any given business differs from the business in the ruling.

f3e378 No.11044914


valid tripcode confirmed.

39e41d No.11044933

File: 49804de9de444ec⋯.jpg (25.59 KB, 400x400, 1:1, dershowitz.jpg)


>All it would take to shut down online censorship is a halfway-decent lawyer

>implying courts are fair

9fb694 No.11044944


The business in the case owned the entire town. Your average business does not.

You're the same retard who seems to think that this ruling would allow people to break into your house and screech at you though, so I can see how the distinction might be lost on you.

e55413 No.11044987


>oy vey there’s a distinction goyim

>trust us

>ignore that there has literally never been a distinction applied in any legislature in the last half century

So you have no actual legal basis on which to make your claims, then. Thanks for confirming.

8e089d No.11045012

File: fbe8cc36aa84c6a⋯.png (3.32 KB, 280x272, 35:34, attempt.png)


>All businesses will have to serve niggers, kikes, fags, feminists, etc.

What reality are you living in where that isn't already the case???

e55413 No.11045019


Are you shills capable of replying to anything but your own strawmen? Holy fucking shit. Why would we want to support something that REENFORCES the unconstitutional civil rights act?

4a380a No.11045081


>Why would we want to support something that REENFORCES the unconstitutional civil rights act?

Looking that up, only Title II and VII are unconstitutional because they dictate what a private individual can and cannot do.

231429 No.11045087

good luck using that law, faggot. they'll just say you could stand on a street corner

9ea4b6 No.11045233

File: 1c859ec8371eb1f⋯.jpg (350.51 KB, 768x512, 3:2, jew's true home.jpg)

File: b58a6fef54dcb0f⋯.gif (1001.43 KB, 600x450, 4:3, kek we the people.gif)


Back to where you belong

9c7b4f No.11045242


e55413 No.11045249

fd8805 No.11045453


You're a retard of colossal proportions. As >>11044944 pointed, it applies to entities that control the means of discourse.

Private homes and small businesess do not apply.


Aaaaand filtered! How about you stop trying (11) so hard, chaim?

e55413 No.11045479


>You’re a retard of colossal proportions.

And yet you fucking kikes can’t substantiate your claims or say anything about why I’m “wrong.”

>As >>11044944 pointed, it applies to entities that control the means of discourse.

So… any business, anywhere. Meaning exactly what I said: liberals, niggers, fags, and feminists can now enter a business and say whatever they want.

>small businesess do not apply.

Prove it.

>Aaaaand filtered!

Thanks for admitting that everything you said is false and that you have no refutation for my facts.

bd6a48 No.11045507


>soothing ocean sounds

e55413 No.11045513


Shadowbanning is par for the course on reddit, facebook, twitter, and any vBulletin-style forum. If it happens here, anyone who remains on the site is a kike.

17b3a5 No.11045767

File: 33232285048010b⋯.jpg (279.11 KB, 929x1024, 929:1024, Refugees welcome.jpg)



> private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place.

so can someone point me to where exactly the Marsh case says this? Can't seem to find it.

df9798 No.11045848


Anyone have this without the blurred corpses?

b0b2e5 No.11046262



finally we have something concrete and indisputable to use to go after those fuckers

17b3a5 No.11046331

File: a054b4a596fc134⋯.webm (695.18 KB, 640x360, 16:9, MY BRAND.webm)


I used to on my old HDD

Had to remake that pic on this computer and could just find the censored

Sory for being an unhelpful faggot

ecf547 No.11046429

File: 7d14a4ae22acfb9⋯.jpg (21.46 KB, 480x360, 4:3, gl.jpg)


You've made you bed, now lie in it

4fb1c9 No.11046441

File: f178a3b9bc4db92⋯.gif (337.1 KB, 500x375, 4:3, f178a3b9bc4db9264663264efb….gif)



7828dc No.11046511


very interesting, nice work OP. i would love to see this argued in court.


you missed the part about a monopoly.

7828dc No.11046516

e55413 No.11046524


>quotes the same person twice

>doesn’t even remotely know what a trip is

Fucking kill yourself, you unfathomably stupid faggot.

64ab68 No.11046526


That's great.

You got the half a million USD to cover the legal costs for the civil case against them?


Oh poo.

We need a wealthy businessman with spare cash then.

Wait, isn't that what Soros does?

This is how the work really works anon.

64ab68 No.11046528


So what about a private entity with no monopoly or near monopoly?

What's the scope for this judgement?

64ab68 No.11046531


I too had recent HDD issues.

I smell malware in some of the files that are exchanged here.

c2de3f No.11046533

They don't have the monopoly of talking on the internet though.

I don't see it holding in front of a judge since those companies aren't use as a public place like the city was.

64ab68 No.11046535


>monopoly of talking on the internet though

Unless you're able to characterise their form of data usage.

I see where you are going with this. :^)

64ab68 No.11046539


Courts are fair when you have the cash.

They are not fair without money.

And a case against these giants means at least a half million USD for this shit.

Not including the contingency fees.

64ab68 No.11046545


Size and characteristics of the business and the amount of control it has on speech.

There are many differences, a normal business would not have the ability to control speech on such a large scale to the point that it affects the freedom of speech almost to society as a whole.

If that business has such a big amount of control of the means of speech within society, or more importantly such a large amount of influence over speech, then it is a business covered by that ruling.

64ab68 No.11046552


Google has a substantial monopoly as a popular trademark for services such as search engines, video stream service providers, even emails.

No company can compete with Google's sources in those departments. Their development has such a large scale that it destroys competition.

Not even Microsoft could compete with Google, that shows just how big of a monopoly it is, how big of a barrier there is to this part of the industry.

What's more important is how much those industries involve speech and how much ability they give Google control over it.

64ab68 No.11046553


>go to public library or use public wifi

>check the domain

64ab68 No.11046558


That's trespass to property though.

Only the speech is protected, but you can reject them for being a faggot that you didn't want on their property.

64ab68 No.11046561


That's why it should be businesses specifically in control of speech mediums on a large scale.

64ab68 No.11046570

File: b51a1e722f92b6d⋯.jpg (19.03 KB, 389x389, 1:1, 1510051188165.jpg)


The issue is defining the speech medium that is involved here.

If that medium is distinguishable from literal physical area on those ISPs land, and the ISPs control that medium, then the law should apply to that medium.

I think the scope should be reduced to speech mediums, not all the property owned by a corporation.

ffff57 No.11046588


can you really get AIDS from doorknobs?

and they actually do that? licking doorknobs of people they don't like? that is SOOO fucked anon

64ab68 No.11046592

File: 0ec0204d99df7e2⋯.png (192.81 KB, 448x595, 64:85, 1505876074494.png)

File: 603506996b902b8⋯.png (119 B, 1x1, 1:1, 1x1.png)


>can you really get AIDS from doorknobs?

ffff57 No.11046601


definitely not AIDS but other disease. that's why I was confused, I'm pretty sure you cant get AIDS from doorknobs but there are so many other diseases they can spread.

the fact that people do that is ABSOLUTELY FUCKED

93575f No.11046725


But in that the state was enforcing the censorship via arrest

Wouldn't it be different if the company was censoring on its own?

148743 No.11046750


The way that this works is that you have to sue them while citing the verdict of that court case.

b7aff7 No.11046766





Now you brainlets are learning why some of us are so dickhard at this ruling. FTC is gonna make this be some fun fucking times ahead.


FTC Privacy Regulation, sec.177 aka: Don't STEAL MY RARE ANIME PORN BILL

>Restoring FTC [Federal Trade Commission] jurisdiction over ISPs will enable the FTC to apply its extensive privacy and data security expertise to provide the uniform online privacy protections that consumers expect and deserve.651


>Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508


>The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable.502 The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”503

BUT MUH ISPS ARE GOING TO CONSPIRE AGAINST ME! (Sherman Act Antitrust Laws, Section 144, p.85)

>Section 1 of the Sherman Act bars contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, making anticompetitive arrangements illegal. If ISPs reached agreements to unfairly block, throttle, or discriminate against Internet conduct or applications, these agreements would be per seillegal under the antitrust laws.518


>If an ISP that also sells video services degrades the speed or quality of competing “Over the Top” video services (such as Netflix),526 that conduct could be challenged as anticompetitive foreclosure.

Tl;DR: The moment anyone gets too uppity, everyone is going to get declared a monopoly and burned down. if your only ISP in town decides to make the town hate them and start doing crazy shit, the FTC is going to come in and burn everything down.

16d007 No.11046781

Anyone good propaganda creators itt? normies won't care about the screencap, they need this in an easy to digest, easisly visible wrapping. Spreading this info to cuckchan might be good for causing action too

a45642 No.11046796

File: 0c5faa5cc88cba2⋯.gif (2.72 MB, 520x292, 130:73, 0c5faa5cc88cba246f322ac111….gif)

File: 222c36a75079b8f⋯.jpg (339 B, 15x15, 1:1, bypass.jpg)


I am looking forward to the first time the FTC has to wade in and burn down an ISP.

Who do you think is going to bring down the wrath first?

8def0d No.11046824

File: cb28f3ff1f93c8f⋯.png (204.02 KB, 500x1018, 250:509, cb28f3ff1f93c8fe5025ade4fa….png)

we can totally bend the current NN debabcle with the plebs riled up to push this

the other day i saw some famous pleb called adam savage call that streetshitter at the FCC a shill

boy did i have a good laugh at that one, shill is being used as an insult in the public sphere and there is nothing the shills here can do about it

b7aff7 No.11046825

File: 85f5d639cdffd3f⋯.jpg (82.16 KB, 766x767, 766:767, ourpoo.jpg)

File: 0b1016f986c8401⋯.gif (7 MB, 480x270, 16:9, ourpoo2.gif)

File: c44bf8c249858e0⋯.jpg (114.55 KB, 1024x663, 1024:663, ourpoo3.jpg)


>I am looking forward to the first time the FTC has to wade in and burn down an ISP.

>Who do you think is going to bring down the wrath first?

Honestly, I think it's going to be Twitter or even reddit that gets burnt the fuck down.

Pai is definitely /ourStreetShitter/

8def0d No.11046833


>and nobody ever sees his post.

oh im sure his countries intel services sees his post, maybe go talk to him about it if he is looking for people to talk about it anyway

always be ready to defend yourself; anons around the world, we are not treated as the free men that we are

a45642 No.11046840


Do the FTC regulate companies like that? What would they even burn them for?

b515f9 No.11046854


Not like this place doesn't have equally bad censorship.

ex. Religion of Cuck™, @mer1mutt

0afa82 No.11046893


It's always hilarious since whenever a right winger's banned for political expression within a forum having an effective monopoly, then suddenly they're all acting as though they've been libertarians all along. You'll hear arguments about private corporations having unrestrained sovereignty. Of course, if Twitter had banned users for the expression of atheism, for example, or pro-LGBTQ views, then I doubt that the Libertarian Party's ranks would've swelled quite so much.

b7aff7 No.11046992


They do now, thanks to /OurStreetShitter/

Have you even seen him reee about internet censorship? Shit's gonna get fun!

ca1c38 No.11047028

Within the padagrim of American political philosophy, rights are God-given and inherent. The goal of the government is to recognize these and not disturb them. The first amendment simply recognizes and promises not to interfere with the right to free expression. Protection of our rights are supposed to be defended by government - private entities cannot infringe upon them, because it is unethical. Just as any person has the right to the pursuit of happiness, and therefore cannot be held to the bondage of slavery, neither can someone infringe upon the rights of a free man's freedom of expression. Faceberg and co are violation our basic human rights through their censorship.

d88370 No.11047104

Google and Facebook only care about Israel's constitution. Goyim constitutions are for the goyim.

4d0fe8 No.11047107


>Pai is definitely /ourStreetShitter/


You mean he follows /pol/'s guide to which streets are designated shitpostinging streets, aka narratives.

312ada No.11047126


Their main servers are set up in the US. So are their datacenters and tunnel services for their websites. They also abide by any other US law, so this is directly under US law judisdiction and thus the constitution applies too.

Asides from all this, a grand mayority of US citizens use them as a public outlet for speech due to how registration and use is given to virtually anyone with a computer, much like how anyone with two legs can walk in public on a town. That they are censoring speech itself in such a medium IS a violation of the 1st ammendment and thus this ruling applies too.

c30a90 No.11047141

File: a2b07aadc3fd344⋯.jpg (131.92 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, wirathu.jpg)


That's a pretty nice precedent there, but precedents, and laws, and constitutions are just pieces of paper. All power is actually wielded by humans. The American Constitution means whatever the sinister and mysterious black-robed high priests of the Council of Nine say it means, and they will NEVER say it means you have the right to do things our rulers genuinely don't like.

592962 No.11047152


>power is wielded by humans

No, power is usually wielded by filthy yids in order to suppress humans.

a357b0 No.11047169


Sucks that as a whole, jews have the capital to be able to pay the goyim off to ignore their own destruction. Such a good analogy for the perils of unchecked materialism. Choke on those dollars.

25610f No.11047208

To be honest the lack of 'other means' in which to do ones free speech work is the grey area. The JW in the case had only the roads in the company owned town to do her work, whereas the internet has multiple platforms in which to exercise free speech.

The bad part of the case was that the JW could have gone to another town in which was open to her ramblings.

The internet has Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Reddit, Myspace still around? etc. There are numerous blog sites as well as ones own ability to create their own website.

So the confined argument of being the only avenue open up to the public is grey. I would look at the TOS on those websites in which one has to agree to in order to use those services. Having an agreement in place prior to exercising any speech at all is going to be the cornerstone of this argument.

73d5ca No.11047218


>the internet has multiple platforms in which to exercise free speech.

Not when your website is de-listed from both search results and DNS, anon.

754807 No.11047240


Sperg!! Muh porn!!

dd6527 No.11047253


(((ICANN))) controls the internet now. Thank Obama and the US-kike dual citizens

be2eff No.11047294


The more sense it makes, the more pleasure the chosen get out of ignoring it. War is the only way out of this mess.

1cbad8 No.11047403

Someone whose content has been banned will have to bring the lawsuit. They will need 6 figures at least to fight it to the supreme court - I don't think the lower courts would have the balls to cross mighty (((Google))).

b68ebd No.11047885


Nice dubs.

9cefe3 No.11048086

A problem with getting this to work against search engines is that they by nature filter and discriminate between content. Imagine doing a Google search, and getting every possible result, simultaneously, with no sorting based on how relevant it might be. If you say that a search engine can't discriminate between different websites because to do so would deny them a platform, then you're basically saying search engines can't exist.

83df91 No.11048120


Exactly, just don't let CIA fags like Spencer run the lawsuit or they will thorough the case.

927d52 No.11048121


>muh all-powerful jews

>ignoring the fact that we are here, right now, freely talking about them

6a4b0c No.11048131

File: bd30ce72afee90e⋯.jpeg (105.56 KB, 500x333, 500:333, image.jpeg)


I know exactly how they will react. They will be pro-corporation and pull some pseudo-libertarain argument out of their ass like >>11046893 mentioned.

But under the veil of their bullshit rhetoric is the true reason they will be pro-censorship. Repressive tolerance. It's embedded in their marxist belief system.

83df91 No.11048153


wait is he actually doing that or are these memes

0b9c88 No.11048286



Sundar Pichai (CEO)

14155 Donelson Pl

Los Altos Hills CA 94022-2652

(650) 917-1015



Jack Dorsey

2 Mint Plz Apt 1002

San Francisco CA 94103-1875


Mark Zuckerberg

1601 Willow Rd Menlo Park CA 94025-1452

(914) 693-9696

(650) 543-4800

2 Russell, Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522

12023 Adobe Creek Lodge Rd

Los Altos Hills, CA 94022-4366

(914) 693-6633

(914) 693-9696

(973) 864-9931

(713) 392-4561

(914) 646-8593

b7aff7 No.11048290


He's actually shit posting IRL on youtube and stuff.


56661f No.11048317



This is one hell of a read and I can't find anything in there that I really dislike.

a175eb No.11048334

>pushed for

Yet they don't have one. Sadly legal kikes won't even have to waste foreskins on this one.

6bd76f No.11048336


He's doing it for real. And the guys who do that Harlem shake song got all butthurt that he used their song in his video and filed a DMCA

b7aff7 No.11048380


Ask yourself this, what side of the argument has no fear in pointing you to real sources and letting you decide on your own?

9bd111 No.11048584



9bd111 No.11048589

File: 483248c47dadb58⋯.png (1.33 MB, 831x1000, 831:1000, 7Vf9Jbh.png)


>So you’re fine with faggots licking doorknobs

>So you want freedom eh? That means you are fine with child molestation! My God, you monster!

e55413 No.11048601


>can’t even come up with a proper comparison

>still shilling for destruction of freedom of association

ed9ff3 No.11048658


Can someone explain to me what facets of a website is eligible to be compared with the scenario in this ruling? If living spaces is the tipping point for a monopoly of the means for freedom of speech, then where are the living spaces a website?

350cea No.11048724

File: 43c2a4ee1406b44⋯.jpg (106.79 KB, 1080x735, 72:49, george-soros-quote.jpg)

B-b-b-but goys, they defended muh net neutrality! Think of the little guys like Amazon, Google, and Facebook!

e55413 No.11048785


Hard source or fuck off, please.

350cea No.11048811

File: 3e414b2f96214c3⋯.jpg (377.46 KB, 1000x800, 5:4, fba14a27d52be2c5b03264a3e4….jpg)


Here you little Nigger Neutrality cuck. Hope you enjoyed supporting the kike that's giving us mass (((immigration))).



504fc4 No.11048819

File: c0254a949ccb820⋯.jpg (208.35 KB, 960x960, 1:1, c0254a949ccb8207e7b61e069e….jpg)


You can filter certain strings of text by clicking on "Options" in top right corner of website.

cdcc62 No.11048848


Is that sum asuka cosplay?

c45013 No.11048866


Let's pray this never happens to us, anon.

f10314 No.11048872



Nigga, what the fuck is "POL"?

e9e437 No.11048976


We should start by deleting your spam, faggot.

367277 No.11049029

File: 71d37d4d02e998e⋯.png (69.83 KB, 880x880, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

You can use this image for fast, easy spreading and reading on Twitter.

742a8a No.11049206


> namefagging

> elipsis

> wanting to spread an image that suggests the reader come to /pol/

Your newness is sickening.

367277 No.11049216

Namefagging? Are you twelve years old? My newness is reality. As yours once was. Should I have left the source off? No credit or citation needed? I'm new to /pol/, not life or reality outside of it.

350cea No.11049220


Back to r/TheDonald


367277 No.11049225

Didn't even know it existed. TY

b2b916 No.11049228




>migrate to a new place

>don't bother learning anything about the new place, or the culture

>get mad when people call you out on your shit

You are the imageboard equivalent of a Mexican. Lurk for two years before posting.

e9e9e5 No.11049238

File: 8a1b3abdf983c4c⋯.jpg (31.13 KB, 591x960, 197:320, At least there's no fags t….jpg)




>Tripfagging all over the place.

I'll spread that shit, but you are absolute garbage.

b2b916 No.11049251


>purposely shitting up the quality of the board for your own selfish reasons

You don't belong here, you fucking nigger. If everyone acted like you, we would be no different than any other site. Stop being a selfish little faggot and LURK, or get the fuck out.

b2b916 No.11049261


>doesn't know how to reply to specific posts

>thinks /pol/acks are antifa

>has literally no idea what this board is or what the ideology is

>using random buzzwords

Why are you still posting? Everybody here is telling you to fuck off. Are you really that autistic? Go be an attention seeking faggot somewhere else. This is not the board for you.

d12b7f No.11049264


filtered and reported. fuck off faggot

367277 No.11049274

>refers to itself as 'everybody here'

>competes with fellow last word freak for title

I'll fuck off and lurk now. Last word is yours, faggot nigger (be patient, I'm learning).

b2b916 No.11049284


It's always good to have new people coming in to generate traffic, but you have to understand /pol/ has a specific language and method of operation. That is why the common saying is "lurk two years before posting." There is a constant influx of new people here, and if you begin to post before assimilating, the unique board culture just becomes more and more diluted. You came to this thread to help, and I appreciate that, just understand that if you stick out like a sore thumb people will call you out for it, because again, we want to preserve the qualities of our board that make us unique. Thank you for listening and not continuing to ego-post. If there is something you genuinely don't understand or would like answered, check the catalog for a thread called "QTDDTOT" (questions that don't deserve their own thread) and post in there. Godspeed on your journey, anon.

367277 No.11049302

Much appreciated, cheers. Anon out.

350cea No.11049312


Remember to >>>/suicide/ yourself you fucking nigger.


And join him for spoonfeeding.

b2b916 No.11049353


you're making me blush, anon-kun

813d57 No.11049362

>get refused service for being gay

can sue for a million $ and win

>get refused service for almost any other reason

get destroyed nerd you lose

Being treated like a second class citizen makes me hate gays.

4d50c8 No.11049436

If constitutional law were valid, it would bind the government.

c21d37 No.11049473

File: 09900164eb35124⋯.jpg (42.58 KB, 688x456, 86:57, mask.jpg)


> ignoring that this site has faced multiple financial blockades intended to SHUT IT DOWN

64e783 No.11049676

File: 4f7c9dbb7a1b383⋯.png (168.5 KB, 1480x368, 185:46, Jews-Invincible-Terror-Roc….PNG)

a13db1 No.11049688


>implying they don't do this hours before you are blackbagged

927d52 No.11049729

File: 94d29346dca8848⋯.png (263.61 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, consider the following.png)


Doing something in a public street is different from doing something in a public alleyway. Youtube = sidewalk where you can talk to people, your shitty blog = the middle of the woods where no one can hear you

e75165 No.11049733

Forget the (((Internet))), go back to IRC

927d52 No.11049740


Search engines are very different from social media websites, it's insanely easy to switch to a different search engine, it's unimaginable to abandon youtube. Although, if they claim to be content-neutral (which everyone assumes), they better fucking be content-neutral

927d52 No.11049757


wew lad, thanks for sharing

Is fear their greatest weapon?

c09ef3 No.11049949


Getting desperate, are we?

927d52 No.11049990

File: 4ac119e782b1828⋯.jpg (35.75 KB, 721x97, 721:97, 1 (edit) marsh v alabama f….jpg)


>quotation marks

Those aren't the judge's words you retard


see pic related from Marsh v. Alabama - https://archive.is/31fyG

the argument can be made that the public has an interest in ensuring "that the channels of communication remain free" when it comes to youtube and other public social media platforms

b3e35e No.11050012

File: a0657becfab463d⋯.png (865.38 KB, 1136x640, 71:40, IMG_2342.PNG)

They are MultiNational Corps, think they really care about "Muh Constitution"? They're taking over. Say bye to your constitution and guns… kikes

e55413 No.11050111


Getting retarded, are you?

9b8832 No.11050264


lolbergs btfo

372539 No.11050284

File: fea4d9f55b39629⋯.jpg (3.78 MB, 4256x2832, 266:177, lady justice.jpg)

>>11044933 Checked

Courts are fair so long as your prosecutor does not have a (((BAR))) card and you persist.

95c600 No.11050380

We need to find and support right-wing legal entities that work to crush these monopolies.

These platforms need to be declared public commons for the purpose of freedom of expression. Payment methods also need protection. No one should be denied payment processing without an articulable legal reason.

37cd09 No.11050575

File: 2dbcdd8f4bcd135⋯.jpg (507.93 KB, 575x767, 575:767, Refugees Welcome.jpg)

9cefe3 No.11050666


Most of youtube's content is based around a search engine. Unless you're watching a video from a channel you know or that was sent to you from outside youtube, you have to use their search engine and recommended videos to navigate their site and find things to watch. I guess you could argue that they have to host every video, but you can't argue that each video has to be featured equally if you search for it, because that runs into the same problems I specified earlier with search engines.

ed2566 No.11050797


>I think this ruling infringes on the private sector's rights too much.


ed2566 No.11050868


Any freedom of association has been dead since the 60s. So you need.to make hay from.it and hold leftists to their own rules. As of right now, only the right is harmed by it, but we can devastate the left if we used the same principle against them.

24bfb3 No.11051032
















e8e9e1 No.11051042



>Restore the classification of broadband Internet access service as an “information service”—the classification affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Brand X case.

If memory serves, Skype, video-chat, and other "free meeting / free VoIP / free call" IPX and SIP data services were providing services and using some nuances of "information services" vs "common carrier" classifications to use AT&T's termination fees as payment to themselves. Or something of the sort, which they offered "free" to you, and got paid by carriers. Cable Co General avoided this because it was newer, and used anything it could to avoid classification as Common Carrier via the Telecoms 1934 origin and Telecoms 1996 revision. This whole thing built up, with Comcast winning, AT&T loosing, and Skype laughin' and winning, until a whole sea of chink and kike exploiters showed up to copy Skype's multi-dutch shell game. Some last straw caused AT&T to loose its composure during the last meltdown of all the tech companies that managed to hold on against the Chinese Communist Bank (circa 2008/2009), which pushed hard for classify-it-all-as-anything-else plea to various bodies of law and regulation. This boiled over into committees, since congress was relatively paralyzed.

Carrier vs Information service reversal may open up that larger exploitation of communications infrastructure arcanum. The backbone carriers are under hyperconsolidation, and it's not looking good… Level-3, CenturyLink, AT&T, Time-Warner-AOL-Comcast, etc. Granted, all these companies are still reeling in effect from 1998/BRICS bubble wealth transfer lies (the first Chinese Communist Bank bubble), and are hardly without guilt. But real accounting and revenue is being wiped out, along with real infrastructure. The ultimate decision of hardware vs content riding on that hardware is a shitpost of unnatural distinction (like sex vs gender, or fab-ful vs fab-less semiconductor and IP/patents), which has the potential to run around in circles chasing its tail.

Just want to give perspective to storms ahead.

5bbe1d No.11051069


Made me laugh, you guys are my only friends.

e8e9e1 No.11051087

>>11046766 re

>>11051042 cont


>PDF, Page 096

>Ending Title II Regulation of Internet Traffic Exchange

>163. The Title II Order applied, for the first time, the requirements of Title II to Internet traffic exchange “by an edge provider . . . with the broadband provider’s network.”595 We make clear that as a result of our decision to restore the longstanding classification of broadband Internet access service as an information service, Internet traffic exchange arrangements are no longer subject to Title II and its attendant obligations.596 We thus return Internet traffic exchange to the longstanding free market framework under which the Internet grew and flourished for decades.

This is the circular positive feedback loop of negative effect I'm trying to point out. The docket seems to be aware-but-not. There are components of hardware exchanges, and content exchanges. The later of which have no hardware, ride on the hardware of others, and get deposited onto packet transport/exchange. It is the later which are making money via platform control and fudging consumer-facing contract pseudo-openness. Reclassifying the whole thing of "ISP" as "Information Service" when all of those ISPs have hardware, and the target is negotiated against platforms which have no hardware, is messing the whole picture up with blurred lines and/or pointless definitions.

I may be a splitting-hairs autist, but broad-stroke in one direction to fix broad-stroke in another only to go back again, is crazy. "Internet traffic exchange arrangements" between hardware-only vs hardware-content vs content only is the question. AT&T is not Comcast is not Google. And Google's solution to start running fibre FTTP to its own backbone and back is infeasible even for Google (Verizon has attempted the same thing, and has been more successful, except they don't have much in the way of direct platform). It's also crazy, because each of the companies involved have different ownership accounts/LLPs/PLLCs/etc governing real estate vs maintenance vs copyright creators vs legal enforcement vs political vendors – so if that's the actual topology within companies, the topology outside those companies should interface with the same design, not broadly classify one subset of companies as Information or Carrier.

It will be a shit storm, at least.

5449d0 No.11051115


muh constitution

more trampling over it will only grow our movement.


002bc3 No.11051675


You're dumb enough to bust into some random American's house, and start screaming?

>You're why guns are necessary

e55413 No.11051696


>you’re a liberal

Read what was written again.

cc817f No.11051865


I created a raspberry pi proof of concept of this. I assure you, it can be done and most likely is being done in some capacity.

Anyone remember that device they found scanning all traffic going to and from the it us via the one of the Pacific fiber cables about ten years ago? My theory is that it wasn't just a packet sniffer…

Someone please notice me.

24bfb3 No.11052165

oh suddenly 8ch cares about censorship

in case you're blind, this place is meticulously censored to keep conversation within the bounds of controlled opposition. Deleted posts, deleted threads, bumplocked threads….it's completely obvious. They are suppressing good conversations because they are good conversations. There is no way these mods are basement dwellers motivated by their inferiority complexes. They are way too fervent. They are being paid.

Tons of the posts on /pol/ are from bots, the moderators are paid to suppress certain discussions that are in the interest of the community, and Jim Watkins is a government intelligence contractor (he's the owner of the site, he stole it from Hotwheels the one who established 8ch and he also owns 2ch).

Seriously, this place is probably moderated in part by bots. The censorship is like clockwork.

We desperately need a safe place to discuss and organize freely.

But most of you are probably too conditioned by this censorship/controlled opposition program to realize any of this. Brainless soulless meme parroting animals. That is what (((they))) want us all to become, that is what this place turns the naive into. They want us to rot here and never take action while our last opportunities to save ourselves disappear.

3d8c9b No.11052204

File: d8ae1ee950a23b6⋯.png (149.52 KB, 419x296, 419:296, Maddow958-3.png)



If any of this is true, why are Tortards still allowed to shit the place up?

94b6c4 No.11052300

threadly reminder to filter every maddow poster

they have nothing to contribute to any conversation

24bfb3 No.11052301


to maintain the illusion….you have not identified a contradiction in my statement


it's probably a bot

24bfb3 No.11052314


see you're drinking from the well here


what on fucking earth does that have to do with anything at all

people who post from tor are usually just people who were banned

they let us keep posting on tor in a bid to let us be connected somewhat so we don't boil over and shoot up some public place

47b61c No.11052318

File: 374aa359d34d198⋯.jpg (69.34 KB, 600x508, 150:127, 1392477159319.jpg)


Don't post fake quotes, faggot.

24bfb3 No.11052343




You're the tornigger that non-niggerposting tor users like myself hate.

>people who post from tor are usually just people who were banned

No, most of us are just paranoid about big brother watching us. You make the rest of us look bad by being such a fucking faggot.

47c204 No.11052393


Declare them to be common carriers.

4d50c8 No.11052397

At this point, they'd mostly be censoring leftists pretending to be right wingers. I've run out of suspension of disbelief for the presentation of the "right" around here. It's too perfectly incorrectly to believe in.

Also, if constitutional law were valid, it would bind the government.

0b9c88 No.11052450



4144d3 No.11052611

File: a0c13b602926b37⋯.jpg (584.65 KB, 1182x666, 197:111, CIA.jpg)

>They want us to rot here and never take action while our last opportunities to save ourselves disappear.

<Translation: Goy go bomb up some buildings like a dune coon so our alphabet agencies can take you down and name you rayciss Natzee bastids as domestic terrorists.

CIAtorniggers exist you know.

4144d3 No.11052612


Post meant for >>11052165

7426f5 No.11052956


Where does the constitution grant us freedom of association?

0dc4b6 No.11052983


It is,, the homos demanded a name change and they got it. The definition of aids have gone through a few changes over time to keep it relevant, otherwise they couldn't claim that so many are suffering from it.

There is a documentary, house of numbers


bbd6c1 No.11053188


690431 No.11053377


Spamming is a form of censorship rabbi.

e55413 No.11053448


What happens if you spam truth, though? Say, on a liberal website?

This question is not meant to state or imply that the spam in context is truth. Consult your doctor before diverging from pills which are purple and green.

6cb76f No.11053533


Although it would be a bold strategy to use Marsh v. Alabama like that, the case is about the public function doctrine, which can give you a constitutional claim against a private person or organization when they perform functions traditionally reserved to the state (like running a town). It would be a tough sell to the Court that social media platforms are functions of the state.

fa6424 No.11053545


>It would be a tough sell to the Court that social media platforms are functions of the state.

Depends how much they want to declassify. It already is, the public just doesn't know yet.

6cb76f No.11053550


I think that Masterpiece Cakeshop has the potential to usher in a new era of First Amendment jurisprudence, so it is not outside the realm of possibility.

07e405 No.11053601


>people have to the right to speak freely under their discretion

People don't have the right to speak freely, then.

6cb76f No.11053664


A good thing to remember is that the Court has decisively stated that the First Amendment is not an absolute, and that it was not intended as such by the Founders (Justice Black was the only one who has ever advocated for an absolutist right to free speech)

24bfb3 No.11053739

A legal argument is nothing without political support. Some one would need to have something the aristocrats want in order to bargain with them, and it doesn't look like popular support in a possibility. This country is full of third world animals that just want free stuff.





this the exactly the kind of things the site operator's bots say.

the bots are trained on the site operator's trolling.

Incoherent nonsense, constantly making false equivalences, always explicitly trying to claim they are the "real" users and calling the dissenting poster a playground name, constantly equating stepping outside your house with domestic terrorism.

Honestly most of the posts on this board are from the site operators or the bots they operate. There is rarely real discussion here, it's constantly dragged down by the mods, their bots, and the unfortunate children that have been trained to act like their bots.

It's a hideous crime.


don't talk like that you little dumbfuck, you don't know shit. Either an infant or a bot, so stupid.

f445d0 No.11053972

Internet is going to be SAFE Network - Secure Access For Everyone (100% privacy, security and anonymity)

An Anonymous Secure Decentralized Distributed Autonomous Data Network


This network is something that will make youtube, twitter, facebook and all those big corporations that are fu**ing with your privacy go broke

it also pays according to the popularity of your public content, there is gonna be an app called SafeTube which is something like youtube with monetization but with no more self censoring fearing demonitization, since the network does the paying by itself, there is no more human bullshit involved, the more views your videos have the more u get paid in safecoin u can then exchange safecoin for $$$ on the SafeExchange App

dc6b49 No.11054142


A few years ago Twitter was bragging incessantly about being the voice of the Arab Spring and helping to be the driving force of "Democracy movements" They appointed themselves as champions of free speech as long as it suited their agenda

e8e9e1 No.11054347


Request for expansion options in code to add distributed auto-routed data warehouse silos, with storage-push, commit-verify, and backup-library options.

9cb6c5 No.11054763


How do you stop bots from inflating views if everything's anonymous? Even now it is a problem without a solution. There is no way for the internet to differentiate human input from a progrram running a script. And if there is a way, then it will inevitably br 100% traceable and thus compromised.

d6aa13 No.11054835

File: 69661b233db7a8e⋯.jpg (65.5 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1459794767201.jpg)


You aren't alone in this feeling.

The board's quality of discussion has absolutely watered down. Loads of fucking shills destroying the meaning of the accusation of "shill" by calling anything and fucking everything a shill. Everything's a Jew. Everyone's a Jew.

Opponents are told to leave, rather than rebuked. Research is hampered with smatterlings of bullshit and false leads.

This once quiet hall of study has filled with screaming brainlet lemmings.

c63580 No.11054889


The old days were good. (((They))) disrupted it as we proved to be a threat to their plans.

91a9c9 No.11054932


yep, they found a way to get to us, piecemeal tactics!

they pushed bit by bit, every step to small to be countered.

It started when we, mostly the memes to be honest, started to have an influence on the outside. the election was the watershed.

The only thing we can do now is to push quality.

However, what this whole situation showed more then anything else is, that without the people at the top being on the right side, in our case mods and BO's, we will lose sooner or later.

It is the one of the oldest rules of war,

you can't win if you don't attack,

and while it is one of the strengths of imageboards that we are all anonymous here, it also means we can't bring the fight to them.

So they can try new tactics time and time again till they find something that works,

and what they are currently doing it at least showing a considerable effect.

btw. here is a good example of the type of shilling they are using now: >>11054910

this effectively destroys any good and useful work and discussion.

I might get around, the other day, to make a closer analysation of the way they are currently wittering down the higher quality userbase of /pol/

f41cc4 No.11055070



>hurr the old days


Your "old days" were shit. 100% shit. Fags.

d6aa13 No.11055150



>Not discussion

>Not even large quantities of discussion

>Not even that bad of a catalogue

>No arguments.

>No point.

>Just dumps an archive and gives a stink eye.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Fucking reprobate cunts like you. Shut up and fuck off. I'm so sick of hearing you yelp.


24bfb3 No.11055438

I remember decades ago free speech being promoted and protests by the left and especially the communists decades ago by campuses and such. Years later all the worst fears are realized, that the left would lie and cheat the moment it got into power. Everyone should notice it by now with leftists and their entitled nonwhite pets, how you give them an inch and they will take miles. That's why you should give them nothing. But of course, the current establishment right that rules politics in the west, the neocons never fucking learn and keep "cucking" to the left, always having nothing to show for it, always digging bigger holes and caring only for the donor class instead of the working man that must deal with the subhuman nonwhite hoards of orcs special interests give them enough so they aren't forced to live around. That's why the current establishment right must die and a real right has to take their place. No more games, no more compromise, no more rules for radicals. Just the right mindset with your foot firmly planted and a gun in your belt.

4c98e3 No.11055464

Well with the repeal of net neutrality, prepare for more censorship. Essentially now its up to your local ISP provider what you have access to. It was a nice run, while it lasted.

82a53f No.11055494


They've had that power for years now. "Net Neutrality" wasn't real net neutrality.

4c98e3 No.11055499

Funny, then why ISP's spend millions of dollars lobbying to repeal Net neutrality?

d52bee No.11055509


explain why soros of all people funneled millions into making "net neutrality" happen?



Doomsday shriek all you like, but uprooting net neutrality was a good move with how evidence that contradicts the narrative in favor of net neutrality was quickly buried under and steadily buried for the next 2 years.

4c98e3 No.11055574

You reviewed net neutrality regulations, and you sure the information is correct? I

Your link is broken BTW..

d52bee No.11055954


You wanna know how I can tell you're not from around here?

24bfb3 No.11056211

Hey, Vsauce. Michael here.

Skeletons are scary and spooky, but you know what else is? Niggers.

According to the U.S Justice Department, in 2006, 32,443 women of Caucasian origin were raped by men of African origin.

That same year, the number of African American women raped by Caucasian men… was… zero.

In fact, 90% of all interracial crimes in the U.S. are committed by blacks… against whites…

So what if all blacks were to… suddenly… disappear from the U.S.?

Murder would go down 49.7 percent, welfare recipients would go down 40 percent, SAT scores would go up about 100 points, the average IQ would go up 7 points, and AIDS victims would go down a staggering… 67… percent.

Significant changes for race that only makes up 13% of the population.

InHey, Vsauce. Michael here.

Skeletons are scary and spooky, but you know what else is? Niggers.

According to the U.S Justice Department, in 2006, 32,443 women of Caucasian origin were raped by men of African origin.

That same year, the number of African American women raped by Caucasian men… was… zero.

In fact, 90% of all interracial crimes in the U.S. are committed by blacks… against whites…

So what if all blacks were to… suddenly… disappear from the U.S.?

Murder would go down 49.7 percent, welfare recipients would go down 40 percent, SAT scores would go up about 100 points, the average IQ would go up 7 points, and AIDS victims would go down a staggering… 67… percent.

Significant changes for race that only makes up 13% of the population.

6f31ab No.11056386


There's enough Vsauce material on youtube to actually splice together this. With some clever editing of course.

3ff852 No.11056945


Despite the USA protect freedom of speech, the problem is the (((EU))), particularly Merkel's Germany. They are the ones demanding the social networks to tackle the issue of "hate speech"

c4be16 No.11057107

File: 04a12b2debc6654⋯.png (244.55 KB, 1280x800, 8:5, Screenshot_2017-06-25-16-3….png)

File: 864c0ede9931029⋯.png (294.06 KB, 800x1280, 5:8, Screenshot_2017-05-26-00-0….png)

File: 686a098504a8e1f⋯.jpg (1.36 MB, 625x1769, 625:1769, nextPlus_image1118_2017_10….jpg)

someone should meme this. Twitter is still running a child rape forum.


Boy lover, small boy lover, snake brotherhood. (Symbols on islands. )

Show the public what passes as acceptable content.

They are satanic, pedophilia based, and in control of the media. We need to wake more souls. God bless.

697030 No.11057215


how about you force them to work, then they would have no time to commit crimes.

I heard your bridges, airports and streets are in bad shape. Stop whining and do something about it. Force them to work whatever shitty job there is, if they don't work, they have to starve to death.

No excuses, no student visas, no visa lottery. Work or get out.

4c7b9a No.11057286

File: 5a9ea2f7ae625b8⋯.jpg (741.58 KB, 750x972, 125:162, table42-highlighted.jpg)


>32,443 women of Caucasian origin were raped by men of African origin

f each respondent in the survey counts for about 1,700 people, then the survey in 2008 would have found 69 White women who were sexually assaulted or threatened, 11 of whom said their assailant was Black (117,640/1,700). Actually, though, we know it was less than 11, because the asterisk on the table takes you to the footnote below which says it was based on 10 or fewer sample cases. In comparison, the survey may have found 27 Black women who said they were sexually assaulted or threatened (46,580/1,700), none of whom said their attacker was White, which is why the second blue box shows 0.0. However, it actually looks like the weights are bigger for Black women, because the figure for the percentage assaulted or threatened by Black attackers, 74.8%, has the asterisk that indicates 10 or fewer cases. If there were 27 Black women in this category, then 74.8% of them would be 20. So this whole Black women victim sample might be as little as 13, with bigger weights applied (because, say, Black women had a lower response rate). If in fact Black women are just as likely to be attacked or assaulted by White men as the reverse, 16%, you might only expect 2 of those 13 to be White, and so finding a sample 0 is not very surprising. The actual weighting scheme is clearly much more complicated, and I don’t know the unweighted counts, as they are not reported here (and I didn’t analyze the individual-level data).


4c7b9a No.11057294


So, next time you’re arguing with David Duke, the simplest response to this is that the numbers he’s talking about are based on very small samples, and the asterisk means he shouldn’t use the number. The racists won’t take your advice, but it’s good for everyone else to know.

Philip N.


is a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park

de7efe No.11057949

File: 58202c236095f68⋯.jpg (103.46 KB, 854x859, 854:859, 02311ed656b33485a75bdd3c48….jpg)



This. It's self evident the supreme levels of corruption here.

a58159 No.11057961


>implying the rights of corporations supersedes the rights of individuals

this is why the US is the worst nation on earth right here.

5706bb No.11058353

File: 593e6d9b60df650⋯.png (764.75 KB, 1273x1400, 1273:1400, twitter is run by pedophil….png)

Thought this needed to be done.

bca1b2 No.11058501

File: 306cf7239afbfc6⋯.jpg (97.96 KB, 625x353, 625:353, 1505536532858.jpg)

Can you fucking imagine how much things would change with net-wide freedom of speech?

We would win the whole game

250c3b No.11058509


Not really, since you’d still be banned for posting things liberals don’t like. You’d just have to go through ✡government bureaucracy✡ to appeal your per-website ban, and that would either take three years or wind up not being counted at all because “you were spamming.” Get real, idiot.

bca1b2 No.11058518


Not at all. If these platforms were found to be systematically violating their mandate, they would be sued for 10's of millions, and slapped around until they were brought into compliance. It would be a massive payday for us, and the end of the world for them

250c3b No.11058567



And how do you imagine anyone to afford to go up against them? How do you think those ✡court cases✡ would go with jewish lawyers and jewish defense attorneys? It doesn’t matter how much of a class action they are; as soon as it’s done, they’ll just keep banning people anyway, for the same things and claimed for ✡reasons✡ not related to the suits. Anon, this is how they work RIGHT NOW. It’s how the fucking faggots on other websites *cough* work, too. No one does a goddamn thing about it.

7750a0 No.11058730

I was recently banned for 3 days on Facebook for voicing an unpopular opinion publicly, my ability to use the FB messenger platform unrelated to the commented subgroup effectively disables my ability to communicate with my direct family members, and direct personal friends using the platform.

a7ab90 No.11058737

File: c11fd90ec0445ac⋯.jpg (663.16 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 20171218_172319.jpg)

KAIN knows

842f45 No.11059359

this whole thing is so retarded. reddit has no monopoly and reddit has SUBreddits where moderators can ban people all they want, similar to 8chan boards. the only thing reddit should be punished for is manipulating their front page and their retarded voting system.

139e15 No.11059713


while true if reddit > all other leddit systems like voat or 8ch over all other imageboard they can be held accountable for censorship

47f9a9 No.11059832

She’s a gold star widow…..

Mission accepted.

e26054 No.11059836

File: cf419d862f22806⋯.jpg (909.1 KB, 1598x1943, 1598:1943, eu-speech.jpg)

They aren't using US laws anymore. They are using EU laws. EU does not have Freedom of speech.

NOWHERE in the world has freedom of speech but the US. The US is a minority in this. Facebook, Twitter and Google are going by global paradigm.

9b64c6 No.11059967


Ah so this is why manlet rape and "Polar bear hunting" are a-OK but MAY God have mercy on you if you dare to insult a precious 7 foot tall big-dicked nigger!

81f2cf No.11060006

Is there anyone else who is completely and utterly tired of this all that is happening. This so called "progress" and so called "wellbeing" and all this political scheming, lying and pure hatred against us who have done nothing bad in their lives..

I'm so tired, I can't even read anything from 4chan or from here anymore. I can't cope with this. I don't know what to believe. To believe Miguel Serrano or Jung, or pure original Christians or who what? Should I believe Trump? I'm so tired there's no foundations to lean on. Everything seems like lies. Maybe I need complete break of internet for months.

6cb76f No.11060013

I don't know why I have to explain it to you dummies again: The First Amendment (and the 14th) protects you from government censorship, not private censorship. In addition, the First Amendment is NOT an absolute, and has never been interpreted as such.

47f9a9 No.11060022

Private censorship is a violation of the equal opportunity acts and equal opportunity provisions of labor law. By default you’re the source of these companies income by providing your information. That makes you their employee.

6cb76f No.11060026


Finally, a good debate.

While your argument is compelling from an abstract perspective, it doesn't hold water. Those social media platforms are providing you with a service, and providing them with information is a condition of that service.

47f9a9 No.11060043

That my employer pays me doesn’t negate that they have to abide by the laws as presented. Compensation does not make one immune from obligation to comply with legal restrictions. Only the judicial system and the courts can determine whether you’re responsible or not.

6cb76f No.11060051


I think you're misinterpreting the relationship you have with social media platforms. Social media is a product that you purchase with the information you provide to them. It is not an employee/employer relationship.

47f9a9 No.11060070

You’re letting them frame the argument. Stop doing that. They are making their living from your endeavors, which means they are in legal terms your employer. You’re being compensated with a free service. That doesn’t mean they have the right to silence you or make you the target of abuse.

6cb76f No.11060081


Oh I completely agree with you, I don't like it at all. I'm just trying to provide a context for how such a legal challenge would play out. The fact is that data collection and processing has become a multi-billion dollar industry and that we are in effect, employees of those data collectors (albeit in various degrees of compliance), but this recent explosion of data collection and inter-connectivity of information is still too 'new' for the legal world (read: judges) to comprehend on a constitutional level.

47f9a9 No.11060094

You really just need an advocate that can speak the Judge’s language and be on the same level. An equal of theirs so that you’re capable of coming across in such a mannner that they understand the reality of the situation.

6cb76f No.11060102


One can hope. But there would also be an advocate for whatever social media giant would lose their ability to shape and control content, and you can be damned sure they would do everything in their power to stop you. Not saying its impossible, but its good to recognize the magnitude of the powers that would align to prevent this kind of expansion of free speech protections into social media.

47f9a9 No.11060131


The solution is obvious then, we need a coalition of resistance to this monstrosity. We need to get some major political power us as well. I can’t do this myself. I can with help.

47f9a9 No.11060133

Behind us*

371d43 No.11060362


>much of a class action they are; as soon as it’s done, they’ll just keep banning people anyway,

>siphoning millions of dollars out of the pockets of jews


250c3b No.11060373


…No one is going to win a lawsuit against jews. You know that, right? Jewish prosecutor, jewish defense attorney, and jewish judge. They always fucking win. It WILL NOT BE RULED AS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST to have a jewish prosecutor handle the case of a bunch of jew-hating goyim saying bad things about jews on the Internet. If you think it will, you clearly haven’t read Defensive Racism or know anything about how the US court system operates. And, again, the defense will rule the bannings and deletions as “not covered by the first amendment protections of speech on the Internet” under whatever new law is devised, if one is even ever devised. Jews aren’t the masters of loopholes; they are the loopholes themselves. You’re not going to win a fucking court case. If you win the court case, you’ll still be banned again afterward anyway and have to do it all over again, and no matter what happens jews get your fucking money.

250c3b No.11060375

File: 43bb7dabb9d7280⋯.jpg (747.28 KB, 1531x1489, 1531:1489, cf419d862f22806bb8183d0dfd….jpg)


>Q-LARP bullshit

I fixed your image.

47f9a9 No.11060394

Destroyed that trap on Twitter as wellYou aren’t suing Jews, you’re suing corporations. The Jews don’t really care if they can also make shekels on it. The left isn’t after anything other than to fill that empty void where their souls used to be.

They will do everything they can to shut you up, including murde. Those they can’t murder they will try to force degeneracy and sodomize into compliance. 21 is freedom. You’ve failed. I am a family member. They know I am here.

18e3a3 No.11060478

Twitter was once a bastion of free speech but now says it's 'no longer possible to stand up for all speech'



f801c5 No.11060486


>It was more possible to allow all speech when less people used the platform and it was easier to not stand for all speech

Genius tbh

81f2cf No.11060580


This is the Communist Dream

Censorship has been on the way since the beginning of them. This is it, they are just now unleashing with their made-up reasons.

224f63 No.11061225

The constitution gives the right to go into peoples homes uninvited and redpill them.

e8e9e1 No.11061260


The key is insurance companies.

Central Fed bank and peripheral banks do create problems.

But the key has always been insurance companies.

The group account misappropriation constant revenue streams were always the key.

6f45b0 No.11061398

File: 1ecbb1f79c172e9⋯.jpg (34.1 KB, 680x509, 680:509, crimea river natalya.jpg)


start your own board you sperg! this is 8chan, not goybook or ledit.

6f45b0 No.11061414

File: 2932cc7037fe23c⋯.jpg (114.55 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, disgust.jpg)



>Remove the /pol/ mod


then go make your own board you lefty/pol/ refuge. nobody wants your civnat bs around here.

250c3b No.11061444


>you’re a lefty

>you’re a civnat

Where, exactly, has ANYTHING remotely like that been pushed by him and his kind?

6f45b0 No.11061482


lefty's usually make ridiculous or irrelevant off-topic posts and then complain about "muh censorship" or "mod abuse" but they don't post any evidence. (just everyday D&C Bolshevik-bs) funny thing is if they actually had any evidence they could just make their own board and post about it. that's the wonderful thing about 8chan. the civnat stuff is usually just them pretending to be center-right autismos in order to push their leftist agenda.

>please watch this video from muh based random e-celebrity!

2fbe65 No.11061651


It's still incorrect. They're doing it because they're filthy kikes. But, yes, there are infinity things wrong with it.

2fbe65 No.11061704

File: 26f228c1fb10084⋯.jpg (52.17 KB, 640x491, 640:491, Unnecessary Amounts of Tan….jpg)

>>11049688 (checked)

Shit, I hadn't seen this before I clicked Post. It should be faster than hours. Not only do you niggers need to know how to handle yourself tactically, you need to check comms. Don't do it with a cell phone, though. An aircraft (including a drone) can lock a hellfire missile onto your cell phone and blow your ass up. In the event of a Happening, this would probably happen to some people. I know it is how ZOG killed Saddam's kids.

You need to be aware if your comms go down though. I am prior Infantry with a good knowledge of a lot of other things. I run serious security drills if comms go out, regardless of what possible "excuse" there would be (because only an idiot would believe that).

You also need drills where you can pass information out in the event of a hit on you (that you should defeat because you're not a pussy–right?). You need to pass info on (particularly on the hit) and have the people you passed it to pass it. You may have to go on the run with the pics of the team you dropped and send them through another device through someone else's wifi or public. Your TOP PRIORITY after any attempted hit is to get the information out, even if it gets you killed. Also, do not hold onto information worth killing you over. Get it out there to remove the incentive to terminate your ass should you have something that big.

Watch your ass out there. Don't let the enemy drop a net on you (don't be like MIA Pizzagate Anon). I hope and pray they are dumb enough to try it on me.

3cb4c6 No.11062350


Post this on cuckchan to get it more traction.

006d2b No.11062962

well, let's flip the scenario. say a private company didn't want to air sjw commie shit. That wouldn't mean government should step in and force the company to air sjw commie shit. if freedom of speech means forcing people to hear what you have to say, then by that argument a mod banning you on a private forum should be illegal.

But this is the kind of thing the left would love to have in place because it would mean a shitty ass radio program like Air America would be on every station in the US despite no one actually wanting to listen to it. the left hates the first amendment. public broadcasting is already bad enough, and NPR for example wouldnt even exist without public funding.

once you legislate that a private company cant dictate its own terms of service you're basically opening the grounds to all sorts of constitutional violations. The proper response IMO to content providers shutting out certain ideas isn't to force them to air banned ideas, but to make sure we have the proper freedoms in place to be able to create new platforms that can air any legal content the platform provider wishes.

the question shouldnt be how to give more power to a government apparatus but which regs need to be repealed to get rid of artificial barriers to market entry for all communication. here's a starter idea: disintegrate the fcc.

e8e9e1 No.11063004


The rules used to say, "fair" and two-sided presentation. Of course, they just use an extreme argument strawman as their counterpoint, justifying their 'rational' lies.

The rules used to say, "no press monopolies" and consolidation of platforms (back then: paper news, paper book/publishing house, and later radio casts). Of course, central bank economics, world wide currency wars resulting from them, and other such systemic blow backs of allowing asian cannibals and african parasites to participate, did so 'collude' to destroy independent accounts and worth. Affects of this were seen as far back as Hearst and "Remember the Main" yellow journalism (which was at least nationalistic in outcome, but still strange).

The rules, economics, currency-notes, law, and quite a bit else, used to say alot of things. Freedom of speech does not, has not, and will never mean, forcing others to accept transactions they don't want. It does mean, the decision to prevent transactions cannot lie with the platform, if the platform is a monopoly platform. Accomplishing this spirit used to be the goal.

006d2b No.11063013


but if you remove cronyism from gubmint, and people choose to use a particular platform, why fuck with it? why not just make a new platform?

835b09 No.11063070

e8e9e1 No.11063074


Your point was (1) "you can't force terms of service" (2) [sic] "because it fucks other shit up" and (3) [sic] "it could cause blow back that afterall we wouldn't like when the tables are turned."

To which I stated, we've always had both unwritten and written rules regarding platforms, regardless of media physical medium. To which I also stated, there's ways of fucking with the definitions and practices. Ex: The SJW violates fairness in spirit, because they paint nonexistant disproportionate revisionist extreme positions to counter their own. This is an illusion that follows the pattern and letter of priors, but tosses spirit out the window. Ex: Economic frames can force consolidation and wealth transfer, which can accompany law changes preventing consolidation, all of which drastically reduces choice. Both of these examples demonstrate force, one of forcing the narrative in pseudo-fairness, and the other of forcing transactions to be heard because there are no alternatives. Both of which, incidentally, are used to prevent the tables from ever turning, explicitly by preventing tables from turning.

Now you point is "why fuck with it?" "why not just make a new platform?" Which is yet another shitpost trying to claim that no force is present, when multiple tiers of forcing artificial free speech transactions are in fact already present. They are, in fact, using platforms to force. They are, in fact, violating prior spirit and prior law (which has admittedly been revised, albeit to facilitate crony favoritism economics). For you to portray the current as something it is not, in order to justify the position of "why fuck with it," is circular lunacy.

006d2b No.11063105


at no point did I defend the current system. i'm saying the better course of action would be to enable more freedom in communication rather than prohibit it. For example, if there are companies that benefit from cronyism, then get rid of the crony laws.

No private business owner should be forced to provide services to people they don't want to provide services to. If you violate their terms of services, that's on you.

e8e9e1 No.11063138


There is no cronyism "law" regarding media ownership; It stems from the same "deregulation" concept of "if we pretend it doesn't exist." The actual primary act was Telecoms 1996 via Bill Clinton. To "get rid of crony laws" we would have to –add– back restrictions on consolidation to prevent (((unintended))) results from blow back of poor central-planning economics.

To enable more freedom in communication means creating more accounts, not less. By definition, more company accounts of platform results in more choice, albeit balanced against natural economics vs artificial blow back against central currency programs and international donations of traitors.

The forcing –of speech– from platform owners via indirect, ambiguous, fluid, and inconsistent selectively chosen "terms of service" is already forced speech. They are violating the nation, the spirit, and your right not to hear their shit. Which is all a little wonky anyway, since relatively few total percentage of customers pay for any platform period. Regardless, it is in fact on them for violating themselves and forcing speech – the very claim you claim is bad.

Each of the components of your post is shit. Your an amalgamation of hypocritical circular lies, stacked in a row, with no rhyme or reason, other than to be hypocritical, or lie out right. You confabulate law and economics, you confabulate muh freedom in communications, and you confabulate a dualistic outcome to "forcing services" and "terms" when it suits you.


006d2b No.11063165


You're still basically saying that no private citizen should be allowed to dictate what terms of service they should be allowed to offer. now i'd grant that there should be a certain standard for what private citizens should be able to do, like not hurting other people etc., but based on what you're saying:

"I'm gay. Bake me a cake even if you don't want to."

e8e9e1 No.11063202


Cake != Electrons.

Cake != Printing presses and publishing.

Cake != Free speech.

Those cake faggots, who were in fact faggots, wanted to make cake about free speech. Which it wasn't. It was just a cake, and they were just being faggots. Fuck the cake already, go take it to the cake thread.

And if I recall correctly, the "end consumer" faggots didn't have a "terms of service" agreement, were trying to force decorative speech expression –direct– expression, of a single proprietor single facility single point of sale, and set up that proprietor to fail. None of which is the same as platform sagas and FCC pajeets.

Go be gay some where else.

250c3b No.11063701


You fundamentally do not comprehend the OP and its implications.

1c9a67 No.11063706




This is war you fucking faggot, that principle shit died 70 years ago. Take what you can, give nothing back.

250c3b No.11064012


>repeating jewish propaganda

cb60c1 No.11064104


You are completely and utterly retarded.

011983 No.11064134

This is beautiful. Good find OP.

1062f1 No.11065457


>Sure seems like a whole fucking hissy fit worth of shills came in out of no where..

>first 3 pages are full of recent posts like this


>maybe I should check out the news rags

>Obamacare mandate repealed

>wait w0t



e8e9e1 No.11065822



>I fundamentally don't get it.

Maybe you're right. I do disagree with the OP. I also disagree with the ruling cited. And I lament that crazy child 'judges' write case comments into law, call them case-law, and fuck over far more than they could ever possibly pay for. There's a substantial amount of distortion that goes into claiming that porn is free speech, but it was done, and thus because 1st amendment is constitutional, I guess porn is free speech now. I think that lawyers using the first amendment as trojan horses for stupid, inappropriate, and child-like behavior ultimately degrades the first amendment, until the point is reached whereby we do, in fact, have to throw the whole thing out.

Along the same lines, civic nationalism is retarded, for it enables squirrels to call themselves citizens, to exploit the rules set by citizens, effectively reaching a privatized-profits-and-socialized-losses Machiavellian ends, and pay none of the costs of their maintenance.

The use of cake refusal as free speech infringement should be ruled bat shit insane, just as porn is free speech argument, just as the case-law cited in the OP – none of those so-called arguments were about free speech, they were merely exploits of deliberate misbehaving children. But while I understand retard is now judicial cannon, since that's case-law, I will not agree to just join the child retard bus.

cada2b No.11066217


Porn isn't free speech it's regarded as artistic expression, also constitutionally protected. and if that cake shop were the only one in town they'd have to make a gay cake or else provide a way to make one according to OP's point. You're in no position to call anyone else retarded.

b5f66a No.11066237


You're such a fucking faggot anon-kun, holy shit.

134b11 No.11066464


It's not free speech then. You're not forced to make your property allow for free speech… however you can't be allowed to profit form the appearance of free speech either if it isn't free speech.

Free speech shows transparency and honest values. People want to appear honest and transparent, but if you can't give people freedom of speech, you'll have to look for other means to get those labels, Just not by claiming you are pro-free speech.

134b11 No.11066471



At the very least, if conversation is to be restricted in your space, the rules of said restrictions should be extremely clear, not just some vague "I do what I want when it's convenient".

Many of the codes of conduct already do this, conflating harassment and unwelcome people, so it's almost libeling when they eject you from their spaces.

16c2bc No.11066629

BuzzFeed News obtained internal emails that show how Twitter’s leadership struggled to interpret its own rules while de-verifying Milo in 2016.


1d27e1 No.11068749


Restricting speech and freedom of association are two different things.

FB can ban anyone they want from their platform without any cause or reason at all; that's them exercising their "freedom of association".

What they can't do is allow people to use their platform and then tell them what they can and can not say.

cfdd5b No.11070207


Hard to argue when you have a monopoly

Facebook scraps fake news red flag warning feature after admitting it made problem worse


>However, the tech giant has now said it is ending the practice after new research showed that a strong image placed next to articles could "entrench deeply held beliefs".

1ab1f7 No.11098405

sliders are violating Kek's law

7da639 No.11098450

>muh constitution

It was a long-standing political courtesy that important legislation would not be acted upon during the week before Christmas, but this tradition was rudely shattered in order to perpetrate the Federal Reserve Act on the American people.

The Times buried a brief quote from Congressman Lindbergh that "the bill would establish the most gigantic trust on earth," and quoted Representative Guernsey of Maine, a Republican on the House Banking and Currency Committee, that "This is an inflation bill, the only question being the extent of the inflation." Congressman Lindbergh said on that historic day, to the House:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress. . . . If we had a people’s Congress, there would be stability. The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government."

The December 23, 1913 New York Times editorially commented, in contrast to Congressman Lindbergh’s criticism of the bill, "The Banking and Currency Bill became better and sounder every time it was sent from one end of the Capitol to the other. Congress worked under public supervision in making the bill."

Woodrow Wilson was taken unaware, as he, like many others, had been assured the bill would not come up for a vote until after Christmas. Now he refused to sign it, because he objected to the provisions for the selection of Class B. Directors. William L. White relates in his biography of Bernard Baruch that Baruch, a principal contributor to Wilson’s campaign fund, was stunned when he was informed that Wilson refused to sign the bill. He hurried to the White House and assured Wilson that this was a minor matter, which could be fixed up later through "administrative processes". The important thing was to get the Federal Reserve Act signed into law at once. With this reassurance, Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913. History proved that on that day, the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers.

The December 24, 1913 New York Times carried a front page headline "WILSON SIGNS THE CURRENCY BILL!" Below it, also in capital letters, were two further headlines, "PROSPERITY TO BE FREE" and "WILL HELP EVERY CLASS". Who could object to any law which provided benefits to everyone? The Times described the festive atmosphere while Wilson’s family and government officials watched him sign the bill. "The Christmas spirit pervaded the gathering," exulted The Times.

a19144 No.11098733

Bump, mods please sticky this.

1ab1f7 No.11098765


checked, and you get an E for enthusiasm but seriously you should lurk another 2 years. this thread has lived for two solid weeks without getting stickied - you think its gonna happen now?

<it gets the gas

a19144 No.11098771


Yeah I just noticed, I'm retarded.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chicas / dicksea / guarida / late / leftpol / o / strek / sw ]