Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,454 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I think most of us here are well aware of the biases of the tech giants against conservatives. Here is a very good video from Prager U that I think sums up the situation pretty well. It will be interesting to see how long Youtube allows this to remain up. Right now, the header frame "This video has been restricted" is not in force. It will play as of the time of this posting.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
I believe the premise is incorrect. It should be “conform or die or move to another platform.” These platforms are run as publicly traded companies and are free to set their own rules. Don’t like the rules or restrictions... move to a platform that allows what you are looking for. Or, better yet, start your own platform. Moreover, “1984” deals with government overreach, not businesses.

I like Prager U but it’s invocation of the 1st Amendment is off-base here. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from restricting free speech, not businesses or business owned platforms. Just my $0.02.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,257 Posts
I believe the premise is incorrect. It should be “conform or move to another platform.” These platforms are run as publicly traded companies and are free to set their own rules. Don’t like the rules or restrictions... move to a platform that allows what you are looking for. Or, better yet, start your own platform. Moreover, “1984” deals with government overreach, not businesses.

I like Prager U but it’s invocation of the 1st Amendment is off-base here. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from restricting free speech, not businesses or business owned platforms. Just my $0.02.
When you have the five largest social media platforms doing the same thing, it borders on collusion and/or anti-trust.

No different than price fixing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,996 Posts
I've watched all the Prager U. videos which are added to the intro, of a number of gun videos on youtube. Gone to their page & watched some others. ALL their content is "spot on"! Thanks @G26Raven! :yup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
When you have the five largest social media platforms doing the same thing, it borders on collusion and/or anti-trust.

No different than price fixing.
Well, when you have five platforms participating it certainly isn’t an antitrust issue. Collusion? Possibly.

As to price, if I don’t like the price I go to a different product. And yes, there are different products out there. You just need to find them and support them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,454 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I believe the premise is incorrect. It should be “conform or die or move to another platform.” These platforms are run as publicly traded companies and are free to set their own rules. Don’t like the rules or restrictions... move to a platform that allows what you are looking for. Or, better yet, start your own platform. Moreover, “1984” deals with government overreach, not businesses.

I like Prager U but it’s invocation of the 1st Amendment is off-base here. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from restricting free speech, not businesses or business owned platforms. Just my $0.02.
I beg to disagree in regards to "move to another platform." Yes, this is not a 1st ammendment issue in the strict sense of our Constitution. Yes, these are private companies. But how effective is your advertising if you cannot effectively use these platforms. I use Duck Duck Go for a search engine, and that works okay. Consider however, if you have a new product and want to reach the widest audience. Tell me that YouTube does not effectively reach as many people as say Vimeo, or Patreon? Where do people who don't know much about guns (political candidates, gender issues, etc) go to get their information? If they're uninformed, and are unaware of the biases, the information they receive may be quite limited.

There is a real problem here. Maybe not a 1st Amendment problem, but a problem nonetheless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
A long time ago, probably in the 50's or 60's, the supreme court addressed the issue of company towns. Although not really towns in the strictest sense of the word, they controlled just about every aspect of miners' lives. The court said, basically, that if it looks like a town and acts like a town, we're going to treat it like a town.
The logic of this decision might be crap, but I'm thinking it might have some application in the current pervasive setting of social media. Users, like the miners, are free to leave. But is that a real choice?
Just a thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,821 Posts
During my years putting food on the table, paying rent and tuition, I heard a great saying when I was working on missiles and bombs and such: "One man's stupidity is an open door for a genius."

Meaning that the idiocy of "tech giants", rather than cementing their positions, merely opens the door for their competition. Do we live in a great free market or what?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
I believe the premise is incorrect. It should be “conform or die or move to another platform.” These platforms are run as publicly traded companies and are free to set their own rules. Don’t like the rules or restrictions... move to a platform that allows what you are looking for. Or, better yet, start your own platform. Moreover, “1984” deals with government overreach, not businesses.

I like Prager U but it’s invocation of the 1st Amendment is off-base here. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from restricting free speech, not businesses or business owned platforms. Just my $0.02.
I beg to disagree in regards to "move to another platform." Yes, this is not a 1st ammendment issue in the strict sense of our Constitution. Yes, these are private companies. But how effective is your advertising if you cannot effectively use these platforms. I use Duck Duck Go for a search engine, and that works okay. Consider however, if you have a new product and want to reach the widest audience. Tell me that YouTube does not effectively reach as many people as say Vimeo, or Patreon? Where do people who don't know much about guns (political candidates, gender issues, etc) go to get their information? If they're uninformed, and are unaware of the biases, the information they receive may be quite limited.

There is a real problem here. Maybe not a 1st Amendment problem, but a problem nonetheless.
I agree with Taxman. If someone doesn't like the rules/policies of a business then go to another business or start your own. It is the same as if you don't like a store's "no guns" rule/policy then don't shop there.

It is not anyone's right to use the private property business of another in order to enhance their own business by using their business as a vehicle for advertising. At least not without the permission of that other private property business owner.

If we look to government to force private property business owner's to allow other people to have a say in how their business is run just because those other people can profit from that then it won't be long before all businesses will be run by the government setting standards for how a business can be used. And I suspect those who stand to make the most profit from how the businesses owned by other people will be the one's influencing the setting those standards.

We need to be careful in regards to what we ask for. Especially when it comes from the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxman

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,454 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Bikenut, I never asked for government interference. And I agree with you, it's like the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding and the government penalized him. I don't have a good answer, but I still think there is a serious problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,154 Posts
I agree this is a problem, but I also agree with Bikenut and Taxman that is not a 1A problem and by extension, not one that can be solved by the government. Also, consider that the people pushing the narrative in the Prager U video are people and institutions, like Prager U, who have an income stream from these social media platforms through affiliate marketing and donations.

I don't like the restrictions of the tech giants either, but it's like this site. You follow the posting rules or you get dinged by the moderators. There are certain topics and opinions you can't get away with here, and that's as it should be. Any channel that doesn't have moderation becomes a mess. If you don't like the moderation on a channel, you can create your own. You might even make a ton of money doing it. The choice is to create alternative channels and people have.

Did you know:
  • There are at least six alternatives to Facebook?
  • There are at least 15 alternatives to YouTube?
  • There are at least 27 alternatives to Twitter?
  • There are at least 34 alternatives to Instagram?
  • Apple, which was mentioned in the video, barely uses social media and analysts have criticized them for not having much of a social media strategy to sell their own products. Tim Cook can say what he wants, but he doesn't control anything on social media.
I say rather than complaining about big tech, we should be boycotting it. Find other channels and support them, including paying for subscriptions if need be. Money talks, BS walks. The "tech giants" only got to be giants because of money. If we want alternatives, we need to seek them out and send our money their way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,454 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
jmf552, yes there are alternatives, but the numbers don't pan out. Here's one example: 1.17 Billion (that's with a big B) use Google for search. I don't use Google, I use DuckDuckGo. They figure 25 million use them.

I'm sure I could find similar statistics especially for YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. It's tough to make a go of it in business if you aren't on the main platforms. That's why even Breitbart calls them the "masters of the universe."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,154 Posts
jmf552, yes there are alternatives, but the numbers don't pan out. Here's one example: 1.17 Billion (that's with a big B) use Google for search. I don't use Google, I use DuckDuckGo. They figure 25 million use them.

I'm sure I could find similar statistics especially for YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. It's tough to make a go of it in business if you aren't on the main platforms. That's why even Breitbart calls them the "masters of the universe."
OK, but now you've changed the discussion. In your OP and in the Prager video, the discussion was about tech giants vs. conservatives and conveying political thought. That is what I was addressing. Now you are talking about doing business on the internet. That is a whole other ballgame. If you want to do SEO, you're right, but I don't see the tech giants stopping business. I even find everything I want about guns and accessories for sale on Google search and YouTube. The tech giants like business. That's how they got to be giants.

And even when it comes to political thought, I can find some pretty conservative stuff on Google and YouTube, including the video the Prager guy was talking about, "Why Did America Fight the Korean War?" When he says "restricted" what he really means it "demonetized." But that's what sites like Patreon are for. So people who want to support content, including demonetized content, still can.

Back in the day when I grew up, there were only three television networks and one phone company. Now competition has created hundreds of networks. The phone company got broken up by the government because it was a monopoly. But these social media platforms clearly aren't monopolies, given there are alternatives. The bottom line is you have a choice: Use the tech giants and accept their restrictions, or boycott them and start to build up one of the alternatives until it reaches critical mass. Other than government intervention, which also comes at a "price," those are the choices.

Big tech has the control they do because we gave it to them. We can take it back, but we've let it go so far, it won't be easy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,454 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
JMF552, no, I have not changed the discussion at all. Look at the example of Marsha Blackburn; she was trying to use YouTube to sell herself as a politician. Or, why do you think Donald Trump uses Twitter rather than one of the 27 alternatives you mention? I can see that you and I are not going to agree on this, so my responses to you on this topic are over. I am just not interested in going back and forth on this a zillion times.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Bikenut, I never asked for government interference. And I agree with you, it's like the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding and the government penalized him. I don't have a good answer, but I still think there is a serious problem.
I think the problem isn't the tech giants but actually is the dumbed down populace that accepts the modified content as reality and fact. I suspect most don't even have a clue they are being intentionally fed a biased perspective/belief system/agenda.

However I don't believe it is appropriate to demonize a private property owner for using his property to push his beliefs and make a profit at it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
jmf552, yes there are alternatives, but the numbers don't pan out. Here's one example: 1.17 Billion (that's with a big B) use Google for search. I don't use Google, I use DuckDuckGo. They figure 25 million use them.

I'm sure I could find similar statistics especially for YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. It's tough to make a go of it in business if you aren't on the main platforms. That's why even Breitbart calls them the "masters of the universe."
Ironically, DuckDuckGo uses Google. It does things to stop all of the tracking measures that Google itself uses. That way Google is getting far less data. The reality is, there is no other worthwhile search engine that is up and running.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,154 Posts
JMF552, no, I have not changed the discussion at all. Look at the example of Marsha Blackburn; she was trying to use YouTube to sell herself as a politician. Or, why do you think Donald Trump uses Twitter rather than one of the 27 alternatives you mention? I can see that you and I are not going to agree on this, so my responses to you on this topic are over. I am just not interested in going back and forth on this a zillion times.
Well, with all due respect, that's just as well. Neither you, nor Prager, have proposed any solutions, just outlined the problem, which I hope we all already aware of. I was hoping to hear some alternative solutions. You say you aren't suggesting government intervention, which I agree with.

So what do you propose?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
I think most of us here are well aware of the biases of the tech giants against conservatives. Here is a very good video from Prager U that I think sums up the situation pretty well. It will be interesting to see how long Youtube allows this to remain up. Right now, the header frame "This video has been restricted" is not in force. It will play as of the time of this posting.

Outstanding in-look into how they are trying to control us.......
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top