Vimeo removes Infowars content

The Hill ^ | 08/12/18 | Jacqueline Thomsen

[DiogenesLamp]

No! Vehemently disagree. Allowing major communications companies to censor speech is a threat to all of our freedoms.

I don't care if they own the equipment. When they control a major portion of public communications, the public is a participant and should exert some collective control over what should be allowed and what should be forbidden.

The greatest threat we have been facing for decades is that sewer of propaganda from the Democrat/Media system mostly located in New York. They have been manipulating elections by manipulating public opinion through their control of the "news."

They don't report things damaging to the Democrats (Like the horrible disaster socialism in Venezuela is creating) and they focus on things damaging to Republicans.

The public has a right to hear representative opinions and positions from the entire nation, not just the well connected upper "elite" in New York and Washington DC.

[DiogenesLamp]

No one said anything about “free.” Since the public is a participant in monetizing these companies, it should be up to the public to decide what content they don’t want, not a “Big Brother” Censor.

[Fungi]

Well gollie, news to me. The FEC? Is that the federal ecumenical commission?

[Gene Eric]

>> Not a damn thing can or should be done about it.

But not to the exclusion of activism.

[Mr Rogers]

“For some reason many here think it’s the various social media sites’ responsibility to host him for free. “

No, but I believe he ought to be held to the same standards as others. Not a special “We Hate Conservatives” standard.

[DiogenesLamp]

So your position is if they make money hosting the site they give up all their other rights as to what they host? Even though they paid for and maintain the platform?

My position is that if they convey public communications to a significant portion of the public, they should be required to carry all traffic regardless of their own personal opinions regarding it. So long as it isn't illegal traffic, they have no right to stop it, and we the public have very much a right to hear it if we wish.

Would we tolerate for a minute a company refusing to serve black people?

[semimojo]

Since the public is a participant in monetizing these companies, it should be up to the public to decide what content they don’t want, not a “Big Brother” Censor.

Fox News is part of a public company.

Is it up to the public to decide what content they have to present?

[Gene Eric]

>> The Internet is a public utility.

Be careful with that one unless you’re a Net Neutrality fan.

[TomGuy]

The internet is a public utility.

The 'internet' is a public utility, but individual sites are not.

Just because you have a gas stove does not give a bum the right to come into your location in winter, even though gas is a public utility.

These sites offer a service and have a right to determine the boundaries.

[semimojo]

My position is that if they convey public communications to a significant portion of the public, they should be required to carry all traffic regardless of their own personal opinions regarding it.

My God.

I never thought I'd hear anyone on FR advocating for the Fairness Doctrine.

[Garth Tater]

"Too bad Vimeo didn’t see the opportunity to gain free speech market share vs youtube."

They had a choice and they chose to remain in the system - and that means they had to follow Rule #1. Not following the rule gets you thrown out while following the rule lets you remain in the system and make as much money as you possibly can. It's almost like a free marketplace (as long as you follow Rule #1)

Rule #1: Advance the narrative at all times unless given special dispensation.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do not pigeonhole my statement into the "fairness doctrine." The topic being discussed here is the prevention of censorship, not an attempt to balance the very heavily skewed liberal domination of all communications systems.

We cannot tolerate censorship of significant portions of public communications, and I don't care who owns the infrastructure.

My positions is that if you are in the communications business, you must be forced by law to serve every customer that sits at your lunch table.

Don't like having to serve the entire public? Stay out of the public communications business.

[Jonty30]

You would prefer to have your opinion completely squelched and you declared a non-person by the technology companies?

[DiogenesLamp]

These sites offer a service and have a right to determine the boundaries.

At one time, I would have said yes, but now that I see the danger and the threat from allowing this, I must say absolutely not.

They are colluding to silence political positions with which they disagree, and we cannot allow that to happen in this nation.

[Jonty30]

Including the right to absolutely cut you off from the rest of society, put you in a form of jail?

Including, through the effect, of being able to starve you to death by denying the use of their infrastructure?

[semimojo]

My positions is that if you are in the communications business, you must be forced by law to serve every customer that sits at your lunch table.

Do you think that Jim is in the communications business?

[Jonty30]

Jim doesn’t have the power to cut your life off completely from society. The tech giants have that power. They’ve become pseudo-governments.

[semimojo]

You would prefer to have your opinion completely squelched and you declared a non-person by the technology companies?

Does it really matter what my preference is, or should we look to The Constitution?

[DesScorp]

“Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time. “ - O’Sullivan’s First Law

The Purge will continue. The Heretics must be rooted out and punished.

[DiogenesLamp]

When Jim controls millions of accounts and dominates a significant portion of the communications systems in a particular market, then I will demand that his ability to censor be prevented.

So long as it is the size it is, Free Republic is not going to be a threat to the well being of the nation.

Companies with millions or even billions of accounts are very much a serious threat to the freedom of our nation.