Web giants to cooperate on removal of extremist content

originally posted by: JinMI
Oddly, these are private companies and to their own discretions, can terminate content based on "extreme" views. I don't like that...you shouldn't either.

So private companies should do what you tell them to do, and the owners of the service should have no say in what is on their websites etc!

a reply to: hellobruce

Please quote where I said that. Seeing is that they are corporations, the are not beholden to grant freedom of speech on their sites should they not want to as I've said a few times now in this very thread.


Private companies are being pushed by the government to censor. That is what is highlighted in this thread.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

Just curious, why don't you sign your name and address at the end of your posts or in your signature.

Some people have taken my screen name and figured out my personal information from it through cross referencing other things on the internet. But, the reason I don't is that I like having some degree of anonymity. As I said though, anonymity isn't always beneficial, even when we want it.

In this case, removing it would end most of the extremism without any censorship being required.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Aazadan

So lets say there is a process. What keeps the government from censoring?

Free speech laws. It's still a violation if a government asks a corporation to do it.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I used to wonder if this was happening at times, on certain websites. Because it seemed like people couldn't see a few comments I made.

Is this really a proven thing?

Yes. It takes people longer to catch on so they don't make new accounts to circumvent the ban.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Aazadan

So lets say there is a process. What keeps the government from censoring?

Free speech laws. It's still a violation if a government asks a corporation to do it.

Well..there's laws against theft. Just sayin.

a reply to: odzeandennzapparently you didn't see the psa that this site posted saying that pizzagate stuff violated their blah blah blah . censorship is censorship. Iam not saying pizzagate true or false but the fact that the powers that be can get it stopped here is truly eye opening. but back to topic at hand companies are gonna do what they want they always have they always will.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: odzeandennzapparently you didn't see the psa that this site posted saying that pizzagate stuff violated their blah blah blah . censorship is censorship. Iam not saying pizzagate true or false but the fact that the powers that be can get it stopped here is truly eye opening. but back to topic at hand companies are gonna do what they want they always have they always will.

Mods and owners have already told the Name removal happenned BEFORE the Pizzagate removal.

Before not after.

originally posted by: JinMI
Well..there's laws against theft. Just sayin.

Who is stealing? I'm hoping you're not making some sort of taxes=theft argument. Instead I'll assume you're making a point that there's laws against theft but it still happens, so requiring an identity leads to greater problems with identity theft. That's true to an extent, but if we used biometric ID's it would be a lot harder to commit identity fraud under such a system.

Microsoft Facebook and some others .. as long as its their Own Website

most have forgot that Firefox & Google



Protest Against Censorship years Back !!

as The Government Tried before ...

the Countries that Do and America right behind them








Blame This Guy


but Dont Forget Boys n Girls
Theres a Country Like This Already




The North Koreans think this Guy is a Jesus Christ

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JinMI
Well..there's laws against theft. Just sayin.

Who is stealing? I'm hoping you're not making some sort of taxes=theft argument. Instead I'll assume you're making a point that there's laws against theft but it still happens, so requiring an identity leads to greater problems with identity theft. That's true to an extent, but if we used biometric ID's it would be a lot harder to commit identity fraud under such a system.

I'm glad you worked out my logic in writing. That's actually pretty funny.

Yes, I was highlighting the fact that laws exists and still get broken. For reference, do you remember when "eyes everywhere" and "big brother" were just conspiracy theories? To me, this is just another step in that direction.

the handful of internet Giants, the ones worth hundreds-of-Billions each...

who are in process of creating a 'Fake News' screen to separate Reality from Propaganda...

I wish they thoughtfully consider assigning Jihadists/Radical-Terrorists to a 'fake religion' status and consign the hate-speech and social-media hyped by these Fake-Religion entities to the 'Round-File' (old time waste basket)


only with that kind of appropriate re-classification will I be able to 'look-up' to this cabal of internet veracity underwriters

(sort of like a certificate of approval agency used in the past to rate movies or other entertainment content...)
otherwise that same cabal of big-money corps. would just be puppets of the globalists we're trying to eject from media

a reply to: JinMI

Laws get broken but laws are still a significant mitigating factor.

a reply to: Aazadan

I can't disagree with that.

I want you to take notice however that the ones you are entrusting with the proposed verification are the same ones that would write those laws. Surely you can see the slippery slope here.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Aazadan

So lets say there is a process. What keeps the government from censoring?

Free speech laws. It's still a violation if a government asks a corporation to do it.

What free speech laws? The US relinquished internet oversight, US laws will no longer apply. Just look at whats happening all of a sudden you have Merkel and obama talking about fake news and censoring what tey deem as hate speech. The ball is already rolling. Things are going to start getting very different on the internet.

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Aazadan

So lets say there is a process. What keeps the government from censoring?

Free speech laws. It's still a violation if a government asks a corporation to do it.

What free speech laws? The US relinquished internet oversight, US laws will no longer apply. Just look at whats happening all of a sudden you have Merkel and obama talking about fake news and censoring what tey deem as hate speech. The ball is already rolling. Things are going to start getting very different on the internet.

Trump could dissolve that deal and take it back just as easily since its a US based company as a national security matter.

originally posted by: mkultra11
What free speech laws? The US relinquished internet oversight, US laws will no longer apply. Just look at whats happening all of a sudden you have Merkel and obama talking about fake news and censoring what tey deem as hate speech. The ball is already rolling. Things are going to start getting very different on the internet.

I don't think you understand what the US gave up. More accurately, we didn't give up anything.

US law still applies to websites, servers, and so on that are hosted in the US or do business in the US.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Aazadan

I can't disagree with that.

I want you to take notice however that the ones you are entrusting with the proposed verification are the same ones that would write those laws. Surely you can see the slippery slope here.

Entrusting them is kind of irrelevant at this point. The databases that would be used already exist, and we're never going to get rid of them. It's not authorizing more information being collected and stored. As long as we're already taking the security risk of them existing in the first place, we might as well get some public good out of them.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes the list, no matter how complete, is a list. What your talking about would be attributing a very traceable person to each name. Granted, we may already be there.