Free Speech Is Hate Speech!?

>>138661134
Naturally I disagree but am not too concerned as, those systems will die and be replaces as they are very much replaceable and these actions you mention are not popular with the public.

I don't think 4chan will be next no.

>>138661134
Everyone will be next
party thought is the only acceptable thought

>>138661470
You really think youtube,google, and twitter will just die? that seems a ridiculous notion.

>>138662136
The way they are setup, and overreaching the boundaries more and more. They are destined to
If not fail(twitter will very soon), they will get regulated

>>138662136
Google/YouTube are losing significant profits, the hierarchy and employment of google has become just like a cult.

Twitter is doing worse economic factor wise.

Yes I do think such from a business perspective.
It will be good and important for these monopolies to die and be replaces with a variety of options.

>>138662136
Within a month everyone seemed to switch from myspace to facebook. Soon you will hear people say "Eww you still twitter". People have always rejected censorship, it is only a fringe group of whiners pushing all this hate speech nonsense.

Hate speech doesn't exist. Only cowards cry ''hate speech'', because they're weak and can't handle the truth.

America was founded, and built by, and for white men. Niggers and communists aren't allowed to dictate what should or shouldn't be said.

>>138663335
The group crying hate speech at everything are addicts. They are addicted to the attention they get on social media. It is very similar to a gambling addiction.

>>138661134
Until they become utilities private websites can censor their user base all they want. Religous cake shops shouldn't have to make cakes for gays and special snow flakes dont have to tolerate you ruining their day on social media.

Only objectionable speech needs protecting.
If you say something no-one could find offensive, that challenges no-one, that no-one could object to, why would it need protection?

That being said private companies should be able to do what they want, but it cuts both ways. Twitter wants to ban "hate speech"? Fine. Baker doesn't want to bake a gay cake? Fine.

>>138664094
It matters if the bakery has 95% of the market

File: zvliR1w.gif (31KB, 318x472px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 318x472px

they might be fringe groups but tjey have alot of support from the left and mainstream media. with allies like these companies, the democrats and soros i think its a big concern.

>>138661470
4chan will always be here unless whoever owns it sells us out to big corporations

>>138661134
god gagged chicks are such a turn on thank u anon

suggestive img ftw!

>>138662136
You really think that AOL, Netscape, and Altavista will just die?

>>138667613
First that was like the dark ages of the internet. These new companies provide superior service by comparison and have far more capital and funding. everyone in the world uses google. so the way people access and percieve information can be very skewed and manipulated by google search engine to cherry pick desired results.

>>138663860
And boom goes the dynamite
Thats a clever observation.

>>138661134
If we ban all manners of speech with genuine vitriol behind it then >99% of Americans will never be allowed to say anything again, ever. Actually, that's fine count me on board.

>>138669483
life in america would be a silent film lol

>>138668799
And any company can pay Google to show it's business ads #1, or not show its competitors...
Yey capitalism...!?

>>138661134
4chan has rules to. the most important thing is that the internet itself is free to host sites by anyone, that way if a censor is happening someone can move sites. Although that'd be sad for 4chan: there are people on here who have only used this site for 6+ YEARS.

>>138669731
adds and business competion vs 1st amend rights are two very different things.

File: tarkin1.jpg (11KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x300px

>>138661134
We need to be less concerned with that private companies are doing with 'free speech' right now and more concerned with what our universities are teaching.

All of this anti-free speech and thought control shit comes from the professors and activists in the universities. They are turning an entire generation of youth into Marxists, into authoritarians.

They are consumerist whores and so the businesses cater to them to avoid bad press and profit losses but... they are just being influenced by them.


What happens in another 20 or 30 years when all these kids are actually the ones running the businesses and the government?


Is it going to be easier to stop them now when they are seeking institutional power or later when they actually have it?

>>138670134
this. well said. i wanted to mention this as well but thought i should stick to one topic for simplicity. thanks again.

>>138670134
>>138670592
I should add that the media being Leftists also plays a role here because they magnify the college indoctrinated youths' voices

They are ultimately the ones who control the bad press and thus the risks to profit for any company that comes out against the Left Wing

>>138670134
>>138670592
I just want to reiterate that the University Hard-Left Indoctrination thing is a long-term cultural Bomb waiting to go off in the same vein as the demographic bomb