Posted on Aug 29, 2017
Hot Mic - Freedom Under Attack: YouTube Censors Conservatives - 08/28/17
858
13
10
4
4
0
If you are truly committed to honoring your oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, censorship of protected speech, such as described in this video, should get your antennae quivering. This is what's happening in America. No, it's not a story about Communist China or some other tyranny. It's happening right here in America. Granted, it isn't the government restricting free speech. But it is a private agency with an ideology to cram down our throats using a public medium of communication. In the old fashioned world of broadcast media, the FCC should have clamped down on this sort of thing. Why isn't it now?
Posted in these groups: 
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
I gather you have not read the Constipation for a while. the first ammendment does not ap[ply to the actions of private businesses that do not use the pubic airwaves? The use of public property is the only way the the FCC has any authority at all. Finding any part of the Internet that is not private property would be a real challenge.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You will notice that the first phrase limits whom it applies to
Secondly where did you get the idea that the FCC has any authority at all in this? What law do you believe applies?
I thought you conservatives were all for private property rights and less government interference?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You will notice that the first phrase limits whom it applies to
Secondly where did you get the idea that the FCC has any authority at all in this? What law do you believe applies?
I thought you conservatives were all for private property rights and less government interference?
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
As usual you didn't read my post. I already mentioned exactly what you accuse me of overlooking. Secondly, I did not claim, as you charge, that "the FCC has any authority at all in this..." See. This is why no one takes you seriously.
(2)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
CPT Jack Durish - Then WTF does your last phrase mean,?
In the old fashioned world of broadcast media, the FCC should have clamped down on this sort of thing. Why isn't it now?
Perhaps you did not read what you wrote?
In the old fashioned world of broadcast media, the FCC should have clamped down on this sort of thing. Why isn't it now?
Perhaps you did not read what you wrote?
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
1stSgt Nelson Kerr - I don't know if you're reading, but at least you can copy. Good. Well, I believe that a legal argument can be made for treating the Internet in exactly the same way that we treat the public airwaves. Internet hosts are similar to broadcasters in that they are both private businesses and they both use public assets to transmit their messages. The government regulates the airwaves, assigning frequencies and licensing broadcasters. The rational is that there are a finite number of frequencies and that those given license to use them must use them in accordance with certain standards. Why couldn't the same be said of the Internet. Hosts such as YouTube and Facebook didn't build the Internet. They are using the finite resources of a limited spectrum of a public network of switches and cables. Shouldn't the government also be able to establish standards of use? And while we're at it, shouldn't these hosts be held accountable when they commit fraud. Just read the terms of usage for YouTube and Facebook and you'll see that they are in violation of their own standards when they arbitrarily limit access to those with a political ideology with which they are opposed?
(0)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
CPT Jack Durish - The difference between the two is that Broadcasters use public property under the jurisdiction of the federal government, IE: the radio spectrum, that is what give the feds authority since the broadcasters are leaseholders subject to restriction.
What public resources do you think internet providers use? That claim mystifies me. Yhe Internet runs over private resources almost exclusively n the US
the internet on the other hand is almost exclusively private property like Cable TV so the FCC has tittle or no jurisdiction or basis to claim jurisdiction, The resources used are NOT public and can be expand at will so the ideas that they are somehow public property or or limited by physics fails as the I the bandwidth if the TCP/IP network is only limited by business economics and that limit increases with extreme speed.
What public resources do you think internet providers use? That claim mystifies me. Yhe Internet runs over private resources almost exclusively n the US
the internet on the other hand is almost exclusively private property like Cable TV so the FCC has tittle or no jurisdiction or basis to claim jurisdiction, The resources used are NOT public and can be expand at will so the ideas that they are somehow public property or or limited by physics fails as the I the bandwidth if the TCP/IP network is only limited by business economics and that limit increases with extreme speed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
While I don't approve of silencing one side of a conversation over another, I tend to lean toward private businesses having the right to conduct themselves how they see fit. Some things don't require Government interference. For instance, Youtube silences certain channels, those channels can switch to a different website and alert their viewers of the change. When Youtube's pocketbook starts hurting from all the people switching to Dailymotion, or a number of other streaming alternatives, they will probably reevaluate their treatment of certain content creators and viewers.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
From what I see Patreon is the major beneficiary of YouTube's demonitization as of now.
(1)
(0)
PFC Jonathan Albano
SGT (Join to see) - True. A lot of channels, that don't want to learn how to use a different platform, are using Patreon as an alternative to ad revenue. Either way, it kicks Youtube right in the pocketbook. I've also seen a lot more channels accepting Bitcoin donations to help offset demonetization.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
PFC Jonathan Albano - Because of you I'm now searching a favorite website for alternatives. Didn't think much of Dailymotion until you mentioned it. Videme sounds promising too.
http://alternativeto.net/software/youtube/
http://alternativeto.net/software/youtube/
YouTube Alternatives and Similar Software - AlternativeTo.net
Popular Alternatives to YouTube for Web, iPhone, Android, iPad, Android Tablet and more. Explore 89 apps like YouTube, all suggested and ranked by the AlternativeTo user community.
(1)
(0)
PFC Jonathan Albano
SGT (Join to see) - I've been known to peruse that site on occasion myself. It's definitely one for the favorites tab.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google