# Corporate Assault on Speech



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

This is a follow-up on last night's podcast.
As I said in the podcast, the liberals in government and the ones in social media are colluding to stifle people's ability to speak out against the Agenda.

YouTube has placed restrictions on Tommy Robinson's account that all but ban him. Look at the article and see who else is being shadowbanned.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019...cts-tommy-robinsons-account-all-but-bans-him/

They are going after our ability to speak out and our ability to defend ourselves from tyranny.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

This does not apply to conservatives or Christians as they are not part of the protected classes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

This Jewish NYC councilman was kicked off the council for speaking two truths:

A Jewish Democratic New York City councilman has been kicked off the city's immigration committee after calling far-left Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) an anti-Semite and stating that "Palestine does not exist."


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

It’s the process of becoming a totalitarian Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive society. It will get worse before it gets better.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

I dumped farcebook, youboob, twitnit............

Problem is these sites are run by tyrants with no concern for freedom of speech, they don't agree with.

The boobtube news and newspapers have been *Left Winged Parrots* for many years now.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

If we are to accept the merits of a capitalistic system, we must accept that some corporations will arise that seek to control a narrative and promote an agenda.
The proper response is to establish competitive opposition and let the market decide.

Until this steps into the realm of government intervention in speech, I cannot in good faith stand up and demand regulation.
If laws are considered here, as they are now enacted in Canada and Great Britain, compelling certain speech and forbidding other speech, I will absolutely demand redress. This would be an attack on the very soul of liberty, without even mentioning the constitutional violation.
In times like these, when discussions of this nature arise, it reminds of just how prescient and intelligent our nation's founders were. Truly amazing.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> If we are to accept the merits of a capitalistic system, we must accept that some corporations will arise that seek to control a narrative and promote an agenda.
> The proper response is to establish competitive opposition and let the market decide.
> 
> Until this steps into the realm of government intervention in speech, I cannot in good faith stand up and demand regulation.
> ...


I would agree were it not for the fact that the corperations are in lockstep, that they are beyond competition and that they are biased to the point of shadow banning ideas that run contrary to their political viewpoints. 
It's one thing for Google to honor things they like on their search page while ignoring things like Easter. Banning countering views on YouTube and suppressing links on Google searches is an entirely different thing. Contributing to social justice warriors is one thing but suppressing conservatives while pushing the liberal agenda (in concert with the liberal Establishment of the government) is another thing. 
This is collusion to sway elections.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

The First Amendment does not apply to public or private companies, to include news media, Joes Bar And Grill, or any other enterprise.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> I would agree were it not for the fact that the corperations are in lockstep, that they are beyond competition and that they are biased to the point of shadow banning ideas that run contrary to their political viewpoints.
> It's one thing for Google to honor things they like on their search page while ignoring things like Easter. Banning countering views on YouTube and suppressing links on Google searches is an entirely different thing. Contributing to social justice warriors is one thing but suppressing conservatives while pushing the liberal agenda (in concert with the liberal Establishment of the government) is another thing.
> This is collusion to sway elections.


Whether they are in "lockstep" with other companies is irrelevant. They are publicly owned companies, not government entities. Their size and reach are also of no concern, legally speaking.
The 1st amendment demands that congress make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Until congress gets involved in what a corporation is doing to restrict speech, no violation has occurred.

If you can show collusion, make your case and submit it to a legal action group. If it has merit, they should fight it.
Until an obvious link exists between congress passing a law, and a company banning/restricting people, there is no violation. Their affiliation with "the liberal establishment of government" not withstanding.

The 1st amendment is clear.
If your version reads differently than mine, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Freedom of press is protected but the broadcast/press has no obligation to publish dissenting points of view.

So the media can be biased and tyrants that they are.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

I was surprised the other day to also find out that Fox news has fully fallen into the trench.

There was an article about an ugly ol' ******* sow who was upset about the Christian prayer offered at the Pa general assembly.

I basically stated that she should be glad the name of Jesus was being used, . . . as He is the savior of the world.

I added that when He comes back, Christians go home and the rest go to hell.

I went down several other posts then came back up knowing there would be rebuttal.

The rebuttal was there, . . . but my post was gone, . . . leaving only an empty box with a "post _ _ _ _ _ " in it's place.

Just glad I'm old enough to know I don't have a lot of time to put up with this crap.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> Freedom of press is protected but the broadcast/press has no obligation to publish dissenting points of view.
> 
> So the media can be biased and tyrants that they are.


 Or any form of the truth.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The First Amendment does not apply to public or private companies, to include news media, Joes Bar And Grill, or any other enterprise.


We used to have a Joe's Bar and Grill, and the speech flowed freely! Friday and Saturday nights the guys would get hooting, hollering, and stomping around the pool table. Sometimes that would upset the peaceful skunks in the crawl space below, they would rather the conversations censored.

We still have a Joe's Diner


----------



## Lunatic Wrench (May 13, 2018)

Your post has been edited by Corporate America



Denton said:


> This is a follow-up on last night's podcast.
> As I said in the podcast, the liberals in government and the ones in social media are colluding to stifle people's ability to speak out against the Agenda.
> 
> YouTube has placed restrictions on Tommy Robinson's account that all but ban him. Look at the article and see who else is being shadowbanned.
> ...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Lunatic Wrench said:


> Your post has been edited by Corporate America


They'll just delete me.


----------



## Lunatic Wrench (May 13, 2018)

Denton said:


> They'll just delete me.


As long as you use no more offensive words, we will allow your posts.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

dwight55 said:


> I was surprised the other day to also find out that Fox news has fully fallen into the trench.
> 
> There was an article about an ugly ol' ******* sow who was upset about the Christian prayer offered at the Pa general assembly.
> 
> ...


Yep!
Fox News is just as bogus as the rest.

The truth is impossible to find anymore, I "trust" none of the sites, even the conservative ones.
It is a sad day when I believe the Russian state run news on www.rt.com more often than I do American media.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> I would agree were it not for the fact that the corperations are in lockstep, that they are beyond competition and that they are biased to the point of shadow banning ideas that run contrary to their political viewpoints.
> It's one thing for Google to honor things they like on their search page while ignoring things like Easter. Banning countering views on YouTube and suppressing links on Google searches is an entirely different thing. Contributing to social justice warriors is one thing but suppressing conservatives while pushing the liberal agenda (in concert with the liberal Establishment of the government) is another thing.
> This is collusion to sway elections.


Sorry pal, @Kauboy is 1000% right. Google, Fakebook, YouTube... they are all company websites. They are paying the service fees to allow us to post free content. If they decide they do not want our content on their site, too bad, so sad. It sucks, but that is the way it is in a capitalist world. Whether they are lockstep or not does not enter into the equation. Don't like it, start your own Google, Fakebook or YouTube and censor liberal content.

Hell even here, I have seen you, RPD and even me admonish a newby for "breaking the rules" using the excuse that the owners of PF pay for the server space and we need to abide by their rules. That is a perfectly reasonable request. (Note: It is FAR better here since the Canucks took PF over from that retard Rick or whomever was stupid enough to employ his sorry ass!)

Hell, even on the orange site where we pride ourselves on being the "wild west" of free speech, if I wake up in a bad mood and your post is just some BS "F$%^ you - because I can" kind of post, I am pretty likely to embarrass you enough that you never come back. I may or may not ban you, depending on my mood. But I am not willing to give up that freedom to force Google or YouTube to publish everything submitted.

Now whether they should enjoy extra-constitutional benefits of not being held to the same libel and slander laws as you and I is completely another argument...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The First Amendment does not apply to public or private companies, to include news media, Joes Bar And Grill, or any other enterprise.


No, it doesn't. I'm not talking the God-given right to free speech, here. I'm talking about what the gate-keepers to online communication is doing to suppress or altogether remove the voices who argue against that which we are both against.

The courts have made it clear that the media (the press) can outright lie to us. I understand that. Then again, the courts have said law enforcement officers can violate our rights with impunity. Neither seems to be in accordance with the laws of nature and nature's law to me.

Here's what you are facing. You are facing a majority of politicians who are aiming to destroy that which we love and hold dear. Those politicians are owned by what could be generally called "Big Money," but it'd be more accurately called Big Power. After all, once one has more than enough money, power is the next goal, and there is never enough power to quench the thirst.
The protected "media" used to be called the press. That media is owned by...the rich and powerful. Long gone are any ideas that the people would receive objective, accurate reporting. I don't care what outlet you prefer.

Now, let's discuss "social media."
Social media is not the press. Those companies that became the almighty gatekeepers, whether we talk about Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, quickly grew to what they are because they built great platforms and because they won the trust of all sides. All sides put work in what they did, but there came a time when one side became persona non grata. They became persona non grata after the "social media" platforms became so big and powerful that no start-up has a chance of touching them. Now, they decide what is good speech and what is "deplorable" speech. That which should be promoted and that which should be suppressed or outright removed from sight.
The speech gatekeepers.
YouTube. YouTube was and still is _the_ video-sharing platform. It's owned by Google. There's no doubt why so many conservative voices have been silenced by YouTube. One of those who were silenced was BPEarthwatch; one of the kindest, gentlest Christians on the platform. 
Google. There was a time when there were several competing search engines. In those days, one could easily find the wanted information. Eventually, there was one. One that decided what information would be readily available and what would not. Ever notice how you can type into Google one thing and all the links provided are one-sided and always to the one, particular side? Google would rather not anybody know what they do. Google would rather violate your trust in secret while they bombard you with advertisements, gather your personal information while all the while skew your search request.

You and @Kauboy want to tell me what I already know, as if I don't understand the first amendment as well as the rest of the specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. What we're dealing with is way bigger than the founding fathers could have ever imagined. The "press" is owned by corporations about which they could never have dreamed, which is in league with almighty information "social media" gatekeepers who are ones of the corporations that feed the vile members of our government. Who owns them all? You know the one. The Fathers of Lies. So, you want to defend this conspiracy? You want to simply tell me about the first amendment?



> The 1st amendment is clear.
> If your version reads differently than mine, I'd love to see it.


 Don't get smart with me, @Kauboy. In light of the direction of things, your condescending crap is soon to put you on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> Sorry pal, @Kauboy is 1000% right. Google, Fakebook, YouTube... they are all company websites. They are paying the service fees to allow us to post free content. If they decide they do not want our content on their site, too bad, so sad. It sucks, but that is the way it is in a capitalist world. Whether they are lockstep or not does not enter into the equation. Don't like it, start your own Google, Fakebook or YouTube and censor liberal content.
> 
> Hell even here, I have seen you, RPD and even me admonish a newby for "breaking the rules" using the excuse that the owners of PF pay for the server space and we need to abide by their rules. That is a perfectly reasonable request. (Note: It is FAR better here since the Canucks took PF over from that retard Rick or whomever was stupid enough to employ his sorry ass!)
> 
> ...


While being 100% right, you are totally missing what I am saying. You and them are arguing the first amendment while I never mentioned it. You have knee-jerk responses to something that is beyind that.

You at the orange site pride yourselves in going beyond the scope of decency; something y'all have in common with the gatekeepers. I keep a keen eye for filth at this site while allowing differing points of view. Surely, you see the difference, even though this is a sidebar topic. Regardless, this site and the orange site hardly compare to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and the all-controlling Google. 
Split hairs all the way to trash heap. That's where we are headed when the voices opposing liberalism, "social justice," globalism, etc., are silenced. Those corporations, the big money and their governmental lackies appreciate your support. Oh, you'll be on the same train headed east as I will be on and you'll be asked to neatly fold your clothing before entering the showers, but I'll see it coming.
I'm not neatly folding my clothing and stepping into the "shower." I'm going to toss my clothes everywhere and afterward I'm going to sling shat all over the place until one of them shoots me. All of that assuming they don't shoot me before the force me onto the train.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Yep!
> Fox News is just as bogus as the rest.
> 
> The truth is impossible to find anymore, I "trust" none of the sites, even the conservative ones.
> It is a sad day when I believe the Russian state run news on www.rt.com more often than I do American media.


Kind of sad Andrew Breitbart is gone.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

While I would agree that Google, Youtube, twat, etc., along with the MSM and news organizations are private enterprise and can regulate content as they see fit, no one can deny they are also in control of massive amounts of information and clearly the gate keepers of what a vast majority of people in this country can see. 

These huge, far reaching corporations, and the people that control them, control the information, and in turn, control the people. Could the framers have possibly foreseen a technology, not yet even conceived of, that would have such immense control over information, and filter and disseminate which of that information the people would see? 

The playing field being level the free market would and should make the correction. I would suggest the playing field is no longer level.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Denton said:


> I would agree were it not for the fact that the corperations are in lockstep, that they are beyond competition and that they are biased to the point of shadow banning ideas that run contrary to their political viewpoints.
> It's one thing for Google to honor things they like on their search page while ignoring things like Easter. Banning countering views on YouTube and suppressing links on Google searches is an entirely different thing. Contributing to social justice warriors is one thing but suppressing conservatives while pushing the liberal agenda (in concert with the liberal Establishment of the government) is another thing.
> This is collusion to sway elections.


While I agree with what you are saying, the real question is do these corporations have the right to do so in our capitalistic republic. I would say that they do have the right, as much as I don't like what they are doing. If they are government funded, then that changes the equation.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Denton said:


> No, it doesn't. I'm not talking the God-given right to free speech, here. I'm talking about what the gate-keepers to online communication is doing to suppress or altogether remove the voices who argue against that which we are both against.
> 
> The courts have made it clear that the media (the press) can outright lie to us. I understand that. Then again, the courts have said law enforcement officers can violate our rights with impunity. Neither seems to be in accordance with the laws of nature and nature's law to me.
> 
> ...





Denton said:


> While being 100% right, you are totally missing what I am saying. You and them are arguing the first amendment while I never mentioned it. You have knee-jerk responses to something that is beyind that.
> 
> You at the orange site pride yourselves in going beyond the scope of decency; something y'all have in common with the gatekeepers. I keep a keen eye for filth at this site while allowing differing points of view. Surely, you see the difference, even though this is a sidebar topic. Regardless, this site and the orange site hardly compare to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and the all-controlling Google.
> Split hairs all the way to trash heap. That's where we are headed when the voices opposing liberalism, "social justice," globalism, etc., are silenced. Those corporations, the big money and their governmental lackies appreciate your support. Oh, you'll be on the same train headed east as I will be on and you'll be asked to neatly fold your clothing before entering the showers, but I'll see it coming.
> I'm not neatly folding my clothing and stepping into the "shower." I'm going to toss my clothes everywhere and afterward I'm going to sling shat all over the place until one of them shoots me. All of that assuming they don't shoot me before the force me onto the train.


So, what is it that you think should be done about it?


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Denton said:


> No, it doesn't. I'm not talking the God-given right to free speech, here. I'm talking about what the gate-keepers to online communication is doing to suppress or altogether remove the voices who argue against that which we are both against.
> 
> The courts have made it clear that the media (the press) can outright lie to us. I understand that. Then again, the courts have said law enforcement officers can violate our rights with impunity. Neither seems to be in accordance with the laws of nature and nature's law to me.
> 
> ...





Prepared One said:


> While I would agree that Google, Youtube, twat, etc., along with the MSM and news organizations are private enterprise and can regulate content as they see fit, no one can deny they are also in control of massive amounts of information and clearly the gate keepers of what a vast majority of people in this country can see.
> 
> These huge, far reaching corporations, and the people that control them, control the information, and in turn, control the people. Could the framers have possibly foreseen a technology, not yet even conceived of, that would have such immense control over information, and filter and disseminate which of that information the people would see?
> 
> The playing field being level the free market would and should make the correction. I would suggest the playing field is no longer level.


What do you suggest to do about it?


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Denton said:


> You at the orange site pride yourselves in going beyond the scope of decency; something y'all have in common with the gatekeepers. I keep a keen eye for filth at this site while allowing differing points of view.


Now wait just a second...

You haven't been there in a looooong time. Your judgment of orange is unfair and unjust.

The only filth and lack of decency we have at the orange site is "Gambit." :vs_laugh:

Really though... To label orange as a place where the lack of decency exists is just in your mind and not really true. You will find there a very tight group of people who watch each others back, help each other when needed. You have made a very unfair judgment of OTP. The decency that is displayed from the members of orange blows away anything that is the norm for forum boards. I belong to many and never have I seen a group of folks display such compassion and decency for one another on any other forum board anywhere.

of course unless someone has a Richard growing out from his forehead then all is fair in love and war!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Don't get smart with me, @Kauboy. In light of the direction of things, your condescending crap is soon to put you on the wrong side of history.


I'll get smart before I'll get fed up.
Communication is a two way street. Myself and Inor both read your posts to mean you want public companies, not affiliated with the government, to be regulated in what they can and cannot do on their platforms.
*IF* that is not what you mean, then it is on YOU to clarify.
You're trying to blow this dragon up to epic proportions so that it qualifies for some kind of special treatment. Just because we *think* something is out of hand doesn't mean we compromise our principles to regain control.
I may indeed end up on the wrong side of history, but I'll die on the right side of liberty.

Dang, you sure get crabby sometimes.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Crooked media is nothing new in this country, from at least the Civil War onward, and probably before that, too.
It was so bad by the turn of the 20th Century that a new term was coined to describe it - "yellow journalism."
Randolph Hearst and his newspapers were perhaps the worst of the lot.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

One of Americans problems with corporations , is they are not citizens, and should have NO protection under our bill of rights. Some are run totally outside our borders.

It's time to take back those eronous court decisions that , gave a corporation, the same rights as a citizen. Corporations have run America into the dust, if they don't love America, leave it. Stay in China.

Get Soros, Russians, Chi-Coms, DNC, DEEP STATE, et al out of running America. It can be done WITHOUT sacrificing our rights.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

One of Americans problems with corporations , is they are not citizens, and should have NO protection under our bill of rights. Some are run totally outside our borders.

It's time to take back those eronous court decisions that , gave a corporation, the same rights as a citizen. Corporations have run America into the dust, if they don't love America, leave it. Stay in China.

Get Soros, Russians, Chi-Coms, DNC, DEEP STATE, et al out of running America. It can be done WITHOUT sacrificing our rights.

P.S. Judicial Watch has FOIA against the cabal: that presecuted Trump, H-Beast, DNC, Mueller, Schotz, et al..........


Let it see the light of day.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I'll get smart before I'll get fed up.
> Communication is a two way street. Myself and Inor both read your posts to mean you want public companies, not affiliated with the government, to be regulated in what they can and cannot do on their platforms.
> *IF* that is not what you mean, then it is on YOU to clarify.
> You're trying to blow this dragon up to epic proportions so that it qualifies for some kind of special treatment. Just because we *think* something is out of hand doesn't mean we compromise our principles to regain control.
> ...


As I said, you know the first amendment is the same, regardless of who reads it. You also know I have gone deeper in study than just reading the Bill of Rights. That being beside the point; I didn't mention the Bill of Rights at all. 
Principles? What principles? My principles are not compromised. I am not suggesting others can't speak their peace, am I?
I get crabby? I didn't get smart with you. I didn't suggest that you didn't understand the first amendment. I didn't mention it at all, as a matter of fact.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

stevekozak said:


> So, what is it that you think should be done about it?


That is a good question. I wish I had a practical solution. Thing is, it is an unholy alliance of the powerful that is working to silence those who are not with their agenda. How do we fight that?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

@Kauboy - You say I'm grumpy, the wife agrees, I hear the same thing at work; I think I've just uncovered another conspiracy!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> As I said, you know the first amendment is the same, regardless of who reads it. You also know I have gone deeper in study than just reading the Bill of Rights. That being beside the point; I didn't mention the Bill of Rights at all.
> Principles? What principles? My principles are not compromised. I am not suggesting others can't speak their peace, am I?
> I get crabby? I didn't get smart with you. I didn't suggest that you didn't understand the first amendment. I didn't mention it at all, as a matter of fact.


As you pointed out to Steve above, you don't have a practical solution. That being the case, how would an objective observer read your posts? They verge on enacting policy against businesses to do one thing or another. An objective observer (American, in this case) would easily tie correlations to your posts on this topic and the implications of compelling a business to adhere to certain rules regarding speech and the controlling of it.
So, without you producing a potential solution, how are we supposed to interpret your posts?
I fall back on what I know. Laissez faire capitalism. Leave businesses to do what they wish. Take advantage of their services, or don't. Build or support an alternative, or don't.
Would you seek to do more?


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Dang, you sure get crabby sometimes.


Good eye Kauboy, most folks don't even notice when Denton gets sideways. I have pulled in all the data and run the calculations, it happens precisely every 231.45 posts.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> As you pointed out to Steve above, you don't have a practical solution. That being the case, how would an objective observer read your posts? They verge on enacting policy against businesses to do one thing or another. An objective observer (American, in this case) would easily tie correlations to your posts on this topic and the implications of compelling a business to adhere to certain rules regarding speech and the controlling of it.
> So, without you producing a potential solution, how are we supposed to interpret your posts?
> I fall back on what I know. Laissez faire capitalism. Leave businesses to do what they wish. Take advantage of their services, or don't. Build or support an alternative, or don't.
> Would you seek to do more?


I have said exactly nothing about "corporate speech." I have said what I have said
That I don't have a fix doesn't mean someone an logically take away anything but what I said. Clearly. A couple times, now.
So, you now pivot from the Bill of Rights to capitalism. Interesting.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> I have said exactly nothing about "corporate speech." I have said what I have said
> That I don't have a fix doesn't mean someone an logically take away anything but what I said. Clearly. A couple times, now.
> So, you now pivot from the Bill of Rights to capitalism. Interesting.


No pivot whatsoever: https://www.prepperforums.net/forum...e-assault-speech-post1903865.html#post1903865 (10th word in my 1st post on this topic)
Why did you quote "corporate speech", when I haven't mentioned any *company's* ability to speak at all?
I've only spoken about regulations impacting what companies can do concerning speech on their own platforms.

EDIT: I went back and reread your posts. I'm trying to have an open mind on it so I can absorb what it is you're trying to point out.
If you are trying to draw attention to the apparent concerted effort of multiple corporate entities to control what is seen and not seen online, then I can openly accept your premise and state that I fully agree with you.
If you are NOT seeking to do anything from a regulatory standpoint that would prohibit them from doing this, then I withdraw my concerns about your posts.
All I can say in response is, yes, and what they're doing is perfectly legal. Also, it should stay that way. If that doesn't sit well with folks, I strongly encourage them to establish competition to rebut and let the market do what it does.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> While being 100% right, you are totally missing what I am saying. You and them are arguing the first amendment while I never mentioned it. You have knee-jerk responses to something that is beyind that.


Then, I am absolutely missing the point of what you are saying. Is the point of this post just a rant against big tech stifling what Conservatives want to say? If so, well yeah... What do you expect them to do? I am not trying to be a jerk, but these are all companies that exist in about a 30 square mile area in an extremely liberal area in coastal northern California; Of course they are going to be hostile to Conservatives. If they weren't hostile to us, we would be sitting around formulating conspiracy theories about "why not"?!?

Just to talk you back from the ledge... Tech companies are an animal that is completely new in business. They grow EXTREMELY fast and shrink just as fast. It wasn't that long ago that Microsoft was pulled in front of the House ('98 I think) for hearings about breaking them up. "They were just too big! They were a monopoly! They were engaging in unfair labor practices! Blah, blah, blah". It was all bullshit. About 15 years ago, Microsoft was on the verge of going down hard. They only had 2 profitable divisions left at the time: the XBox people and the folks developing MS Office. They have since, pulled themselves back into the world of relevancy, but...

And who was the company that almost took Microsoft down for the count? Oh yeah, a little start-up (at the time) called Google.

Google, Fakebook, Tweeter, etc. will eventually suffer the same fate as Sears. Remember in the 80's: "We have nothing to fear but Seats itself"? Where are they now?

I could rant on this topic for pages and pages, but I won't because it would just bore all of you to tears.

One final thought, if you don't like Google, Fakebook, Tweeter, etc. and what they are doing, then just unplug for a few hours. Close your laptop. Leave your cellphone in the car. Spend a few hours playing Crazy-8's with your family. Alexa is a whore and deserves to thrown in the trash bin. The same for Echo. Just go interact with humans. If we do that, nothing else matters and life is good.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> Then, I am absolutely missing the point of what you are saying. Is the point of this post just a rant against big tech stifling what Conservatives want to say? If so, well yeah... What do you expect them to do? I am not trying to be a jerk, but these are all companies that exist in about a 30 square mile area in an extremely liberal area in coastal northern California; Of course they are going to be hostile to Conservatives. If they weren't hostile to us, we would be sitting around formulating conspiracy theories about "why not"?!?
> 
> Just to talk you back from the ledge... Tech companies are an animal that is completely new in business. They grow EXTREMELY fast and shrink just as fast. It wasn't that long ago that Microsoft was pulled in front of the House ('98 I think) for hearings about breaking them up. "They were just too big! They were a monopoly! They were engaging in unfair labor practices! Blah, blah, blah". It was all bullshit. About 15 years ago, Microsoft was on the verge of going down hard. They only had 2 profitable divisions left at the time: the XBox people and the folks developing MS Office. They have since, pulled themselves back into the world of relevancy, but...
> 
> ...


I can unplug and stay unplugged but that won't stop the silencing of the conservative voice. It isn't about my use of such things as Twitter and Facebook (I don't). It is about exactly what I have been saying.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> No pivot whatsoever: https://www.prepperforums.net/forum...e-assault-speech-post1903865.html#post1903865 (10th word in my 1st post on this topic)
> Why did you quote "corporate speech", when I haven't mentioned any *company's* ability to speak at all?
> I've only spoken about regulations impacting what companies can do concerning speech on their own platforms.
> 
> ...


As I said, I don't have an answer.

It would be easy to suggest some sort of government intervention to force the information gatekeepers to be fair, but I am like you. I don't trust any government intervention. This is why I said I have no fix for this. I have only pointed out what we are facing and how this is going to impact our nation.

I mentioned "corporate speech" because I never suggested stifling anyone's speech nor have I suggested the government stifle any person's speech. That, in fact, would bring the first amendment into the discussion.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> I can unplug and stay unplugged but that won't stop the silencing of the conservative voice. It isn't about my use of such things as Twitter and Facebook (I don't). It is about exactly what I have been saying.


Okay...

Then what is the point of this thread?

Of course they are silencing conservative voices. I think we agree, based on your other posts on this thread, that is their right.

If you do not like it, there are several other free speech sites that are similar to Twitter, Fakebook, etc. I tried Gab.io for a while. I did not care for it, but it was totally free speech. So what is the problem?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> Okay...
> 
> Then what is the point of this thread?
> 
> ...


What is the problem, you ask. Why even bother with this thread?

Yes, I am aware of Minds, Gab, etc. You didn't like Gab. I don't much like it, either. Same with Minds. Why? Because they aren't as well built as the big boys, and the big boys are where people go. People don't much like change unless they are better. Those sites will never compete.

What's the problem? Seriously? Oh, I don't know. The real collusion to influence elections by presenting only one side of the discussion, for starters.

Doesn't matter, though. Your main concern is that corporations that are run by those who want to destroy the nation are allowed to do so because they have the right to do so. Maybe that will comfort you in a decade or so, but it won't comfort me.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Oh, @Inor...:vs_mad::tango_face_grin::devil:

My typing makes it look as if I am in a bad mood. I'm not.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Where I do see a clear and present danger in these companies controlling so much information and how it is filtered and disseminated, I do not suggest government regulation. We can't forsake our constitutions tenets to do battle with a threat, perceived or not. 

That said, call me a pessimist if you will, but I don't see how so much information- i.e., power and control, in the hands of a very few, who have an obvious agenda contrary to this republic won't turn out badly. For the most part, people are indoctrinated, stupid, and have short memories. A fact that the powers that be know all to well. They are easily led astray and follow the crowd. They nod their heads in agreement with the talking bobble heads on TV. They except Google and YouTube's terms and their doublespeak as gospel and await their turn to get in the rail car. 

I see no clear answer other then perhaps knowledge and a questioning, suspicious mind set. Be wary of anyone who says trust us, would we lie to you? A trait most in this country do not possess.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Boy this is a tough topic. I think I’m with Inor on this in that FB, google, etc are corporations, not government entities, and can do what they please. Since we are a market driven economy/republic we have the choice to use them or not. I stopped using them probably 8 years ago. I abhor google and avoid them as much as I can. Same with starbucks and the rest. 

Basically I can’t stand the bunch but they have a right to do what they do as a corporate entity. I do not want government intervention with them as then we are talking 1939 all over again.

But with that said, when they use their capabilities to influence elections (other than advertising, and they are free to accept or refuse such) sell users data without their knowledge, etc then we have a problem and they should be taken to task. It’s like an individual who has rights but should they do something wrong with those “rights” then they are prosecuted. Same with FB, et al. 

And since we are a market driven economy and “they” rely on us, the consumer, our response should be a boycot. 

Yeah the other sites may not be as good, since they don’t have the money but if they get enough traffic and support maybe the money will come and they can improve.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> Doesn't matter, though. Your main concern is that corporations that are run by those who want to destroy the nation are allowed to do so because they have the right to do so. Maybe that will comfort you in a decade or so, but it won't comfort me.


My ONLY concern is that every individual and every corporation follows the rule of law. Period. We are a nation of laws, not men. If corporations that want to destroy the nation, but are within the law, they MUST be allowed to do so until they step outside the law. What their motivation is does not enter in the equation.

Am I happy about that? No.

You have stated several times in this thread that you have no solutions to this problem. But you have also intimated that you would not oppose additional legal limitations be placed on companies like Google, Fakebook, Twitter, etc. because of their size and pervasiveness. That, I ABSOLUTELY cannot abide. Punish a specific company with additional regulations because they have been too successful? I don't care if we agree or disagree with them, that is ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCEPTABLE!

If you can give me even one quote by John Adams, Tommy Jefferson or Al Hamilton to support your argument, we can continue the conversation on this topic. Otherwise, the logic of your point is too convoluted for me to follow.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> My ONLY concern is that every individual and every corporation follows the rule of law. Period. We are a nation of laws, not men. If corporations that want to destroy the nation, but are within the law, they MUST be allowed to do so until they step outside the law. What their motivation is does not enter in the equation.
> 
> Am I happy about that? No.
> 
> ...


Good evening!

We're not talking about something as simple as a corporation acting alone. We are not talking about a corporation NOT acting in a way that that seemed innocent from the beginning. In other words, the corporation(s) in question enjoyed the promotion of the same people they are now silencing.
We are talking about companies that became megacorporations that are now the gatekeepers to speech who are skewing all information. Search all you want, but the founding fathers never envisioned this scenario.
So, here we are. You argue these corporations have the right to do what they want to do while you know they have the ability to collude with those (you know who "they" are) who want to destroy what the founders founded.
Your nation is being destroyed. The information Gatekeepers are insuring we destroy ourselves due to bad info and stupidity. You suggest you hate this. What do you suggest?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

WTF? Your way of alleged life is at stake! There's a consortium of bastards who are conspiring to kill it and replace it with techno-tyranny, @Inor. What do you do? Pop quiz, hotshot!


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Denton said:


> What is the problem, you ask. Why even bother with this thread?
> 
> Yes, I am aware of Minds, Gab, etc. You didn't like Gab. I don't much like it, either. Same with Minds. Why? Because they aren't as well built as the big boys, and the big boys are where people go. People don't much like change unless they are better. Those sites will never compete.
> 
> ...


Read the bolded and underlined parts in the sober daylight and tell me what is wrong with what you said......


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Denton said:


> WTF? Your way of alleged life is at stake! There's a consortium of bastards who are conspiring to kill it and replace it with techno-tyranny, @Inor. What do you do? Pop quiz, hotshot!


Third glass of bourbon? :vs_wave::vs_lol:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

stevekozak said:


> Third glass of bourbon? :vs_wave::vs_lol:


Nope. On a hiatus from alcohol. Dealing with pain the oldfashioned way.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Good evening!
> 
> We're not talking about something as simple as a corporation acting alone. We are not talking about a corporation NOT acting in a way that that seemed innocent from the beginning. In other words, the corporation(s) in question enjoyed the promotion of the same people they are now silencing.
> We are talking about companies that became megacorporations that are now the gatekeepers to speech who are skewing all information. Search all you want, but the founding fathers never envisioned this scenario.
> ...


It's a bit of a stretch to consider these online clusters as "Information Gatekeepers" when we are having *THIS* conversation right now, and nobody is stopping us, nor shadowbanning.
Google (yes, Google it) the title of this thread. We're return #3.
The thing about liberty is, it resides in every human being. It doesn't matter if they "cut off the head" by silencing a few people unjustly, the core belief lives on. It can be found all over the net, and should be noticed in your face to face conversations as well.

Perhaps the real problem is complacency.
How was a political message delivered 30 years ago? Radio, television, face to face, write-in campaigns, etc... Now we have "the ease of the internet", and we've become somewhat dependent on it without truly "needing" it for most things. We've become complacent with the digital life we find ourselves in. Overcoming this is an individual struggle, but as a whole, it can be done. What's more, when we do have those face to face exchanges, we don't have to get our point across in 128 characters, or try to hurl insults. We can have a full dialogue and sort out differences, or at the very least, better understand them.
Digital corporations will never be able to stop this. It is on US to utilize it. If we choose not to, we should bear the shame.

They control nothing but what we allow them to.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> It's a bit of a stretch to consider these online clusters as "Information Gatekeepers" when we are having *THIS* conversation right now, and nobody is stopping us, nor shadowbanning.
> Google (yes, Google it) the title of this thread. We're return #3.
> The thing about liberty is, it resides in every human being. It doesn't matter if they "cut off the head" by silencing a few people unjustly, the core belief lives on. It can be found all over the net, and should be noticed in your face to face conversations as well.
> 
> ...


That was beautiful! The founding fathers would have welcomed you at the Green Dragon!

We seem to be focused on the tech giants. The are only a part of the collusion. The "press" and the government are with them.

Today's technology is as it is. We get information (misinformation?) via the internet. Are we to go back to the horse and buggy days of communication, leaving the opposing side to use today's technology? If so, we will be trying to ride a two-legged horse.

Yes. We are having this discussion via the internet. PF is no threat. This is just a small forum.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Nope. On a hiatus from alcohol. Dealing with pain the oldfashioned way.


No bad from loosing the booze.

What stops hurts better?

I'm open, willow/black birch/asprin?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> No bad from loosing the booze.
> 
> What stops hurts better?
> 
> I'm open, willow/black birch/asprin?


Nothing, it seems. Been doing turmeric which helps with inflammation, but it isn't a pain-killer. The "good stuff" isn't an option as I work in aviation.
Going in late, today, because I got little sleep. 
I didn't understand the concept of chronic pain when I was younger and being rough on the joints. Had I understood.... pfft. I probably would have been just as stupid. :vs_laugh:


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> It's a bit of a stretch to consider these online clusters as "Information Gatekeepers" when we are having *THIS* conversation right now, and nobody is stopping us, nor shadowbanning.
> Google (yes, Google it) the title of this thread. We're return #3.
> The thing about liberty is, it resides in every human being. It doesn't matter if they "cut off the head" by silencing a few people unjustly, the core belief lives on. It can be found all over the net, and should be noticed in your face to face conversations as well.
> 
> ...


Complacency! That's the word.



> The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.
> 
> Thucydides


And complacency kills both.

What we allow them to.......... Seems there are to few we's and to many them's. :tango_face_wink:

Too many sheeple accepting what they are being told by the giant techs and talking bobble heads. They turn on the TV or go to google, twat, fakebook, MSNBC, CNN, etc. and accept without question what they are saying, without so much as opening a book or doing the research, they consider it fact.

We loose our republic, rights, and freedoms day by day and graduating class by graduating class. As I look around this country I see more people willing to fight for their safe places and IGBLT PCBS then fight for their rights and freedom. I am not the sharpest pencil in the drawer ( as a matter fact, I am the broken one with no point on it, :tango_face_grin: ) Just seems to me we are loosing.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Today's technology is as it is. We get information (misinformation?) via the internet. Are we to go back to the horse and buggy days of communication, leaving the opposing side to use today's technology? If so, we will be trying to ride a two-legged horse.


In a sense, yes.
We should be having more personal interactions with people, holding town hall meetings, making direct connections with people. Establish the face to face first, then coordinate online. There are still countless options online for having open discussions without fear of control.
We win this battle by reconnecting with people, not by arguing with avatars in an arena controlled by elites.
Unfortunately, you can't fight stupidity. How does Ron White put it? "You can't fix stupid." It isn't worth worrying about what the sheep are going to do. Eventually they will have their little echo chamber, and the rest of us will hang our heads mourning their loss, and carry on.

One tactic that used to be spoken of was to overburden "the machine" by constantly putting out the very thing they sought to get rid of. Post after post, video after video on new account after new account. Technology can only control so much before it too can be controlled. It's like the Zapp Brannigan approach:


> "You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down. Kif, show them the medal I won."


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> In a sense, yes.
> We should be having more personal interactions with people, holding town hall meetings, making direct connections with people. Establish the face to face first, then coordinate online. There are still countless options online for having open discussions without fear of control.
> We win this battle by reconnecting with people, not by arguing with avatars in an arena controlled by elites.
> Unfortunately, you can't fight stupidity. How does Ron White put it? "You can't fix stupid." It isn't worth worrying about what the sheep are going to do. Eventually they will have their little echo chamber, and the rest of us will hang our heads mourning their loss, and carry on.
> ...


I only hope we have enough men to put in the wave. Put me in coach! :shock:


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Depending on a few "too big to fail" media outlets for one's news can sometimes conceal the big picture.

RT just reported this evening (actually tomorrow, Moscow time) that Facebook, Twitter and Google have been called to report to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution to discuss alleged bias against conservatives on their platforms.
https://www.rt.com/usa/455695-facebook-twitter-google-senate-censorship/


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> No bad from loosing the booze.
> 
> What stops hurts better?
> 
> I'm open, willow/black birch/asprin?


Oh. If the pain isn't too bad but bad enough to keep you from falling asleep, take two GABA capsules along with three ZMA capsules. Go it about 30 minutes before you go to bed. It'll help you get some pretty decent sleep.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> WTF? Your way of alleged life is at stake! There's a consortium of bastards who are conspiring to kill it and replace it with techno-tyranny, @Inor. What do you do? Pop quiz, hotshot!


What do I do "hotshot"?

Answer: Nothing. I follow the Constitution and let nature take its course. As these internet giants continue to ban speech they do not agree with, they will continue to drive away content providers. What they are doing is no secret. What happens when YouTube finally bans all of the guys that post gun videos? Answer, gun people will quit visiting YouTube because there nothing of interest for them there anymore. On the internet, you are either a customer or the product. If you are not paying the internet company then you are the product. Google or Fakebook or Tweeter shutting down the Alex Jones account just means the people wanting to see Alex Jones go someplace else to see him. (Note: I am not a fan of Alex Jones either but he was the first example that popped into my mind.)

Another prime example, our friend, Pastor Dwight posts his sermons every week on YouTube. Every week, he dutifully links them on the Orange Site. (I am a HUGE fan of Pastor Dwight.) Pastor Dwight is not shy about his views of Christianity or the world. His sermons are Hell Fire and Brimstone. I have been watching them for at least 4 years and he is not afraid to say plainly that homosexuality is wrong along with a myriad of other topics that "polite people just do not talk about". Eventually, I expect YouTube will get around to banning Dwight. When that does eventually happen, do you think that Dwight will just shut up? Yeah, me neither.

When that does happen, I have the MT Acres blog site with more storage than I will ever use and we will just dedicate some of that to Pastor Dwight sermons. Seems like a win-win to me. Pastor Dwight continues to spread The Word and I might get a few more visitors that want to follow along with my crazy construction and furniture making projects.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> What do I do "hotshot"?
> 
> Answer: Nothing. I follow the Constitution and let nature take its course. As these internet giants continue to ban speech they do not agree with, they will continue to drive away content providers. What they are doing is no secret. What happens when YouTube finally bans all of the guys that post gun videos? Answer, gun people will quit visiting YouTube because there nothing of interest for them there anymore. On the internet, you are either a customer or the product. If you are not paying the internet company then you are the product. Google or Fakebook or Tweeter shutting down the Alex Jones account just means the people wanting to see Alex Jones go someplace else to see him. (Note: I am not a fan of Alex Jones either but he was the first example that popped into my mind.)
> 
> ...


Sounds really nice, but the constitution isn't taking its course. The course is taking us farther and farther away from the constitution. That is the design of this particular course.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Sounds really nice, but the constitution isn't taking its course. The course is taking us farther and farther away from the constitution. That is the design of this particular course.


What part of the constitution "isn't taking its course"? I thought we all agreed this wasn't a constitutional issue.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> Sounds really nice, but the constitution isn't taking its course. The course is taking us farther and farther away from the constitution. That is the design of this particular course.


Why are you so fired up about something that is a self-correcting problem?

How many people do you know that get their news and opinions strictly from Fakebook or Tweeter? (As a side note, if you know ANYBODY in that category, strongly "educate" them that voting day is alway the second Monday in November and anything they hear to the contrary is a Russian plot.) Are you suggesting you and I are the only two people in These United States that are smart enough not to get their news from Google or CNN?

I do disagree. The Constitution and the free market (otherwise known as the Black Market) are already taking their course. What we are witnessing right now is the death of American media and it is causing a bit of chaos. I will even go one step further, I predict that within 10 years at least one of the major media companies (CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN) will file for bankruptcy.

Google and Amazon are a bit of a different animal, because I do not view them as media companies; they are more "artificial intelligence" companies, so I think they have some room to run yet. But Facebook and Twitter, the only thing that is keeping them going now is Trump. Facebook claims to be an AI company, but they are not even close to the "also ran" status. Twitter? The only draw they have is Trump's daily (usually stupid) tweets. They have a 7 year lifespan, period.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> What part of the constitution "isn't taking its course"? I thought we all agreed this wasn't a constitutional issue.


I misspoke. Inor actually said he "follows the constitution" and "let's nature take its course." I jumbled the two together. I got foggy brain syndrome, right now.

Even when read properly, it is an interesting concept. I doubt he "follows the constitution" as much of that is dictated by governments' (local, state and federal) circumvention of what the founding fathers intended. Considering the constitution outlines how the government is to be formed and what its duties, power and authority is, the statement doesn't mean much.
As far as letting nature take its course, that is also a fallacy. I'll bet he goes to the doctor and takes his loved ones to the doctor. I'll bet he doesn't let nature take its course at all.

Either Inor has his own business or he works for someone else. Either way, he has to abide by regulations. So, if that be the case, he believes those regulations are constitutional as he follows the constitution. I would say that is a fair assessment, wouldn't you? I'm assuming you are also good with proper regulations, too. So, I am also assuming you see what I am going with this.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> I misspoke. Inor actually said he "follows the constitution" and "let's nature take its course." I jumbled the two together. I got foggy brain syndrome, right now.
> 
> Even when read properly, it is an interesting concept. I doubt he "follows the constitution" as much of that is dictated by governments' (local, state and federal) circumvention of what the founding fathers intended. Considering the constitution outlines how the government is to be formed and what its duties, power and authority is, the statement doesn't mean much.
> As far as letting nature take its course, that is also a fallacy. I'll bet he goes to the doctor and takes his loved ones to the doctor. I'll bet he doesn't let nature take its course at all.
> ...


I have not been to a doctor in over 10 years.

I work for myself and pay a CPA and an attorney way too much money to keep me in line with the STATUTES and REGULATIONS that could put me out of business. But as I recall, you are a union degenerate for a government contractor, so you are far more dependent than I, on following government regs.

So yes, I STUDY, KNOW AND FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!!! You do not even have the respect for it to bother with proper capitalization of it!

Yes, you pissed me off with this one!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> Why are you so fired up about something that is a self-correcting problem?
> 
> How many people do you know that get their news and opinions strictly from Fakebook or Tweeter? (As a side note, if you know ANYBODY in that category, strongly "educate" them that voting day is alway the second Monday in November and anything they hear to the contrary is a Russian plot.) Are you suggesting you and I are the only two people in These United States that are smart enough not to get their news from Google or CNN?
> 
> ...


I certainly don't get news from Fakebook as I closed my account. There are those who do, however: https://marketingland.com/pew-research-center-says-45-americans-get-news-facebook-228001

Seems "social media" platforms are important to many people: https://www.journalism.org/2018/09/10/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2018/

Now, search engines. They should also simply offer the information requested instead of skewing searches.My information is mined, advertisements are placed in front of me, and I expect to get the requested information in return.

Considering the number of young socialists that are flowing out of our centers of higher learning (indoctrination), I doubt any of the cable news networks will go under. Sure, Rachael Madcow is taking a beating in the polls, but that will be only temporary. Her Trump Derangment Syndrome issue caused her ratings to drop after the release of the Mueller report. She'll recover. The "press" will continue to do its part in derailing freedom. Even FNC hired Donna Brazille to be a contributor.

So, we have "social media" and search engines suppressing voices who are against the Agenda, we have the "press" misreporting and working to liberalize their viewers and we have the Democrats and Rinos working to make We, the People, nothing more than chattle property.

You asked me what was the point of this thread, as if every thread has to have one. Okay, here's the point. Be aware of what is happening. These things and much more.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> Now, search engines. They should also simply offer the information requested instead of skewing searches.


And if they don't, they should be subject to Denton's wrath!!! Bullshit.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> I have not been to a doctor in over 10 years.
> 
> I work for myself and pay a CPA and an attorney way too much money to keep me in line with the STATUTES and REGULATIONS that could put me out of business. But as I recall, you are a union degenerate for a government contractor, so you are far more dependent than I, on following government regs.
> 
> ...


You're pissed off because you have to pay people who keep you in line with regulations? You must be good with them, believing that there are regulations which are necessary.
Yes, I follow regs, and they are necessary ones as the machines I maintain and repair fly thousands of feet in the air. They carry people and they fly above people. As far as me being a union degenerate, I resent you reminding me that I have to be in a union to work where I work. You really know how to hurt a guy, don't you?

Regardless, as there is a need for certain regulations, you can certainly agree that regulations ensuring that content providers on platforms such as YouTube are treated equally regardless of the political beliefs of the people of the corporations. You can also agree that regulations dictating that seach engines do not supress or discriminate against thoughts the people of the corporations find disagreeable. You can also agree that such regulations are not an affront to the constitution, right.

By the way, I write it this way; _the constitution of the united states of America_. Respect? Your lack of understanding doesn't mean that I am disresepctful.

No need in getting mad, Bro.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> And if they don't, they should be subject to Denton's wrath!!! Bullshit.


Like making it personal? Thanks for the response. For what it was worth. Not much, as it made no sense. Seems you are running out of steam. As it is, I am going to bed. I hope you have a good night.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> You're pissed off because you have to pay people who keep you in line with regulations? You must be good with them, believing that there are regulations which are necessary.


No, I am not "good with them". It is the price I pay to work for myself rather than kowtowing.



Denton said:


> As far as me being a union degenerate, I resent you reminding me that I have to be in a union to work where I work. You really know how to hurt a guy, don't you?


You chose your career. I hope you sleep well knowing a percentage of every dollar you earn funds everything you and I both stand against.



Denton said:


> Regardless, as there is a need for certain regulations, you can certainly agree that regulations ensuring that content providers on platforms such as YouTube are treated equally regardless of the political beliefs of the people of the corporations. You can also agree that regulations dictating that seach engines do not supress or discriminate against thoughts the people of the corporations find disagreeable. You can also agree that such regulations are not an affront to the constitution, right.


No! I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE with that. When I apply the standard of WWJAD (What Would John Adams Do?), I find you suggestion absolutely offensive.



Denton said:


> By the way, I write it this way; _the constitution of the united states of America_. Respect? Your lack of understanding doesn't mean that I am disresepctful.
> 
> No need in getting mad, Bro.


We were having a good intellectual debate. You made it personal "bro".


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

This took a personal turn and I think it was simply a misunderstanding combined with a literal interpretation of what was typed.
@Denton, when Inor said he follows the constitution, he meant he is willing to let the market play out since it appears to not be in violation of the constitution. When he said "let nature take its course", he meant to let the normal flow of operation run its course. Taking it to literally mean "nature" is a bit obtuse.
@Inor, This shouldn't devolve into a competition about who is more open to constitutional limit encroachment.

Both, let's zero this back in to a discussion about the topic, and not about each other.


Denton said:


> I'm assuming you are also good with proper regulations, too. So, I am also assuming you see what I am going with this.


Actually, I'm not clear.
I am good with proper regulation... keyword **proper**, as in, allowed by the constitution.
Please clarify for me, where are you going with this line of reasoning?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Bottom line is this - the ONLY thing any one of us can control is himself. 
Denton can not control me, Inor can not control the Internet, the only thing RPD can control is me.
Therefore, I personally refuse to get worked up and stressed out by things beyond my control.
And I’m darn sure not going to lose a minutes sleep over what happens on the Internet.

They say that with age comes wisdom, I hope y’all find some peace before you’re dead of a heart attack at age 57.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> This took a personal turn and I think it was simply a misunderstanding combined with a literal interpretation of what was typed.
> @Denton, when Inor said he follows the constitution, he meant he is willing to let the market play out since it appears to not be in violation of the constitution. When he said "let nature take its course", he meant to let the normal flow of operation run its course. Taking it to literally mean "nature" is a bit obtuse.
> @Inor, This shouldn't devolve into a competition about who is more open to constitutional limit encroachment.
> 
> ...


Let the market play out as it doesn't appear to be in violation of the constitution? As the constitution is about the forming and operation of the _government_ and not the marketplace....

Whether we are talking a company or a corporation, owner, CEO or employee, there are business laws and regulations that impact us. The Sherman and Clayton acts are needed antitrust laws, for example. OSHA regulations make the workplace safer for employees. The regs sometimes go too far, in this worker's opinion, but it is as it is.

What we call "social media platforms" are pretty new, yet there are few people who use at least one of the established platforms. These platforms grew to the point where they are in no danger of being dethroned in the near future is because the platforms were designed well and because everyone was welcomed there (as the platforms were working to be the big boys on the block).

Laws or regs preventing such platforms and search engines from suppressing some political positions while preferring others would not be onerous. I would also suggest such a law or reg would be just as proper as any other one.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Bottom line is this - the ONLY thing any one of us can control is himself.
> Denton can not control me, Inor can not control the Internet, the only thing RPD can control is me.
> Therefore, I personally refuse to get worked up and stressed out by things beyond my control.
> And I'm darn sure not going to lose a minutes sleep over what happens on the Internet.
> ...


This isn't about Inor controlling the internet or me controlling another human. It isn't about getting worked up or having a stress-related illness at an early age. It is simply about tghe suppression of some information and the elevation of other information. I thought it to be a worthy discussion, especially when it is considered in conjunction with everything else that is being done to destroy this once great nation. It wasn't meant to become a debate over the constititution or the free market.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

But what can you do about it?
Bring a lawsuit? 
If your Congress Critters are against the Constitution you can excersize your ONE vote.
But other than that, realize we are being lied to daily and look for alternatives.
That’s about it.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Hey, I’m a Vietnam veteran - we’ve been lied to for damn near 60 years now.
Ain’t nothing new.
Suck it up and drive on.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

So, the only thread I can post is on topics that I can directly and unequivocally influence? Informational or "heads up" threads are bad? I didn't know that.

I'm not a Vietnam veteran but a vet, nevertheless. Sure, I was the recipient of many lies while serving. Lies haven't been relegated to military service for either of us. Drive on? Wait, drive on to where? Never mind; I know where to go. Back to learning Audacity so I can be a better podcasting buddy for Sas.

Peace-out.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Yes, there is collusion between the giant social networks, but more than that there is a consensus ; a tacit agreement between them that the Christian world view is evil. 
If any words were exchanged between the companies, it may have been short and sweet, because they all think the same way; when one began to soft ban, the word spread, and now they all do it.

There is a soft tyranny going on, and it will get worse; the simple fact is that Facebook, Instagram, etc. are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Where is the Christian, or Conservative Facebook? I don't get it, why is Facebook the only big dog? Where is the alternative to Instagram and Twitter?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

If I read you right Denton, you suggested forcing providers to be “fair and balanced.”
That goes against my interpretation of the First Amendment. 

Remember when the Democrats tried something called the “Fairness Doctrine “? Which was directed against conservatives?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

MisterMills357 said:


> Yes, there is collusion between the giant social networks, but more than that there is a consensus ; a tacit agreement between them that the Christian world view is evil.
> If any words were exchanged between the companies, it may have been short and sweet, because they all think the same way; when one began to soft ban, the word spread, and now they all do it.
> 
> There is a soft tyranny going on, and it will get worse; the simple fact is that Facebook, Instagram, etc. are wolves in sheep's clothing.
> ...


I know plenty of people who are deadset against what FB et al are doing, but their friends and interests are fully established on those platforms. The users have had years to learn to navigate those platforms. People hate change, and that is understandable. Their friends and family members are on the Big Dog, and those people probably won't follow Joe Blow to Minds, for example. Even if they do, they'll probably go back to FB as it is a much better platform.

Gab is the largest competitor to Twitter, and it doesn't stand a chance. Why? Because Twitter is well-established and well-known. Does President Trump use Twitter or Gab? Why?

You ask why isn't there a Christian alternative to these platforms. Good question. I think I might have a couple of reasons.
First reason is money. It's easy for us to sit back and ask why "someone" doesn't create such a platform. It's another thing for someone to come up with the money for not only created a great platform but also for the advertising. The established platforms didn't have to advertise because they entered the field at the start. Facebook wasn't the first and I can't remember the company it buried because it has been so long ago. Now, these established platforms have the money to make sure they will stay on top.
The second reason you don't see a "Christian FB" is that such a platform would be too narrow. I have some atheistic friends who know this busted-up man would have their backs in a firefight but would sign up at a Christian FB alternative.

By the way. I've been learning how to use Audacity, today. I have a lot of respect for @Sasquatch, let me tell you.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I have no idea why this thread was locked and neither does anyone else. That being the case, I am reopening it.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> If I read you right Denton, you suggested forcing providers to be "fair and balanced."
> That goes against my interpretation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Remember when the Democrats tried something called the "Fairness Doctrine "? Which was directed against conservatives?


I used to like the counterpoint segments! Even as a kid, I thought it was fun to watch "normal people" air their opinions.

No, this is different. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Gab, Minds, Patreon, etc., are not the press. People use Facebook, YouTube, etc., to gather info as well as to be entertained. They in themselves do not give the information. They do not have their own voices. Search engines such as Google don't give you the news, they are tools by which you search the internet for the information you want.

Fair and balanced? I don't expect them to be fair and balanced. They aren't news outlets.

As far as "Fair and Balanced" goes, FNC should change its name to FPC. Politics, not news. Oh, how I grow weary of D.C. and the constant talk of its ongoings.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> First reason is money. It's easy for us to sit back and ask why "someone" doesn't create such a platform. It's another thing for someone to come up with the money for not only created a great platform but also for the advertising. The established platforms didn't have to advertise because they entered the field at the start. Facebook wasn't the first and I can't remember the company it buried because it has been so long ago. Now, these established platforms have the money to make sure they will stay on top.


That is absolutely NOT accurate. The internet is the great equalizer. It costs next to nothing to start a new platform and promote it - if you are willing to do the research on how to promote it inexpensively. It is also still pretty easy to get venture capital money. But the big problem with the venture capital money is most of them are betting that Facebook or Google will come along and buy you out once you have achieved some level of notoriety. The only reason Facebook has not already been knocked off the pedestal is because they have bought their competition (Snapchat, Instagram, etc.) out. All it takes is somebody with the resolve to create a decent platform and have the resolve to resist the $2 billion Facebook buyout, and you too, could be a giant slayer.



Denton said:


> The second reason you don't see a "Christian FB" is that such a platform would be too narrow. I have some atheistic friends who know this busted-up man would have their backs in a firefight but would sign up at a Christian FB alternative.


We've heard the same thing about Christian movies and Christian music for the last 30 years. And for a long time it was true. But for the last 5 years, what are the fastest growing segments of both recorded music and movies? Yep, you guessed it... Faith-based and patriotism-based productions. The pot is made doubly sweet since faith-based movies and music tend to be a small fraction of the production costs of their bigger Hollywood competitors. High profit margins plus high growth, yeah that starts raising eyebrows, even amongst the secular set.

The other thing that gives me great hope for our future... The Millennials. No, not the Social Justice Warriors or the Snowflakes; those are the 21st century version of the hippies and they deserve to be punched. (BTW: To see a picture of the legal hippie punching permit that I ordered last week, stop by the orange site next weekend. It should have arrived by then and it is 100% legal for punching a hippie.) When I am talking about the Millennials, I am talking about the ones that saw their fathers and uncles go off to Vietnam and get hurt, killed or spit on, but VOLUNTEERED to go fight in TWO wars where the objectives were undefined, Washington was approving (or not) individual missions and they were left as sitting ducks by ridiculous rules of engagement. Sound familiar? Yes, those kids are far better men that I could ever hope to be and there are a BUNCH of them.

Yeah, I am actually optimistic about our future for the first time in about 30 years.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> That is absolutely NOT accurate. The internet is the great equalizer. It costs next to nothing to start a new platform and promote it - if you are willing to do the research on how to promote it inexpensively. It is also still pretty easy to get venture capital money. But the big problem with the venture capital money is most of them are betting that Facebook or Google will come along and buy you out once you have achieved some level of notoriety. The only reason Facebook has not already been knocked off the pedestal is because they have bought their competition (Snapchat, Instagram, etc.) out. All it takes is somebody with the resolve to create a decent platform and have the resolve to resist the $2 billion Facebook buyout, and you too, could be a giant slayer.
> 
> We've heard the same thing about Christian movies and Christian music for the last 30 years. And for a long time it was true. But for the last 5 years, what are the fastest growing segments of both recorded music and movies? Yep, you guessed it... Faith-based and patriotism-based productions. The pot is made doubly sweet since faith-based movies and music tend to be a small fraction of the production costs of their bigger Hollywood competitors. High profit margins plus high growth, yeah that starts raising eyebrows, even amongst the secular set.
> 
> ...


Go figure. I disagree with both assertions.

Where are the new platforms? Seen them? There are some, but they are not as good as the established ones. You already agreed with me on that. We both aren't big fans of Gab, for example. Still, while they aren't as good, why aren't all the liberty-minded people flocking to them? Because people like sticking with what they know.

I disagree with your second point, too. You are correct that there are some positive points, points of interest that would indicate we are gaining ground, but look at the overall situation. For example, half of the younguns are in favor of socialism. Half.
Yes, I know the saying. _You have no heart if you weren't a liberal when you were young, but you have no brain if you aren't a conservative when you get older_.

You are a wonderful man in many ways, and your optimism is one of those ways. Still, optimism doesn't have a chance against a rigged game. A rigged game is what we are facing. Demand an unrigged game if you are going to play. In this case, we all play, even if we don't take a seat at the table. The stakes? Our grandchildren.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Problem is, I don't trust the government to do anything objectively.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> Go figure. I disagree with both assertions.
> 
> Where are the new platforms? Seen them? There are some, but they are not as good as the established ones. You already agreed with me on that. We both aren't big fans of Gab, for example. Still, while they aren't as good, why aren't all the liberty-minded people flocking to them? Because people like sticking with what they know.


No. Because Gab is wildly anti-semitic. At least that is why I do not go there anymore. Anybody that hates Jews, hates me. At least that is why I do not care for them. Their platform is actually pretty good.



Denton said:


> I disagree with your second point, too. You are correct that there are some positive points, points of interest that would indicate we are gaining ground, but look at the overall situation. For example, half of the younguns are in favor of socialism. Half.
> Yes, I know the saying. _You have no heart if you weren't a liberal when you were young, but you have no brain if you aren't a conservative when you get older_.
> 
> You are a wonderful man in many ways, and your optimism is one of those ways. Still, optimism doesn't have a chance against a rigged game. A rigged game is what we are facing. Demand an unrigged game if you are going to play. In this case, we all play, even if we don't take a seat at the table. The stakes? Our grandchildren.


The overall situation? We are setting the table for having an honest discussion on socialism for the first time since the 70's? And that is bad? No, that is hugely good. And putting the rigged game that is the media in front of the God the world and everybody is bad how?

Yep, we may lose the first argument, or even the second, but that gives us the information we need later when the stakes are even higher.

Hell, I do not even remotely like Trump, but he has done a hell of a job of forcing everybody to stake their position on our system of government. He is no Calvin Coolidge, but he definitely is what These United States needed now.

Now can we please get somebody that has at least read the Constitution in 2024?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> No. Because Gab is wildly anti-semitic. At least that is why I do not go there anymore. Anybody that hates Jews, hates me. At least that is why I do not care for them. Their platform is actually pretty good.
> 
> The overall situation? We are setting the table for having an honest discussion on socialism for the first time since the 70's? And that is bad? No, that is hugely good. And putting the rigged game that is the media in front of the God the world and everybody is bad how?
> 
> ...


I hate the Jews? I don't hate the Jews. As a matter of fact, I have a kinship with them. 
I say it that way because I am on Gab. Gab doesn't hate Jews as far as I know, but it is nothing more than a platform. Sure, there are idiots on Gab, but that's the way it should work. 
There was a time when I was a master at both Islam and the history of Israel. I was so good with Islam that I could infiltrate Muslim forums and make imams call me a faithful Muslim. On other sites, I would argue down Jew-haters with the Bible and history. Good times. Point is, let all thoughts be expressed and see if they can stand the test of logic and reason.

Can we get someone to read the constitution? Seriously? That and the Bible are what they want nobody to read. As a matter of fact, the agenda is to prevent anyone from learning the concepts gleaned from the Bible as well as the wisdom that crafted the constitutution for the united states of America. That is what we are facing.
Controlling information is more important than the control of weapons.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Glad the thread was reopened, primarily so I could address this.


Denton said:


> Laws or regs preventing such platforms and search engines from suppressing some political positions while preferring others would not be onerous. I would also suggest such a law or reg would be just as proper as any other one.


I do not favor regulation. Why? Again, I go back to my original argument. The constitution dictates explicit powers granted to the federal government. Nothing within those explicit powers supports the idea that the government gets to regulate private businesses with regards to what they show or don't show. In fact, there are thousands upon thousands of regulations that fall into a similar category, that being, "null and void". There simply aren't enough courts to challenge them all.
Whatever their impact on the public's general knowledge, they are a private business and should be left to operate as they choose, until real injury(legally speaking) can be shown. Government steps in when a protection is needed due to a danger to life or limb. The FDA is an example. Good intentions. However, the FDA is also a good example of a regulatory body that has grown beyond its limits.

With every potential regulation, I try to survey the future. What will *this* encroachment potentially lead to? Well, if regulation intended to restrict the blocking of, or to promote the showing of, certain content is broadened just a tiny bit, we can easily lose all control. Companies can be made to follow a party platform, or worse, become a source of pure propaganda by force of law.

I just can't agree that this should be done. The risk of future negative ramifications is too high in my estimate.
I believe we will simply have to disagree on this topic.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Since the thread got reopened (I was wondering why it got closed to begin with) can someone tell me what "the orange site" is that has been mentioned several times. I tried to search it on duckduckgo, but no Bueno.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Facebook and google have moved way beyond private enterprises that enjoy no responsibility for their actions they are no different then a phone company or electric company and as such should be compelled to honor free speech and the rights of US citizens.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

stevekozak said:


> Since the thread got reopened (I was wondering why it got closed to begin with) can someone tell me what "the orange site" is that has been mentioned several times. I tried to search it on duckduckgo, but no Bueno.


The Outdoor Trading Post

Be careful. It is not polite like it is here. If you play stupid games there, you will win stupid prizes.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/08/amazon-is-on-a-digital-book-burning-spree/

The ideal that government should not regulate sounds great until you realize the other side is using that freedom to squash yours.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Glad the thread was reopened, primarily so I could address this.
> 
> I do not favor regulation. Why? Again, I go back to my original argument. The constitution dictates explicit powers granted to the federal government. Nothing within those explicit powers supports the idea that the government gets to regulate private businesses with regards to what they show or don't show. In fact, there are thousands upon thousands of regulations that fall into a similar category, that being, "null and void". There simply aren't enough courts to challenge them all.
> Whatever their impact on the public's general knowledge, they are a private business and should be left to operate as they choose, until real injury(legally speaking) can be shown. Government steps in when a protection is needed due to a danger to life or limb. The FDA is an example. Good intentions. However, the FDA is also a good example of a regulatory body that has grown beyond its limits.
> ...


It could be argued that the commerce clause gives the federal government constitutional authority to regulate it, but we do agree on something and that is a healthy distrust of the federal government to objectively get it done. If I am correct in asserting that the Establishment, the "dark government, the heads of the major corporations and the global banking institutions are in cahoots and are working to make us nothing more than slaves, why would I expect members of an Establishment agency properly regulate a fellow traveler?

Saying something should be done about a problem is much easier than something getting done.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Think I'll take the heads of corporations and bankers over media government and academia every day.



Denton said:


> It could be argued that the commerce clause gives the federal government constitutional authority to regulate it, but we do agree on something and that is a healthy distrust of the federal government to objectively get it done. If I am correct in asserting that the Establishment, the "dark government, the heads of the major corporations and the global banking institutions are in cahoots and are working to make us nothing more than slaves, why would I expect members of an Establishment agency properly regulate a fellow traveler?
> 
> Saying something should be done about a problem is much easier than something getting done.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> It could be argued that the commerce clause gives the federal government constitutional authority to regulate it, but we do agree on something and that is a healthy distrust of the federal government to objectively get it done. If I am correct in asserting that the Establishment, the "dark government, the heads of the major corporations and the global banking institutions are in cahoots and are working to make us nothing more than slaves, why would I expect members of an Establishment agency properly regulate a fellow traveler?
> 
> Saying something should be done about a problem is much easier than something getting done.


Using the commerce clause would require "commerce" to be impacted. The exchange of free information is hardly commerce. Nothing so broad has ever been argued in court.
The commerce clause has become far too open, even dealing with actual commerce. Expanding it to non-tangible things would be a foot in the door to horrible outcomes.

Your last sentence is only true if one presupposes something should be done.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Inor said:


> The Outdoor Trading Post
> 
> Be careful. It is not polite like it is here. If you play stupid games there, you will win stupid prizes.


I'll bookmark it and give it a study over later. As an extremely polite person myself, it might make me blush or the like. Could be a place to collect a pile of prizes.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

stevekozak said:


> I'll bookmark it and give it a study over later. As an extremely polite person myself, it might make me blush or the like. Could be a place to collect a pile of prizes.


You will recognize most folks there. When it gets too annoying, give a shout and I show you how to turn the awful orange off.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Inor said:


> The Outdoor Trading Post
> 
> Be careful. It is not polite like it is here. If you play stupid games there, you will win stupid prizes.


I like stupid prizes!!!!!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

StratMaster said:


> I like stupid prizes!!!!!
> 
> View attachment 97251


Me, too. That would explain all the ex-wives.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Inor said:


> You will recognize most folks there. When it gets too annoying, give a shout and I show you how to turn the awful orange off.


Hunters Orange is bad ass!


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

hawgrider said:


> Hunters Orange is bad ass!


It makes my head hurt if I have not had at least 6 cups of coffee first...

Edit: And the green... The green looks like something that came out of Linda Blair in 1978, then went and lived in Cleveland for a while before coming back to Linda Blair and clawing its way back down her throat!


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Inor said:


> It makes my head hurt if I have not had at least 6 cups of coffee first...
> 
> Edit: And the green... The green looks like something that came out of Linda Blair in 1978, then went and lived in Cleveland for a while before coming back to Linda Blair and clawing its way back down her throat!


Ya know we could change that.... Well you could change that I don't have the nads for that Id crash the place LOL!


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

hawgrider said:


> Ya know we could change that.... Well you could change that I don't have the nads for that Id crash the place LOL!


Not a chance! I am aesthetically challenged. Plus, I think it is pretty funny.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Denton said:


> You ask why isn't there a Christian alternative to these platforms. Good question. I think I might have a couple of reasons. The established platforms didn't have to advertise because they entered the field at the start.
> 1. Facebook wasn't the first and I can't remember the company it buried because it has been so long ago. Now, these established platforms have the money to make sure they will stay on top.
> By the way. I've been learning how to use Audacity, today. I have a lot of respect for @*Sasquatch*, let me tell you.


1. It was MySpace, that is the company that Facebook buried, it was bought by Rupert Murdoch, and abandoned. It is a music sharing site now, and that is about all it is.
2. When I asked why there is no Christian alternative to FB, it was almost a rhetorical question; I knew the answer before I even asked it. A lot of them have surrendered to the status quo, and frequent FB, because that is where the action is.


----------

