Google admits censorship

Dec 2013
33,811
19,360
Beware of watermelons
#21
Geezus. You blur the lines so quickly it isn't even funny.
Antitrust laws are applied to a wide range of questionable business activities, including but not limited to market allocation, bid rigging, price fixing, and monopolies. Below, we take a look at the activities these laws protect against.​
What Are Antitrust Laws?

Google removing LYING web-sites is not "anti-trust".
It in no way aids them in a monopoly. It's not about "market allocation".
You blindly blend ideas together between:
a) Something happening you don't like, and
b) A completely unrelated law which you hope could be applied to punish Google.

The truly funny thing about all this is YOU WILL NEVER LEARN.
Nothing will come to pass because of your rantings, but you'll still proclaim it's all going to happen.
To help hide that fact, you blindly make your claims vague at the end by talking generically about "silicon valley" because you have no actual case against google based on the complaint in post #1.

You are so cute. Kinda like my kids cat. Completely enamored w/ one thing. Then a fly comes into the room and bamn... off to the fly completely forgetting the other thing.


Let me try and help you out sweetie. I know this topic is difficult for you so I'm not going to spend much time on you with this as i have tried a number of times and you just get lost.



The fact that multiple lawsuits coming from different angles is what is relivent to the conversation not the specifics on any individual suit or your tunnel vision interpretation of said case.
 
Nov 2005
8,964
3,443
California
#25
You are so cute. Kinda like my kids cat. Completely enamored w/ one thing. Then a fly comes into the room and bamn... off to the fly completely forgetting the other thing.
Let me try and help you out sweetie. I know this topic is difficult for you so I'm not going to spend much time on you with this as i have tried a number of times and you just get lost.
Yawn...


The fact that multiple lawsuits coming from different angles is what is relivent to the conversation not the specifics on any individual suit or your tunnel vision interpretation of said case.
ROFLMAO!
You have this boring habit of giving your opinion WITHOUT EXPLAINING JUSTIFICATION and then pretending you have actually done something meaningful. It's why you fail in so many of these discussions.
Time and time again, you present your opinion and then expect it to be treated as fact when it should not be treated as such. Facts are worthy of being treated as facts.
Your opinion of what is "relivent (sic)" is not a fact.

Now, while it is a forum where we share opinions, the obvious intelligent recourse is to share facts and then demonstrate how they lead to a specific opinion.
But you habitually jump over that and (in this case) instead just rush directly to trying to treat your opinion of what you think is "relivent (sic)" as something others fail to comprehend.
It's part of the reason why many people look at you as a troll because you fail abysmally at providing anything constructive or meaningful...

It's not relevant because there is no tangible reason to see them as relevant. Worse, you are trying to compare a LEGAL ACT (Google can choose to censor RT / Sputnik for their lies if Google chooses) with potential illegal acts which you do not even present an argument for...
Just because Mary may be guilty of speeding doesn't mean a person can point to a speeding ticket and proclaim that she doesn't practice common courtesy in a zipper merge.

But, if you do the same dumb crap you habitually do, you'll just blindly claim that others don't get what you just said and you'll just repeat yourself, which also leads people to think you are trolling.
The sad part is that NONE of the above is new to you. It's all been explained to you, repeatedly, before.
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,360
Beware of watermelons
#26
Yawn...



ROFLMAO!
You have this boring habit of giving your opinion WITHOUT EXPLAINING JUSTIFICATION and then pretending you have actually done something meaningful. It's why you fail in so many of these discussions.
Time and time again, you present your opinion and then expect it to be treated as fact when it should not be treated as such. Facts are worthy of being treated as facts.
Your opinion of what is "relivent (sic)" is not a fact.

Now, while it is a forum where we share opinions, the obvious intelligent recourse is to share facts and then demonstrate how they lead to a specific opinion.
But you habitually jump over that and (in this case) instead just rush directly to trying to treat your opinion of what you think is "relivent (sic)" as something others fail to comprehend.
It's part of the reason why many people look at you as a troll because you fail abysmally at providing anything constructive or meaningful...

It's not relevant because there is no tangible reason to see them as relevant. Worse, you are trying to compare a LEGAL ACT (Google can choose to censor RT / Sputnik for their lies if Google chooses) with potential illegal acts which you do not even present an argument for...
Just because Mary may be guilty of speeding doesn't mean a person can point to a speeding ticket and proclaim that she doesn't practice common courtesy in a zipper merge.

But, if you do the same dumb crap you habitually do, you'll just blindly claim that others don't get what you just said and you'll just repeat yourself, which also leads people to think you are trolling.
The sad part is that NONE of the above is new to you. It's all been explained to you, repeatedly, before.

And as has been explained to you numerous times what is important is if they are operating as a platform or a publisher (as the comment i was replying to stated) and in at least one of these cases that will come up and then we will get them to clearly identify, on record where they are operating.

This is what is key. AGAIN.
 
Nov 2005
8,964
3,443
California
#27
And as has been explained to you numerous times what is important is if they are operating as a platform or a publisher (as the comment i was replying to stated) and in at least one of these cases that will come up and then we will get them to clearly identify, on record where they are operating.
No. That has NOT been "explained". If you want to show the post where it was "explained", then do so.

People have made the claim, but they have consistently failed to present the precedent which establishes this with the sole exception of everybody's favorite attempt at a failed lawyer who appears to have reappeared recently under a different moniker.
He provided a court case which he claimed demonstrated how Google could be classified as a publisher. (He didn't "explain" anything other than saying that the court case proves him right...)
I replied citing the case and demonstrating it was referencing a GOVERNMENT PAID TV GROUP and how the fact that the government provided the financing was key to their decision. Google is NOT financed by the government, ergo it's idiotic to blindly assume it must be a "publisher".

If you want to continue that discussion, I will happily continue that discussion with you. Do you want to continue this discussion with you defending the "publisher" claim???
However, your typical M.O. is to abandon any claim which is proven false (if it can penetrate your cognition that you were proven false) which is why I ask you the question first...

Oh wait.
That was a question...
You cower from questions.
What was I thinking...
 
Sep 2015
14,302
5,086
Brown Township, Ohio
#28
I remember when Google was a start up and I could have bought Google stock for less than $100 a share and closer to $90 a share. Very fast Google rose to over $200 a share. What does Google stock trade for today? edit: Change start up to going public.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
1,250
541
nunya
#29
Google admits censorship





As i went to link one of the stories covered i found this when using the Google.


View attachment 4083


But did find another story.
I would prefer hate speech and homophobia to be censored which it seems like YouTube is doing. If they were just censoring videos that criticized them or something stupid like that there would be a public backlash of massive proportions. This is definitely not the end of free speech. This is (hopefully) a time to stop hate speech and homophobia.
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,360
Beware of watermelons
#30
No. That has NOT been "explained". If you want to show the post where it was "explained", then do so.

People have made the claim, but they have consistently failed to present the precedent which establishes this with the sole exception of everybody's favorite attempt at a failed lawyer who appears to have reappeared recently under a different moniker.
He provided a court case which he claimed demonstrated how Google could be classified as a publisher. (He didn't "explain" anything other than saying that the court case proves him right...)
I replied citing the case and demonstrating it was referencing a GOVERNMENT PAID TV GROUP and how the fact that the government provided the financing was key to their decision. Google is NOT financed by the government, ergo it's idiotic to blindly assume it must be a "publisher".

If you want to continue that discussion, I will happily continue that discussion with you. Do you want to continue this discussion with you defending the "publisher" claim???
However, your typical M.O. is to abandon any claim which is proven false (if it can penetrate your cognition that you were proven false) which is why I ask you the question first...

Oh wait.
That was a question...
You cower from questions.
What was I thinking...
Sigh....


What on earth are you going on about?

Platforms are protected due to a case from 1996

Publishers are liable for what they choose to publish.


Ironically this is on right now