The book burning censorship by the left.

Serious question, what can be done by the increase of the left's censorship of all things they don't like. I know this topic is touched on by sporadic threads here already, but this is more about the online aspects. This includes social media platforms that have complete unethical d-bags in the form of Zuckerberg and Dorsey that flat out operate their platforms with a liberal bias and a moving set of double standards. As the left controls 90% of the mainstream media, nearly 100% of the education and almost 100% of the social media platforms, its a wonder that there is anyone remaining that has ethical and moral conservative values of God, family, and country.

Should they be labeled as publishers now instead of platforms, then subject to first Amendment laws? Should they be considered public utilities, and broken up as monopolies? They sure as hell can't police themselves. They have proven that.....<cough, cough, Cambridge Analytica>

Couple of things, as they are free apps, a lot of people, and I am sure there will be a ton on here, that say, "just don't play" or "it's their sandbox, build your own if you don't like it". Is that feasible and viable? We will see how Dr. Jordan Peterson's new platform will do, that promises no censorship and free flowing ideas. When you click on the terms of service for social media sites, or any software, you either have to agree to every word and sentence, or you are out completely. Their legalese is sure as heck not slanted towards the user........

YouTube has decided that a bunch of conservative sites now should be banned or demonetized. Some 14 year old kid with a channel showing him just doing yardwork gets $10K a month, because kids not doing their own yard work watch him do his. Yet, for example, Stephen Crowder was defunded. And he puts out content that he can support with his backed opinion. he offers up the other side to discuss topics with him, versus the ham-fisted lecture and beatings the left gives out to anyone not thinking in lockstep with them. The incestuous nature of those platforms is telling. They all own each other.

Now it's been stated that there are leaks at Google, where Google has decided there is no way in hell that they will allow Trump to win again in 2020 by censoring and twisting content. Again, other platforms are available, but when Google is as synonymous as Kleenex or Xerox for an item/service, the sheeple won't know that their strings are being pulled by a puppet master. What duty do these services and platforms have to the public? if they can't play fair, especially on apolitical aspects, should they have the power and clout they have?

I just am interested in seeing a conversation about this. Crowd-sourcing responses helps me form a better, more supported, opinion.

 

What is this, care to share?

 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/t...rson-announces-free-speech-platform-thinkspot

 

Wow Mongo, you certainly have a delusional side. Some of these sites are being used by educational institutions and pushed as legit sources of info.....this is a legit concern, take the freaking blinders off already.

 

That is a problem with the educational institutions, not the social media sites.

 

And how's that change the outcome??? Are they not in bed with one another? Do they not have the same goal?

Sean and his ilk actually do NOT believe hardcore indoctrination is a problem.....it is!

 

Google, facebook etc are getting to big and will start to fail soon IMO. They have lost there advantage of being innovators and now just buy others. This has occurred before and will again. As to the influence the left had a look on TV media and talk radio came along. Then the internet channels. Truth has a way of finding daylight just like lies shun it.

 

I'd be willing to bet some Jew(s) somewhere in Germany played down the actions of Hitler/Nazi's very early in their days too. SMDH!

 

They are all run by the same people.

 

I don't have any sources to back up my suspicion but I'd say their (Liberal) attempt to control information and history to a point.

 

That could be but it changes the correct point to focus on. If the educational institution is getting government funding, then that is a possible argument to make that the government is involved in the censorship of ideas.

Facebook, Twitter, et. al. are not getting Federal funding last time I checked. They are private companies and can do as they wish. I don't want the government in the business of telling them what they do and do not have to allow on their sites. That is the problem we are trying to avoid in the long run.