Why are all tech companies enemies of free speech?

These corporations are getting so big I don't see why they shouldn't have to abide by free speech

Why should it matter if the Government or Google is censoring us? I know they're a private company but they're so big they've reached that point where they have immense influence

File: 6ee.jpg (52KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x600px

>>62023953

>>62023953
corporations rule over us now anon, and unlike governments, corporations do not even have the pretense of being accountable for their actions

File: image.jpg (17KB, 199x156px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 199x156px

>>62023953
> HURRRR private companies don't have to obey the laws

I hate this new meme

File: 1213514855455.jpg (41KB, 195x195px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 195x195px

>>62023918
Final stages of communist takeover. Yuri B's got your back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

>>62023953

Memes aside, it's a pretty interesting argument.

Fascinating times we live in.

>>62023953
someone post the comic of a libertarian getting trampled by a government boot and being mad and being trampled by a corporation boot and doing nothing

>>62023918
how can you expect pajeets to understand values from the enlightenment such as individual freedom? slavery still exists in India.

>>62023918
People with the First Amendment: 350 million
People without the First Amendment: 7+ billion
These globalist cunts have a direct profit interest to undercut American interests and sabotage the Constitution. I eagerly await the day the H-1B visa program is ended and these poo-infested companies go out of business.

>>62023918
That's what happens when you use a private service. The owners can simply disagree with you or dislike your product and remove it. It's nothing against "free speech," which is constitutionally protected and has nothing to do with whether an app can be in the official Google Play Store or not. If you don't like it, use a different service.

>>62023918
in the US, the first amendment applies to the government and not individuals. the amendment just ensures that the government can't lock you up for saying stuff it thinks is bad. there are exceptions of course (yelling "bomb" in a theatre, inciting a riot, etc).

a corporation is perfectly allowed to terminate user accounts for saying things the corporation doesn't like, for example.

if you do not agree with the actions of a corporation, stop supporting that corporation. you have a choice.

>>62024253
>>62024225
>>62023998
Hello Google shills. Do you get paid much to post here? I bet not.

>>62023988

Google was taxpayer funded from the beginning

https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100660

>>62024253
publicly traded corporations that do business with the government gotta follow the rules. when you take that government, or shareholder money you throw away your right to all the wiggle room you get as a private firm.

>>62023918
>Why are all tech companies enemies of free speech?
They are free to say what they like, just as we are free to oppose them. Free speech isn't some badge of authority, it's a privelege.

>>62024312
Except there aren't any rules that they aren't following.

google has become a monopoly and is starting to control the net to a certain extent. They need to be stopped.

>>62024312
i don't think you understand the subtleties of google's government contracts

>>62024324
>Free speech is a privilege
Found the europoor, In the states free speech is a right

Rule #1 of anything

Private entities are always out for their own interests, everything else is secondary.

You'll probably bleed yourself dry in legal fees by trying to hold Google accountable to anything, btw.

>>62024269
hey man, i think google is a bad company. they are evil bastards looking to profit off of our attention spans, packaging their bullshit in sneaky ways that have entrenched them in our modern culture.

that being said, they are still a private company and can do what they want for the most part.

>>62024225
This guy is right. Buisness owners can thought police all they want, it's their company, not yours.

so websites and tech companies are allowed to censor or block any websites/apps that they don't like

but for some reason the net-neutrality idiots think it's fine to force ISP's to be "neutral" yet this same standard doesn't apple apply to tech companies...

baka

>>62024327
I'm sure the story of Google pulling the plug on this app is not over. If Gab has resources, Google could be in for a lawsuit, and they would loose. Being a NAZI racist is not illegal in the USA. On the contrary if you want to hang out with friends and talk about how cool you think Hitler was, such activity is protected by the constitution.

>>62024372
nobody said that they think google is morally right, just that they are legally right.

>>62024370
Publicly traded corporations who do business with the government, AND run a communication network cannot though police. At least not without risking a lawsuit.

>>62024370
>it's their company, not yours.

So then you agree net-neutrality should be abolished.

File: 1476705475384.png (1MB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 768x1024px

>>62024363
only in your designated Free Speech Zones™, goy

Reminder that these companies fight for a free and open internet every time someone tries to kill net neutrality. It's all a sham.

Retards need to understand how free speech works.

Say whatever you want, but dont be surprised if others drown you out if they dont care for what you have to say.

So many idiots think free speech = say whatever you want with no accountability.

>>62023918
Facebook, Google/Alphabet should be either nationalised or internationalized. If you're de-listed by Google your site pretty much ceases to exist, and their search algorithms determine the success or failure of whole companies. Facebook is similar, it is too useful, too prevalent, and too unnacountable/opaque for the power they now world in society.

>>62024225
That's great when you have a bunch of small and mid-size businesses competing and thus lots of choices for the consumer, but when you have one or two megacorps dominating 95% of everything, they essentially dictate who can and cannot succeed or have a platform. The founders did not envision such all powerful corporate entities. The question is thus, do we need new legislation or even a constitutional amendment to protect the spirit and intent of the first amendment?

>>62024391
dude, don't be an idiot. see:
>>62024385

This is why having free speech be center to your service is utterly retarded in this political environment. The unfortunate truth here is that 90% of people don't really care about free speech until their speech is taken away. The people whose speech is being stifled at the moment are people who appear to be bigots, so these are the people who will gravitate towards these "free speech" platforms. Thus in no time your service just becomes the platform for bigots, rather than the platform for free speech.

>>62024414
It is absolute bullshit, and definitely a freedom of speech issue, when apple and google can restrict you from using certain services from your own phone. I'm not usually for government intervention, but that should be illegal

>>62024464
Google has no obligation to provide any app through their app store, and you don't have to use Google Play to get apps.

>>62024476
This, learn2apk

>>62024476
Google came in when the market was free and unpoliced. Now they've grown up and slammed the door shut behind them so no one else has the same chance. And you defend this? Fuck you.

>>62024476
And when it comes to Apple I'm damn sure you're saying YES to whatever draconian policies they have in place when you agree to those hideously long Terms and Conditions.

So you /can/ bellyache, but know you already signed in blood when you used those products. With Apple you're better off just jailbreaking.

>>62024476
>>62024490
yes but they can't discriminate either. google was just fine with this app for quite some time.

>>62023918
in the real world you cant spout off like an edgy russian viral marketer. When your sperg its worse than everything you claim about supposedly inferior people.

>>62024508
Sure, but they can easily just say "We werent aware of the app and its true contents" which is very true in the case of those spyware apps they had to clean our recently.

Also

https://play.google.com/about/restricted-content/hate-speech/

>>62024503
I hope from this issue people begin to see the light, and start demanding more freedom on their devices. I unironically own an iPhone because android sucks balls and fuck google, but I can't see myself ever buying one again. I still hold that the government should make locking down this device I paid $800 for illegal. If they want to cater to plebs who will cryptolock their phone fine, but at least give me the option to sideload apps

>>62024553
Why not get a phone with LineageOS support and don't install Google Apps?

>>62024225
When a corporation is so big and influential they run every day Life they SHOULD be held to the same standards as the operating government. Not to mention these megacorporations lobby the govt and rig the market so that competing with them is literally impossible. We literally live in a dystopian future run by corporations and youre too stupid to see it, you CANT make youre own service and at the same time these companies have no obligation to the general populations rights, only their money.

>>62023918
Hate speech != free speech

>>62024590
Withdraw your support of these companies if you dont like them. It's literally that simple.

>>62024414
>>62024225
>>62024253
Why does Google find Gab so objectionable that they even wanted to ban it?

>>62024576
I don't know if it's still like this, but back when I had a nexus 5 you needed to install gapps to do pretty much anything on the device

>>62024592
how about hatred of hate? can we speak of our hatred for hate? how about evil? can we talk about how we hate evil?

>>62024605
I already have, the problem is the majority of people are stupid and lazy and willing hand over cash to have their rights stomped on by companies. (example: YOU)

>>62024592
"Hate speech" is not a recognized concept in the US. There was a recent SC ruling reaffirming this.

>>62024628
Google hasn't stomped any of my rights, infact it provides services that have significantly improved my workflow. I couldnt give a fuck if some alt-right losers get their apps deleted. Google to me is nothing more than a tool, and I dont give it anymore power over my life than a fucking toothbrush.

File: 1497273443832.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>62024592
So I'm reading Google and Apple's reasoning for banning the app

And they both say it's not because of the content of the app itself but because the app can POTENTIALLY be used to distribute hate speech and pornography

But couldn't I use Gmail to send out a bunch of pictures of tits with "kill Jews" scribbled on them? Doesn't that mean Gmail should be banned too?

I mean even Twitter is full of people saying nigger and pictures of girls sucking dicks, why not ban that?

Google and twitter could theoretically pick and choose political candidates and push them over the edge. That kind of power should be heavily regulated and preferably broken up.

>Every "right-leaning" website is a hate-speech website
>Every "right-leaning" app is a hate-speech app
>Every "right-leaning" subreddit is a hate-speech subreddit
Why are righties so full of hate?

>>62024674
That literally already happened, but I guess 4chan should be regulated too since /pol/ certianly had a hand in the 2016 Election.

>>62024665
by that logic they should have banned the camera app long ago.

>>62024686
/pol/ is just a forum for people to talk. Google et al. bribes (or as they call it, "lobbies") politicians.

>>62024686
>implying hiro has access to the infrastructure to shape public opinion of 4chan users
If he could do that then women would post on this site.

>>62024683
identity politics

>>62024707
Grassroots my man, grassroots.

>>62024650
>It doesent hurt the rights I only care about so it doesent step on ANY rights
HURRR

>>62023977
>using a stale meme incorrectly
You had one job

>>62023918
Because there private companies and can do what they want. Now bring this to /pol/.

>>>/pol/

>>62023918
Hopefully the remove 4chins from the search results so no more normies or 14 year olds can find us.

>>62023918
"And if we agree with John Stuart Mill (1978) that speech should be protected because it leads to the truth, there seems no reason to protect the speech of anti-vaccers or creationists."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#IntBouDeb

The main problem with the "they're a private company" argument is that we're living in an age where these companies have more power to fuck up your life than the government, which is historically unheard of, unless you go back to the old days, back when people lived in housing provided by the company and were paid in tokens that they could only use in the company-owned store. Your entire life can be destroyed to the point where it becomes impossible to find a job just because of some stupid bullshit on Facebook, Twitter, or Google.

They need to be held to a higher standard. We can't just continue to let them be treated as they have in the past.

>>62024736
It's literally not stepping on anyone's rights though.

You agree to use their service, particularly by signing the Terms and Conditions, so now you play by their rules which are also carefully documented in their Policies section.

It's fucking math, but you guys just want to bitch about something.

>>62023918
Because they live in a bubble, just like the right wingers.

>>62024766
I trust Sergey Brin and even Zuckerberg to run the world more than fucking Trump. Democracy has failed, so it shouldn't surprise you when people run to alternatives.

>>62024225
>>62024369
>>62024476
Why does Google try to act like god to trick people then?

>>62024766
They aren't the ones destroying you life you fucking retard. If you are having trouble finding a job because you've been outed as an alt-right Nazi, that's your own fucking problem.

>>62024783
>They trust me, dumb fucks.
You're an idiot then.

>>62024766
>Your entire life can be destroyed to the point where it becomes impossible to find a job just because of some stupid bullshit on Facebook, Twitter, or Google.

This is only if you forget rule #1 of the internet like so many millenial faggots.

Dont post personally identifiable information, and if you absolutely need to, make sure its in a professional capacity. If you're going to air all your farts and cumstains on Facebook/Twitter then dont be surprised when it all comes back to haunt you.

This is literal Day 1 shit everyone used to understand instinctively, what the fuck happened?

>>62024769
See >>62024665
Gab didn't break the terms and conditions in any meaningful way, it's a service to exchange text and images and every service that exchanges text and images is potentially a vector for porn and hate speech so why is it fair to ban one but not ban all of them?

>>62024769
It literally IS stepping on people's rights. The whole point of this thread is pointing out how corporations like Google have become too big to fail and use their influence to run the show while not having to be held to the same responsibilities of the government. Way to miss the fucking point dumbass.

>>62024797
Why does a company have to be fair?

>>62024795
I don't trust the CEOs but they're not the ones trying to get us fucking nuked or aggressively jerking off the dying christfags and trailer trash

>>62024427
"should" is moral, not legal.

you "ought" to do the moral thing and are "required by law" to do the legal thing

>>62024769
This argument is so hilariously dumb. Do you LITERALLY have a brain, sir?

It must be comforting if you're a cuck to bleet out "they're a private company they can do what they want". In a perfectly free market this would be correct. In a market where there is collusion with the government this is incorrect. Capitalism only works properly when there a separation of businesses and government and lobbying is ineffective.

>>62024808
Because they're not following their own binding terms and conditions

Twitter is in flagrant violation of all the same things Gab is, it has to go.

>>62024769
>Ban one App for "hate speech and porn" when tons of other apps like Twitter are used for these same purposes on a constant basis
They did this same shit to blanket ban any 4chan apps too you fuck.

Why hasn't the US government gone after Google for anti-trust yet?

>>62024828
Lobbying is just a part of the free market :^)

>>62023918
They have their right to decline a customer. It's their freedom, what's wrong with it?

>>62024796
The whole "never tell anyone who you are" thing was only ever a web thing, not an internet thing in general. You were weird if you didn't use your real name on most parts of the internet outside the web, which before AOL was most of the internet.

>>62024830
Their terms and conditions aren't binding them to anything.

>>62024830
This, unless the corporation puts something in the terms and conditions saying they can break their own terms and conditions you can't even do this from a "corporations are private" stance.

>>62024796
You expect normalfags to know the rules of the internet? We oldfags learned this shit the hard way, and luckily our antics before that point didn't get spread all over the place because the SJW menace wasn't as rampant back then.

>>62024848
Where in their terms and conditions does it state that they are required to do anything?

>>62024840
>They have their right to decline a customer
No they don't, that right died with the gay wedding cake case

>>62024866
Which is getting repealed under the Trump Supreme Court.

>>62024769
I didn't "agree" to play by linkedin's rule willingly. If I don't play by their rule my account is banned and I starve.

>>62024853
You're not an "oldfag" if you never used your real name on the internet and met up with local users' groups.

>>62024872
I don't have a LinkedIn account and I'm not starving.

>>62024870
Source

>>62024804
It's not stepping on your rights if you already AGREED to play by their rules. It's fucked up, sure, but on paper nothing weird is going on.

In the case of Gab, its pretty much an unfortunate victim of the political climate. I actually think the app didnt need to be deleted, but a well-backed argument /could/ be made that its a vector for hate speech (signficant alt-right presence compared to other apps), so it got crucified.

Honestly, if you really want free speech use Telegram or IRC. But this Gab business is honestly a secret benefit since anyone who wants it can just download the apk and be truly free of Google restrictions.

>>62023977
>t. google shill

>Google stated that the app did not "demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people."

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/17/alt-social-network-gab-booted-from-google-play-store-for-hate-speech/

>>62024889
are you a freelance software developer?

>>62024917
one can say the same of the "telephone" application.

>>62024922
No, I have a full time position.

>be /pol/edditor
>espouse violently libertarian views 24/7
>corporation uses power against me
>immediately start bitching and moaning and demanding government intervention to protect me from corporations

>>62024939
that's why you don't need a linkedin account

You know what the most despicable of them all is? It's not Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, or any of those assholes. Sure, they're assholes, but there's a much more heinous asshole lurking behind the curtain.

Motherfucking Paypal and credit card companies. Financial institutions absolutely should be fucking regulated. If you are processing payments, you should NOT have the right to pick and choose who you do business with. That's too god damned important. How can people even live if you can just say "oh I don't like his ideology, let's just seize his funds and close his account"

Fucking what? That's just scary shit man. That's the true menace. People making money online from shit basically can have their entire lives destroyed because some shitty company is worried about bad PR from handling their financials.

>>62024943
Yes, because obviously I've been working this job since I was born.

>>62024945
Just use cryptocurrency you luddite.

Seriously I am scrolling throu this thread I am not sure if those retards in this thread talking about "private company can do whatever they want" are trolling or just plain stupid.

Its result of being meme into believing that 100% capital market is a good thing.

Gov has tools to react in a such situation and they were doing it many times in the past (yes the us gov), just their tools are not update for 2017 and were used mostly to industries.

>us anti monopol laws (anittrus law)
>Monopoly - exist when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of particular commodity.

So now you fucking retard who are defending google, imagine that there was no anit monopoly act and gov would not react, today there would be one company that hold 95% of oil in usa, they could dumb ridiculous price because there would be 0 competition on the market, after the time they would grow so big they would be able to fund both parties in congress and be sure that they will have status quo.

Imagine similar situation in CPU market, intel is so rich now that they could buy whole amd and then set ridiculous price on cpu and stagnate any innovation or growth in cpu market for decades and with a such money they could stop any other company before they even have a chance to sell their product.

but thank to those laws its impossible, few years ago amd was in a such shit siutation that intel was helping them with own money to stay on the market because otherwise they would have monopoly act all over their aerohole and thanks to this law today amd is pushing new cpus and we have some price drop and cpu market is alive again.


How are those cases any different than google service? Because oil or cpu are "physical object" and google market is service?

No. there is not different, only outdated law that can not handle 2017 year.

Google is so big that they completely control search engine market and their os has over 90% of market share.

>>62024950
I'm assuming a parent or guardian fed and clothed you?

>>62024945
Governments do the same thing, sometimes to people who arent even citizens of their nation.

This is why crypto is the future.

File: beware_merchant_ahead.jpg (37KB, 332x332px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 332x332px

>>62023918
Stop using Google products and services.

>>62024972
The difference is that the US government has to abide the constitution and won't just go after you for being a sexist or something, they'll only give a shit if you're directly causing problems for the government somehow. This is precisely the argument I am trying to make. Financial companies should be held to that higher standard, and be disallowed from arbitrarily doing whatever the fuck they want. If someone wants to use their service, they can't refuse, nor can they drop that person/business for any personal opinions they may or may not have.

>>62024616
>you need to use gapps to use Google services
Wow.

>>62024225
I agree. It's like the South Park episode with Walmart. Everyone decides to shop at one place only and they became Walmart itself all over again. Never learning that unless they try to spend at other places it will happen again and again.

There are other services out there for email, search,browsers and yes even an app place like F-droid(which I think GAB can put their service on it).

>>62025056
One could make the argument that said financial companies find that doing business with XYZ to b troublesome to their continued operaiton since stakeholders would get upset, not to mention public pressure which wraps around to stakeholders.

That definitely happens.

>>62025056
>the US government has to abide the constitution
Do Americans really believe this? Your government gives absolutely no fucks about your constitution and gladly tramples all over your rights every day.

>>62024713
>here's a a volume 4chan pass code so your shills can bypass the captcha and be flagged for moderators as DO NOT DELETE
>also have an option field tag that gives you a new ID code when posting even though you've posted in the thread before
>thanks for the tree fiddy

>>62025089
Generally, even when that does happen, people very often take it to the Supreme Court and win. The bill of rights is serious shit. Branches of the government often infringe against it, but the Supreme Court always slaps them in the face later. It's just not as publicized when these things happen.

It's like the faggots who think "loli is illegal in the US" and continually shitpost about it, when in reality, the Supreme Court already struck down that decision years ago.

>>62024937
>hasn't heard of the NSA
lol

>>62023918
the first amendment only protects you from the government. they have no obligation to host content they don't want to.

>>62025277
Thank you for this new and exciting insight.

File: 1485257654345.jpg (471KB, 1818x1400px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1818x1400px

>>62024665
>It's not the content but it's the content

This is some of the silliest shit because in often has a paradoxical effect.. Who has clover on their phone RIGHT now even though it isn't available though the app store. Google loves it because they are unaccountable but can still collect whatever data they please about users though the captcha system but also appear vigilant about their freedom denying (apple style) app store ecosystem. It's absolute pottery.

>>62023918
Because they enjoy nazi parades, and if they give too much free speech, the nazis will be exposed to the public and laughed at.

>>62024844
>>62024858

>Their T&C aren't binding THEM to anything

I think what you're saying is that because it's a company, it's ultimately THEIR choice on what they ban. In other words they're allowing twitter to stay simply because they choose to. They're banning Gab, simply because they choose to. Logic and fairness can get fucked.

>>62024665
I believe it is because of their policy not to police hate speech.

They will take action against things like child pornography but not hate speech.

>>62024225
If the roads have too many potholes, just build your own!

>>62025136
You would still need to actually pay people to make this work. Furthermore its retarded to compare a site like 4chan to the big boys of the internet. People don't get peer pressured into sites like 4chan. Twitter facebook and google/youtube are on an entirely different level than 4chan and should be treated as such.

>>62025194
In some states you can get (and people have been) punished under obscenity laws for loli. It's not considered CP but it's still a legal gray area depending on your state.

>>62023918
The best way to win against the scourge of google is making them censor shit even more, this will scrap they search result, their services, its true that they are a private company and that's means that people will just go to another search engine for example, even if is duckduckjew, if google censors himself too much is going to end being a useless piece of shit

>>62025194
americans can literally be held for 40 days in jail without even being charged with a crime, and then you can sit in jail for another 6 months just waiting for a trial

your "freedom" is a joke

>>62025572
>too poor to afford bail

>>62025591
how is that any different than being kidnapped and having to pay a ransom?

>>62025591
>Your honor the defendant is a threat to national security and/or a flight risk and/or is male, we recommend no bail.

>Sundar Poochai
>Google CEO

Explains it all.

>>62023918
Find it a bit un-nerving that something so small would be on their radar at all?
If we were not in Trumps America this wouldn't be on anyones radar.

>>62024401
>otherewise

>>62023918
>not in f-droid

more of the same then desu.

>>62024420
It's called anti-trust. Monopolies are against the law.

>>62025572
>not mentioning the PATRIOT Act

>>62024225
>use a different service.
>virtual 90%+ monopoly
>submarine patents out the ass for the dumbest shit like pinch zoom

ya good luck with that "different service"

>>62024225
IANAL, but there also laws against false imprisonment. arguably, these corporate gag orders on employee such as non disclosure agreements, speech codes, or coc could be seen as breaking this informal boundary.
we allow great latitude in "freely" entered contracts, but we do not allow contracts to oblige people to surrender essential liberties like in assisted "suicide" or voluntary slavery, or organ donations, and in many other situations. contracts are not absolute, and shinkwrap contracts are being contested by an increasing number if judges in many jurisdictions.
Stuff like banning gab in particular can be seen as a monopolistic and anticompetitive practice, seeing as google (and twitter and other companies) offer similar services through google play, singling out gab is dubious because other services including google and twitter and so forth ALSO host hate speech and pornography. If google bans gab, it should also ban any internet connected app that allows users to speak to each other.

>>62025697
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/technology/eu-google-fine.html

>>62025572
That's why you should let the muslims in and switch the Sharia law.

>/g/ will defend gab, a service created a jew

>>62024177
Damn. This Anon dropped some real knowledge. Couldn't have said it better

>>62025789
gab created a jew?
Like it actually converted energy into matter?
That's pretty fucking impressive.
I've got to go try that shit now...

File: che-stallman-tshirt-show.jpg (40KB, 350x465px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 350x465px

free open source companies when

>>62025828
It was created by a jew, Andrew Torba.

>>62025760
Sharia in Europe wouldn't even be an issue if your shitty country didn't fuck up the Middle East for nearly a century.

>>62024414
>drown you out if they dont care for what you have to say.
Jamming or interfering with electronic communications is a federal offense.
Using a loudspeaker to stop other people having a quiet conversation is a misdemeanor for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct
>accountability.
punching "Nazis" is illegal. Punching ANYONE is illegal.
Depriving people of property is illegal. Contracts are a form of property, however we currently see one-sided contracts that deny people service or employment for arbitrary reasons and no compensation for sudden termination. This is a problem for all people, not just the ones you don't like.

When is Pornhub gonna make a youtube competitor?

They are the only company that can stand to do it.

>>62024177
Pajeets do not run these companies.
Almost all of them have headquarters based in the US.

>>62025877
A literal pajeet runs Google, which is what this whole thread is about. Try reading more.

they just like the free pr
they don't give a single fuck about anything but money; they just pretend to show people they care

>>62025877
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai
way to pay attention, you utter shit-eating faggot

>>62024401
You know that's an art installation and not a real "free speech zone", right?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/blmurch/329312120

The paradox of tolerance states that any society that is 100% tolerant is overtaken by the intolerant.

The only sustainable tolerant system requires one example of intolerance, intolerance of intolerance.

If you want a sustainable system, you must not tolerate the intolerant.

Hating other races, homosexuals, other religions, and transgender people is illogical and most not be tolerated.

>>62025789
/pol/ loves jews when it suits them
did you miss that entire time /pol/ was sucking that jew cock all because he was fired by google

>>62023918
ITT: /pol/ is triggered that private businesses have the legal right to police their platforms.

>>62025760
>my tyranny > your tyranny

>>62025931
itt: bootlicking statists want to have their gay wedding cake and eat it too

File: california[1].png (4KB, 297x239px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 297x239px

>all tech companies

Really? No one's found the common association?

>>62024401
>when something reaks of burning man so much you can tell when and where it was taken from a single bicycle in the back ground

>>62025953
Google doing what they want on their property is the opposite of the wedding cake fiasco, you tard.

File: computer-loser.jpg (87KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x480px

>>62023918
>>62023953
>enemies of free speech
Free speech means one thing and one thing only. It's protection for citizens from legal censorship by the government. That's it.

These corporations don't have to abide by "free speech" because they are not the government. Why do so few people understand this?

If you want to be more accurate, call it censoring bad PR, because that's what they're doing by banning Nazi's and the like. They're gonna do whatever makes them the most money. If ANTIFA hurt their bottom line, these companies would be banning them too.

>First Amendment only protects you from the government
>WAH WAH WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO PUNISH ME FOR BEING A A BRAINDEAD HATEFUL ASSHOLE WAH WAH WAH

>>62025898
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai
>The CEO of google cannot comprehend the first amendment.
Right.
This isn't about who is running the company, if it were any other race the issue would remain the same. Private companies have the right to remove users of the software for literally any reason, or no reason.
Don;t like it? Start your own fucking search engine/social media/etc etc etc company and do it better. Or sit on the internet and bitch about shit you are never going to be able to change.

You all realize the immensity of the proposition to "federalize" google and make it compliant with the first amendment right?

File: 1503024592252.jpg (190KB, 534x550px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 534x550px

>>62025976
Actually Google runs the risk of losing its immunity as a common carrier because of involving itself too much in the micro-decisions such as these.

Google has shown it's more than willing to involve itself in even the smallest actions that violate its political sensibilities. They are also going to be liable for removing all content that is illegal; or be charged for facilitating a means for those crimes to occur.

>>62025968
>'NOT IN MY STORE' is only a good thing when it's to muzzle evil racist bigots
yeah, ok anon

>>62026009
>>62025976
Specifically, this

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/06/a_new_legal_theory_for_holding_social_networks_liable_for_terrorism.html

Google, Facebook, and etc are enjoying an immunity clause that they long violated. All we need is someone willing to make a legal battle out of this and Facebook, Google, and Twitter would undoubtedly lose.

File: not an argument.jpg (230KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 598x792px

>>62026027
Yes, everyone who has ever disagreed with you on anything is a liberal.

>>62026055
Very interesting, I didn't know about that

>>62025953
>wanting someone who previously agreed to bake you a cake to continue is the same as spamming nigger on twitter
the mind of a /pol/fag is truly amazing

>>62024683
The right has been poisoned by Christianity, I say this despite being protestant.

Christianity teaches hate, it teaches that people who deviate from the path you walk are lesser.

Most Abrahamic religions are hateful and encourage classism .

>>62024592
Yes it does. Fag

>>62026009
>>62026055
So, what, they'd be legally required to host content they'd rather have removed? Then the incentive to even host these services would disappear. I can't imagine how much bureaucracy you would have to wade through for relatively benign things.

The biggest problem with the complaints of social media censorship is that everyone thinks only their beliefs are being persecuted, the "hostile media effect". The Muslim double standard on social media does not exist, just supporting terrorism will get you banned while the autism-right kids don't usually get flagged unless they stir a lot of shit. Far-left accounts also occasionally cross the line, mostly Soviet LARPers and Russian ethnonationalists; most antifa retards don't get banned because most of them are too pussy to actually do anything.

Why are there so many libs on this board now? Hope it's just summer.

>>62026192
4chan has always been majority liberal, the right is just the vocal minority.

>>62026170
>So, what, they'd be legally required to host content they'd rather have removed?
That's the agreement they entered to maintain legal immunity from providing material support for illegal things posted on their platforms.

The bargain wasn't made to make Google feel happy. It was set to push forth the values of the first amendment and limit the expectations of the government on content hosts.

By the way, this law has already been tried in court and executed against a content host that policed their website heavily, but neglected to remove illegal material. Google is well within the range of being sued for this.

>>62026192
Tech usually leans left. Look at Silicon Valley. If you want hee-haw, go back to /pol/

>>62024783
ahh, so this is how neo-feudalism begins

>>62026218
depends on who judges it.
For groups like antifa, sjws etc, 4chan is 98% full nazi.

>>62025918
Also private firearm ownership, wanting an income tax rate lower than 50%, voicing opposition to the welfare state or working in the fossil fuel industry are hate speech too

>>62026413
Also wanting actual equality or denouncing racism against white people or even declaring yourself "blind to the race" is now racism.

>>62025992
>Don;t like it? Start your own fucking search engine/social media/etc etc etc company and do it better
Google is actively suppressing competition to its favored services from using its ecosystem

Which you may remember is the exact thing that got Microsoft assraped in court over Internet Explorer

>>62025918
Being tolerant doesn't mean just allowing someone to take control of your society. Just like being tolerant of black people doesn't mean inviting them over to your house to fuck your wife (I hope you knew this before I told you).

Also, a society that is 100% tolerant will never be taken over by the intolerant, because there are exactly 0% intolerant in a 100% tolerant society.

>>62026413
I support ownership of fire arms, you can't even argue that's hate speech.

I'm fine paying 50-55% of my total income to the government as long as it gives me lifestyle compared to that in Switzerland aka stop over inflating our military. But arguing over how to handle taxes can not be said to be hate speech.

Welfare state is a meme and yeah fuck that.

Fossil fuel needs to be phased out, but there's nothing wrong with it existing(for now)

I want the US to be a giant Switzerland personally, although alt right retards will say NOT POSSIBLE LE NIGGERS AND JEW WILL RUIN EVERYTHING xD

>>62026488
>Also, a society that is 100% tolerant will never be taken over by the intolerant, because there are exactly 0% intolerant in a 100% tolerant society
That's not true though

Look at Sweden. They genuinely had a nice thing going and I'd say they were as close to 100% tolerant as anyone would ever get, so they decided what they really needed to do is import a couple hundred thousand Muslims and now rapes are up 500%, there are weekly grenade attacks and the Truck of Peace rolled through.

They had the closest thing to a perfect country I've ever seen, a place of incredible safety, equality and civic cooperation and for some inexplicable reason they chose to take the whole thing and slam dunk it in the motherfucking trash can

>>62026533
Well, that's taking a 100% tolerant society and lowering that percentage, it's not 100% tolerant anymore.

>>62026519
>although alt right retards will say
All the countries people circle jerk about the civic tranquility and goodwill are always 95%+ homogenous

Diversity and unity are not compatible. People of different ethnicities, religions, languages, etc., they're never going to truly look out for each other. The only reason it ever sort of worked in the United States was *because* of the tension, competition and as much as I hate to say it even the exploitation but you are not going to build a giant Switzerland from a country that's half a billion people divided up into 40% white, 35% Latino, 15% black and 10% Asian. There's no common ground to ever hope to make these people give a shit about each other.

>>62026664
America also worked well due the culture itself.
It is very diverse in terms of ethnicities, but people that came to it, came to became americans, not to create a colony of their own shit in most cases.
Multiethnic countries can work, but multicultural ones definitively don't.
Specially when you have some horrid predatory cultures among em.

>>62024683
lefty babies cry when it happens to them
>wahhh this country wont accept my public faggotry

>>62026533
>rapes are up 500%
really? because the only increase in reported rapes over the last decade occurred after the definition of rape was broadened in Sweden
>weekly grenade attacks
true, though more likely connected to organized crime. also violent crime overall has been falling in Sweden and the grenade attacks are typically against empty buildings or cars as intimidation as opposed to actually being used to kill
>Truck of Peace
there have been terrorist attacks in many countries in Europe of varying degrees of acceptance of refugees. additionally the attacker was from Uzbekistan, and named Rakhmat Akilov. He sympathized with/ was a member of ISIS/ISIL but isn't exactly what you picture when you think "Muslim refugee"

Also http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime the difference between the US which does not allow nearly as many refugees and Sweden in violent crime rates is ridiculous. If anything we could learn something about from them

Imagine being a /pol/ cuck

talking about month-old news and crying when people don't agree with you is the highlight of their day. How pathetic.

>>62026774
> If anything we could learn something about from them
Why would you do this? You are practically begging for US crime stats divided by race to be posted.

>>62026791
>month-old news
The app was taken down 72 hours ago, what are you talking about?

>>62026807
the app never existed in the first place

>>62025789
Who gives a shit if he's jewish or not you fucking neonazi moron.

This is about freedom of speech. Everyone has a right to it.

(((Pure coincidence)))

File: 1484585756741.jpg (54KB, 780x636px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 780x636px

>>62023918
>spreading nazi garbage
>b-but muh free speech
Nope. They are just human trash, this ideology has nothing to do with free speech, and companies just showing them the door.
Same goes for ISIS and any other hate-driven stuff.
If you are nazi, consider suicide, make world a better place.
Nazis btfo.

>>62026959
Free speech as a right, of course.
Free speech as a principle, it's an obvious violation to silence an ideology you don't like.
But I don't think Google has ever claimed to support free speech as a principle, so it hardly matters.

>>62026959
But you're a nazi, so i should show you the door.

>>62026324
That's Silicon Valley, which is not all of tech. I hee-haw my boot up your ass.

>>62027084
>trying to stick things in a guy's ass
Sorry bud, I don't swing that way. But it's cool that you do

>>62026218
4chan is always the opposite of the current political climate is.
>Bush - Liberal
>Obama - Right wing
>Trump - Liberal

>>62027141
You will when I'm done with you, nu-male.

>>62026959
Nazi = National Socialism
How is this in any way garbage ideology?

>>62027219
Well, it did lose the second World War.

>>62027231
>Ideology loosing wars
is this the power of american edumacation?

>>62027238
Sorry, let me correct my post to make it more clear
>Ideology behind the losing side of a war
Also,
>criticizing education
>loosing

>>62027219
Socialism generally ends up with a fuckton of deaths, no matter what you glue before or after it.

>>62026192
Its just recently, same shit happen in other boards, when there is something political in sightless there is the typical idiot that just scream /pol/ on everything, they are actually a vocal minority

>>62026218
>>62026324

you aren't fooling nobody

>>62027259
Poor Scotland, it doesn't even know what's going for it.

>>62025976
>These corporations don't have to abide by "free speech" because they are not the government. Why do so few people understand this?
Because recently people were getting pissed about privately owned Christian bakeries not selling cakes to gay people.

>>62025976
>These corporations don't have to abide by "free speech" because they are not the government.
The rights laid out by the constitution are inalienable rights. If the government doesn't uphold free speech, they are liable.

>>62023918
People forget that the pendulum tends to swing, and the weapon that you are using today will be out of your hands, and in your political enemy's hands, tomorrow.

Corporations just follow whatever is popular at the moment, which is why Coke had swastika Christmas ornaments in Nazi Germany.

>>62027897
aren't murrican businesses allowed to refuse business with anyone for any reason?
it makes sense to me that a christian owned bakery would refuse to make a wedding cake for gay people, it goes against their beliefs

>>62027928
The Bill of Rights is a restriction on the government, not the People. Corporations are people.

>>62027938
>aren't murrican businesses allowed to refuse business with anyone for any reason?
Used to be able to. A lot of the laws are kind arbitrary so their interpretation changes with time.

>>62025976
Free speech is a concept and constitutional right.

If private companies can't discriminate against people of protecting classes then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against speech

>>62027991
>kind of arbitrary
Whoops.

>>62027972
Yeah, they are.
Which really goes against what the constitution was for, but the people who wrote it are long gone, and americans today don't wish to exercise their 2nd amendment to protect against corporations.

>>62023918
Money, keeping their platform as polished and approachable and investable as is possible.

>>62023988
ALSO: Free speech = an ideal, not just a law

>>62028012
I don't need to. Not even defending google, as I hate their business model, but nobody is forcing you to use their products.

The problem is that the entire industry as a whole is pushing hard left. This makes the entire industry ripe for a competition. And, shy of youtube, there is valid competition that bring better products to you for little to no cost.

Hangouts? Use Wire.
Gmail? Use Protonmail or Tutanota.
Search? Use DDG, Qwant, Startpage, etc.
Browser? Use literally anything but Chrome.
And so on.

>>62025569
This is the right answer.

Not matter what - keep pretending to be some upset minority or whatever and demand they change something you deem racist

>>62028057
This is a nice idea, but google has enough corporate power to crush competition. Buy it, squash it.
It's a money making idea though- make a service that actually allows freedom of expression, and then sell it to google when they turn up trying to crush you.

>>62028107
To my knowledge, google would have no interest buying the competition, as the reason people choose to use it is because they don't act like google. The people taking steps to avoid them once would surely take the steps to avoid them again. Protonmail gets bought out? People move to Disroot or Tutanota. They buy out Qwant? Move to DDG, Startpage, or Disconnect search.

And so on. Spending a billion dollars to buy out something like protonmail would just be a waste of a billion dollars.

>>62024225
>That's what happens when you use a private service. The owners can simply disagree with you or dislike your product and remove it.
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

>>62028001
>Free speech is a constitutional right
Again... not in this context. How many times do I have to repeat this lol. It only applies when you're dealing with the government.

>The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.

"Free speech" does not apply to businesses or corporations, period. DESU I agree with it too. A business has every right to ban someone shouting "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" inside their store. Social media platforms, also a business, should be able to do the same.

>>62028195
About to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Enjoy your gay cakes while they last.

>>62028212
>It only applies when you're dealing with the government.
lol

>>62028221
Can you prove me wrong? I just cited the constitution. What have you got to say?

>>62023988
>HURRRR private companies don't have to obey the laws
They do, but the thing is they effectively make the laws they follow through lobbying.

>>62028221
It does. Don't believe me? Go to work, and tell literally everyone you interact with that they can go fuck themselves. See how long you stay employed.

>>62025910
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
>the city of you

>>62028246
>americans need a permit from the government to protest against the government
>they can only do it in certain ""1st amendment areas""
So this is the power of American Freedom... Woah...

>>62028225
>>62028244
Go to Washington DC and tell any government employee that at their work. You can get back to me later and tell me how it went.

>>62028298
>cherry picking a specific outlier that covers .1% of Americans
Gee you sure told me

>>62023918
As an old English saying goes: Let sleeping dogs die.

Or as I like to put it - If it's broken, fix it.
[Disclaimer: This response was generated by feeding your post to a neural network]

>>62028212
So what you're saying is that it wouldn't be morally wrong to physically attack someone for saying something you disagree with as long as I'm not a government employee or representative?

Since you don't believe that free speech is a concept or should be protected in any way except from the government.

The government regulates all manners of things. The civil rights movement was a great success in the eyes of morons since it forced a new wave of regulations that forced business owners to not be allowed to choose who they want to associate with. You literally have no right to refuse to employee someone because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Government says you have no right of association.
Why not do the same for speech? What if all speech is part of my religion? Can you discriminate against it now?

>>62028375
>Since you don't believe that free speech is a concept or should be protected in any way except from the government.

Not him, but what I believe the law should be isn't relevant. It's what the law IS.

>>62028375
The law prevents you from physically attacking someone regardless of what he is saying. Free speech is irrelevant here.

>>62028426
For me it's about what is consistent and logical. I'm sick and tired of anti-discrimination laws being used in a discriminatory way.

Saying that you can't discriminate based on religion but can discriminate based on politics is insane. Some people want to ban Muslims because of what they believe and some people want to ban white-nationalists because of what they believe. There's no real difference except popular media calls one side evil.

>>62028436
I should have made a better argument.
A better case would be: if someone is talking then is it moral to scream over them so nobody can else hear them?

>i love communism and i want private property to obey MY feelings
kys, free speech applies only to the government

>>62028496
>For me it's about what is consistent and logical.
I completely agree. I think if you and I were to sit down and set up a system of laws, we would find a lot of common ground, even if we have different beliefs on where the line should be (for example, I don't believe that an hourly employee working a telephone line should have absolute free speech. If they answer every call with "this is Cabela's, my name is John, and fuck you for calling!" an employer should have the right to terminate their employment, for example).

That said, just because we think the law should be a certain way doesn't mean that it is. The law is absolutely irrational, and will only get more irrational as time goes on.

>>62028543
>That said, just because we think the law should be a certain way doesn't mean that it is.
Bingo. This coulda woulda shoulda stuff doesn't fly -- the law is what matters. I don't think the guy you're replying to is very old, or maybe he is and just never figured out how the world works.

>>62028543
I think employers should be allowed to fire or hire employees for whatever reason they want.

I can't imagine how many of these old bats in HR follow horoscopes and refuse to hire someone because they're born in the wrong month yet find it appalling that someone could racial discriminate.

I was just thinking about the question: are laws made to accomplish what's temporarily right, ultimately right or keep a country stable?

I imagine it's all about keeping a country stable (hence democracy) BUT then it would imply its not doing what's right which means the US founding fathers were right that civil wars must continue to happen to ensure freedom and liberty.

>>62028641
>I was just thinking about the question: are laws made to accomplish what's temporarily right, ultimately right or keep a country stable?
Depends on the law. For example, before slavery existed, the result of losing a war would just be genocide of the loser. As strange as it sounds, slavery was a step in a more moral direction. But then there are laws like the 5th Amendment, allowing you to remain silent without the presumption of guilt being associated with silence. I can not imagine a situation where this moral law would become outdated (although I can imagine a scenario where society degenerates enough to where they no longer see it as a moral law, and wish to repeal it).

As far as keeping a country stable, I don't think that this is the end goal at all in an age where the military could completely decimate a population's would-be usurpers with the press of a button.

>>62028678
How would militaristic genocide maintain a stable country?

That's retarded

We're never going to live in an age of the internet that isn't just every site screeching about the others political opinions ever again, are we?

>>62028530
That stupid burger argument. Free speech is a human ideal and not defined by your stupid country's constitution.

When I went to gab as what people would call a right winger, I was actually pretty disgusted. Most of its content was just Trump is god, trump is god, trump is god. Really, it was repetitive, most people were parroting the same shit even when it was patently untrue and it was a cesspool of conspiracy theories surrounding the cunt known as hillary clinton.

It was no proper alternative to Twitter. Twitter sometimes deals poorly with what they don't like, but they still host a lot of non-political content. Gab was a real echo chamber. I get that people ran away for this whole free speech issue but that doesn't mean you should build a platform that just turns into this kind of garbage (which by the way also has some requirements to join, I think it took me a while to actually get there. I was so disgusted I actually deleted my account despite how much time it took).

If you want to build a rival to Twitter you do it on a similar vein, just more "inclusive" to those people that Google and Twitter actively hate. The only way to win against these services is to provide the same, but better.

>>62028703
I didn't say militaristic genocide. But thanks to PRISM, you could take out any threats long before they could do any real damage.

>>62028727
I dropped Gab because there was no point to using it. I dropped Minds because they don't believe there should be any moderation whatsoever, outside of what they are legally required to do.

Minds will never replace facebook for this reason. People will not want to associate with a site that allows its users to post porn gifs/webms or to talk about children in a sexual manner. The bulk of people do want some moderation, both in speech and in A/V content. Therefore, any time spent there will be wasted.

>>62027259
>Nazi = socialism meme

Remind me again what the Night of Long Knives was and why the Nazis put Socialists and Communists in concentration camps.

>>62025697
Yeah, because those things work and not have been gutted by lobbies at all.

>>62023918

they think that they will get more customers by appeasing to the left, when in reality, it will only drive customers with right-wing views away.

your average left-wing extremist doesn't have any money to spend. Just look at what has happened to reddit. They're not making any money and all the leftists are driving normal people away with their obsession about losing the election. The frontpage of reddit is filled with whining and butthurt, driving even normal users (remember, they don't even have to be interested in politics) away.

>>62025847
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_autonomous_organization
Already?

Remember when I told you fags that Facebook, Google & friends would have government oversight/UN oversight in the next couple of years?

How you laughed at me? I can predict the future, bitches.

File: removeparasites.png (828KB, 786x819px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 786x819px

>>62029535

Good thing I can just bypass the google play store with Fdroid, or by just installing the app directly from their website!

O-oh...sorry Apple users...

>>62023918
Because those wannabe nazis in the US and the media storm they caused. What google and other companies have done is nothing but a reaction to all the hysteria right now. Its not principled or well thought out reaction, they are just hitting the panic button.

>but muh antifa
These guys have always existed and they want nothing more than excuses to cause trouble and increase their ranks. For them having to go to work at 7am is fascism and the business owner is literal hitler. Poltard protest with a nazi flag is a dream come true for them.

>>62029909
It's already the present at Europe. In US they are trying to cull these calls for oversight by being proactive, banning things forehand.

>>62029927
>ywn see ancapistan proceed to evolve from feudalism to mercantilism to actually-existing-capitalism to socialism to communism.

>>62024683
>everything used by a couple "right-leaning" people is a right wing app/website/{inserthinghere}

>>62030022
>M-muh "nazis" are using thing!
>Quick, get rid of thing!

That slope sure looks slippery to me.

>>62023918
Governments control these companies.
Here's some sketchy thing happend some time ago:
>Skype happened
- Decentralised (p2p connection)
- Encrypted communication
- secure

US gov:
>uh oh, guys, there's this thing skype, it's a program where terrorists can communicate without our eye!
>let's see... what coorporation should buy it...
>eBAY! (buys skype for 2.6billion)
...
eBAY:
>ehm... sorry gov, our lawyers forgot to include source code into contract...
US gov:
>you fucking morrons...
eBAY sells skype

US gov.:
>hey, Microsoft...
Micro$oft:
>god damnit...
- buys skype for 8.5 billion
- including source code

Skype now:
- no more encryption
- centralised (no more p2p communication)
- not secure
- actually, I bet it's botnet now

There's no doubt triple letter agencies are working with coorporations like apple, google, amazon, ebay, microsoft, you name it...
And triple letter agencies don't want anyone to be able to hide from them.

>>62024177
>enlightenment
Indian monks achieved it before mary was busy getting fucked in the pooper by mohhammed
>slavery
Never existed in India. Now caste system on the other hand, did

>>62030133
p.s. story is a bit enhanced by narrator, i.e. me. ;^)

But I bet it hold some truth

>>62030133
Skype still has encryption. It's just not e2e encryption, so they get to monitor everything on their server.

>>62030140
>did
It still does.

>>62030153
So they have encryption, just not USEFUL encryption. Thanks Skype!

>>62030176
Indeed. I didn't mean to defend skype. I just want to be accurate when we trash their worthless service.

>>62030153
Your comment wasn't necessary. Not e2e encryption means nothing. ;]
Yeah, ofcourse, data isn't plain text in public places, but that's just common sense how software like this (voip, messaging etc) should be.

And because we don't know, on the server it just might be (and most likely is) plain text.

>>62030200
>Your comment wasn't necessary. Not e2e encryption means nothing. ;]
Of course. Again, I wasn't intending to defend skype, but the last thing I want is MicroCucks stating "fake news," and the people shitting on their shitty service having to go on the defensive.

"No worthwhile encryption," is completely different from "no encryption."

>>62030156
>still does
That's why a person of untouchable caste is our president and a person of lower caste is our prime minister eh ?

>>62030232
You see the issue with the sentence you just typed, yes? In trying to refute the existence of a cast system, you referenced the existence of said system.

>>62030211
I just thought it's common knowledge that communication is encrypted to server and not necessary to point that out.
I was talking about encryption in usefull way, not semi-usefull
But yeah, now that you mentioned, I could have written that instead, or people might be confused...

>>62030242
I made the same mistake in a thread discussing Wire vs Skype, and you wouldn't believe the number of people that focused on "no encryption." It pretty much derailed the thread.

Better to be accurate and destroy the defenders than to let them focus on a technicality in order to rebuke criticism.

>>62030239
So if an amerifat says that his president was a nigger, is he admitting that black slavery in america still exists and movements like BLM are justified ?

>>62025976
>These corporations don't have to abide by "free speech" because they are not the government. Why do so few people understand this?
There are many reasons: For one, government bailouts mean private companies are no longer actually private. Secondly, governments function on the premise that the government is always infinitely larger than the largest company, but this is nowhere near the case, companies have exceptional power nowadays. Thirdly, free speech is not just some arbitrary law, it's a moral question. If we allow the constituent parts of our society to trample its morals, our society will become immoral, pathological and corrupt. Fourthly, internet is considered a human right nowadays. Therefore, you should be as free to act on the internet as you are on the streets.

>>62030089
Friendly reminder that if gab wasn't about being a free speech alternative and was just another social media service that /pol/ would be calling google based for shutting down a jewish service.

>>62024683
>Why are righties so full of hate?
Everything that's right is bad and should be banned! Burn their books, stop their speeches! Heil google!

>>62030282
No, but free black men have existed since America's founding, and "nigger" isn't used exclusively towards black slaves.

Now, if you were going to use the term "cotton picker," and the term is (and always was) exclusively used for slaves, you'd have a point.

>We can't let this social media platform get big! Quick, ban it from the app stores!
>Gets covered in news everywhere
>Usership skyrockets
Damn these nazis are crafty

>>62030301
>/pol/ would be calling google based for shutting down a jewish service.
No it wouldn't. Friendly reminder that you know your opponents only through what you've heard about them in your circle jerk groups.

>>62030282
holy shit 'murican education BTFO

>>62030301
Well yeah, pol is retarded like that. I really only care about what pol thinks, just what large companies like Google actually end up doing.

>>62030320
The Streisand effect, but deliberately.

Americans get their free speech cucked away.

>>62030342
Anyone treating a whole board as a single person is retarded.

>>62030301
I'm not even in support of /pol/. I'm just aware that what gets used against someone today could be used against me tomorrow.

So when do you treat social media as a common carrier?

>>62030361
Define "common carrier."

>>62030319
hol up, is your american education interfering with your ability to use your mental skills to argue ? Do you not know that caste system isn't remotely related to slavery ? Do you like arguig about things you don't know shit about ? Are you so off into the deep end, entirely consumed by /pol/ memes that you can't differentiate between 2 distinct terms ?
Truly, arguing with an american and arguing with women is futile. God forbid, you might be an american women for all I know !

>>62030377
>Truly, arguing with an american and arguing with women is futile. God forbid, you might be an american women for all I know !
Insulting people is a good and productive way to argue, I've heard.

>>62023918
> ITT: Liberals adopting more Libertarian stances, Right wingers/Libertarians adopting more Liberal stances

I guess corporations should have freedom to do whatever they want, as long as they obey YOUR beliefs. It's amazing how much American politics (Both left and right) become religious debates.

Meanwhile in Australia, we don't have these religious debates, yet we have a very progressive, yet very un-pc society.

>>62030377
>Do you not know that caste system isn't remotely related to slavery?
I do.
>Do you like arguig about things you don't know shit about?
I don't.
>Are you so off into the deep end, entirely consumed by /pol/ memes that you can't differentiate between 2 distinct terms ?
I can.
>Truly, arguing with an american and arguing with women is futile. God forbid, you might be an american women for all I know !
I'm not the one who equated the caste system to slavery. I was simply responding to an erroneous comparison.

>>62030327
/pol/ only follows their principles when it's convenient for them. All jews are inherently evil under every single circumstance, unless they make a safe space like gab because twitter is bullying me or they call out SJWs, then they're awesome and our greatest ally.

>>62030389
Libertarian here. I just think that if you're going to push this shit like they did with the gay marriage cakes, then that shit should cut both ways. Make the playing field level. Don't expect one side to bully using the government, while the other side refuses to pick up and use the same weapon.

>>62030389
Everyone has their own problems. American problems just tend to rain down on everyone because of the culture/media/corporate presence.

>>62030397
No, you know utterly nothing about /pol/. You misrepresent your opponents and argue against straw men, just like any ledditor would. It's really, really pathetic and disgusting.

I'm a /pol/ack and I don't care about Jews aone way or another. There are basically none in my country, anyway. Am I lying right now, or is it possible that you're just like a modern leftist treating everyone as Nazis?

>>62030421
Have you ever been to /pol/? Calling someone a good jew gets you happy merchant replies. Are you one of those who think /pol/ is being ironic with the racism and antisemitism?

File: 1486990451396.png (633KB, 536x648px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 536x648px

>>62030397
>/pol/ is a hivemind

>>62023918
Because centrists have finally started to understand the paradox of tolerance, and that the only way to preserve a free and tolerant society is to marginalize you and your fascist fellow travellers by any means necessary.

The social price of advocating for white supremacy, misogyny, christian dominionism, fascism, and neo nazism must be raised high enough to drive all of you into hiding so the rest of us can enjoy the freedom and tolerance promised by the constitution, the bill of rights, and the rule of law.

>>62030441
>Are you one of those who think /pol/ is being ironic with the racism and antisemitism?
No. I'm an individual among tens of thousands like me. Some are sarcastically racist, some are not. I am very racist myself, not at all antisemitic, though. There definitely are a lot of antisemites in /pol/, but I'd wager there are more those who are not. The ones who are simply like to talk about it and make noise. I don't really care.

>>62030471
>I am tolerant about everything but intolerance
You realize this is a contradiction, right? Acceptance is easy. Tolerance is hard. You get no moral credit for "tolerating" gays when you don't give a shit about who they are or what they do (as that is literally acceptance). Now, if the thought of gay men existing makes your blood boil, but you hold your tongue and vote for equality under the law despite your visceral emotional reaction, THAT'S tolerance.

>>62030392
man you like to seem so calm and collected but I bet you're frantically chewing your 7th burger by now, washing it down with soft drink(which you call soda kek). In no way was my comparison erroneous, as you implied that somehow pointing out the fact that our president is from an untouchable caste is me somehow admitting that caste system is still active in India. That is quite a twisted, and frankly feminine logic you use. To quote you:
>"You see the issue with the sentence you just typed, yes? In trying to refute the existence of a cast system, you referenced the existence of said system."
My redditor friend, it seems you need to hone your reasoning skills, for they continuously fail you in online debacles such as this.

File: 1485575072435.jpg (175KB, 753x1061px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 753x1061px

>>62030471

>>62030471
So we should do the same to the hard left for the same reason, right? Because of the social price advocating for communism, marxism, and anti-capitalism, right?

>>62030516
You made the comparison to slavery, and then said slavery was an erroneous comparison when I corrected you.

The fact that you referenced your leaders by caste means that the caste still exists. To give an accurate comparison, what you did was the logical equivalent of, "Transsexuals are not recognized as trans anymore. Our president is a trans woman, and our prime minister is a trans man!"

You see the error in logic there?

>>62030531
Civil war might be inevitable. Maybe it's better to have it sooner than later.

Fuck off its a free market

Right now it's neo-Nazis, tomorrow is moderate right, libertarians, etc then it's encryption, and then free software altogether.

>>62030551
>Fuck off its a free market
It quite literally is not. I'm not free to hire who I want, fire who I want, produce what I want, buy what I want or sell it to whom I want. It actually is about as far as you can get from a free market while still calling it a market.

Corporations control us because we voluntarily give them control. Stop using Orwellian services and support political candidates that would cut down government funding for these companies. Try to help create as close to a free market scenario as possible. Naturally, newer better products would spawn up.

>>62030563
Don't forget about all the bullshit licensing.

>>62030549
Good thing the extreme left and right only represent a tiny fraction of Americans overall. Most Americans really don't care about any of this, so I guess we could just herd these guys into the middle of nowhere and let them duke it out in a 'civil war'.

just dont buy google products

>>62030584
This guy is right>>62030587
Try creating a newer/better car, and producing it yourself.

>>62030591
see
>>62030560

>>62030594
With goggle upcoming mobile OS under a much simpler kernel, you might start seeing more derivatives of it on the market rather than everyone making android

>>62030560
I would like to see how someone could actually "ban" encryption or free software.

>>62023953
its always a bad thing when a company grows too much. multiple small companies would be better but that wont happen because dumb normies use whatever is advertised to them.

>>62030632
I think Wire and Tutamail/Protonmail are the solution that will see widespread implementation. Encryption that the company can't decrypt and datamine will wind up winning the day as soon as options that are massively appealing become available.

>>62030545
>caste system means mentioning people's caste
If only it was that simple
taing your example, I was saying
"Transsexuals are not oppressed anymore. Our president is a trans woman, and our prime minister is a trans man!"

>>62030627
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/australian-pm-calls-end-end-encryption-ban-says-laws-mathematics-dont-apply-down

Too bad they are our "right" wing politicians.
The left supports this, and other more retarded ideas.

>>62030584
Our economic systems are too advanced for such a system to work. Ever since stocks and shares were invented, companies basically became small nations themselves. A single human can never win against a nation. This was not an insurmountable problem for a long time, since companies were still small, so a family or a group of friends could still challenge a company. Nowadays, though, a company can employ hundreds of thousands of workers. There is no way you could challenge it. Crowd funding might still offer some kind of a solution ,but other than that companies are simply too powerful. Our current political climate has shown us that some companies are literally too big to fall. They have so much say in our politics that they are not private anymore. They might as well be our state.

>>62030663
You didn't argue that members of castes weren't oppressed. You argued that it doesn't exist. It clearly does, as you are referencing people's castes.

>>62030665
How could they conceivably enforce this? That's like making a law stating that it is illegal to piss into the bathtub.

>>62030684
>you are referencing people's castes.
Just because you can assign some arbitrary qualifier to a group of people doesn't mean that qualifier defines a caste. Otherwise the term would become meaningless. We'd have a cast of fast people, a caste of slow people, a caste for the tall, short, fat, skinny, hairy etc. We'd have a caste for people with 19 teeth, a caste for people with 1211 dollars in their bank account.

>>62030695
This is from the country that declared war on emus...

>>62030708
>Just because you can assign some arbitrary qualifier to a group of people doesn't mean that qualifier defines a caste

>That's why a person of untouchable caste is our president and a person of lower caste is our prime minister eh ?
You are literally calling them members of a caste, you retard.

>>62030684
Caste system doesn't mean people having castes though, it's designating certain jobs to certain castes and realising the fact that certain castes are inferior to certain castes. Hence me mentioning black slavery. Just like black slavery isn't "referencing someone's negroid ancestory", it is enslaving niggers, caste system isn't referencing someone caste but acting upon the rules set for particular castes.

>>62030739
>You are literally calling them members of a caste, you retard.
I'm not the same person, cunt.

>>62024490
that feature will be removed some day if googlefags think that its used by nazis. then the only way to load your own apps is using exploits.

>>62030758
>>62030759
Ok, well then you are arguing against something that was never argued. I only stated the caste system still exists. Saying your PM is untouchable only reinforces this claim.

>>62030791
>Ok, well then you are arguing against something that was never argued. I
I only said it's retarded to call every arbitrary qualifier a caste. That's my only input, and I don't care at all about you two throwing feces at each other and calling it an argument.

>>62024508
You know, I've seen quite a bit of 'hate speech', on Twitter, someone should really let google know

>>62024766
no one forces you to use those sites tho.

>>62030809
Nobody forces you to breathe either. That's a really poor argument for anything. Some things are essential for a decent life. In our modern society, internet and social media are such things.

>>62026170
>Then the incentive to even host these services would disappear.
implying that would be a bad thing

>>62026533
i dont understand this tolerance thing. its fine that terrorists kill people and everyone just understands and ignores it but its the end of the world if someone makes a blog post with words that some people do not like.

>>62024766
It's called switching services and trying to get away from them. Yes they have abused their Petty but nothing is stopping us from side loading the apps and unlocking our phones to make sure we can use them. Hit them where it hurts and eventually they will be weakened.

>>62028107
wouldnt the solution to that be not selling your shit to your competitor?

>>62028426
the law was made before modern big companies existed or anyone even thought that something like google could exist and thats why it should be rewritten

>>62025136
Then why not pay for the 4chan pass bypassing the captcha or use legacy captcha.

>>62030827
life is actually much better without those things.

>>62031492
>the 2nd amendment was made before modern firearms existed or anyone even thought that something like the AR-15 could exist and thats why it should be rewritten