Post: #1

Remember the media attack on pewdiepie and the attempts to deprive him of revenue streams?

What is happening to all figures who are deplatformed off patreon and Paypal including centrists like Sargon of Akkad is Economic Warfare:





What are your thoughts?

Post: #2

These are private companies. They can refuse customers. They can use whatever excuse they want. For example: "Your head is ugly. I don't want your videos on MY platform." or "I can make more profit by removing your videos from MY platform."

They can even remove the entire platform. Perhaps tomorrow Google decides that Youtube is not profitable enough and delete it all. Nothing you can do about it. Google owns the servers, the infrastructure and pays the bills to keep those things running.

It is not a public service.

Post: #3

Not really. A business cannot discriminate on various grounds protected by the constitution. This is what they are doing. They will eventually face class action lawsuits. When the DOJ finally pulls its head out of its ass they will be getting cleaned out.

Post: #4

I always wondered. How do Libertardians reconcile their love of free markets with the corporate clampdown on free speech?

Post: #5

(12-15-2018 09:04 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I always wondered. How do Libertardians reconcile their love of free markets with the corporate clampdown on free speech?

Free market at work, brah.

/libertard

Post: #6

(12-15-2018 08:16 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  It is not a public service.

Then they're liable for everything posted on there. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

These tech giants are essentially a public utility at this point, and water companies for example (at least not yet) don't shut off your water because you're a right winger.

Post: #7

Laws have not kept up with tech.
Banks can't deny someone a bank account, even if the customer has committed bank fraud before. Let alone someone whose views they disagree with. Phone companies can't deny service. Utility companies can't deny service even to a murderer who has done his time, let alone someone who votes the wrong way. These things were hashed out a century ago through court cases and legislation. We either do the same with the new tech, or there is going to be social disruption.

Post: #8

I think they have to stop lying to the public by acting like they are politically neutral and not discriminating against conservatives. It's false advertising, a deceptive trade practice. Think about what would happen to Google's market capitalization if it was officially announced that they were liberals who supported the Democratic Party and oppose the GOP and Trump. Setting aside the argument that they are a publisher, with the cat out of the bag users would abandon ship and new platforms would become viable.

A billion dollar lie is worth retelling for some.

Post: #9

(12-15-2018 08:16 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  These are private companies. They can refuse customers. They can use whatever excuse they want. For example: "Your head is ugly. I don't want your videos on MY platform." or "I can make more profit by removing your videos from MY platform."

They can even remove the entire platform. Perhaps tomorrow Google decides that Youtube is not profitable enough and delete it all. Nothing you can do about it. Google owns the servers, the infrastructure and pays the bills to keep those things running.

It is not a public service.

I'm surprised to see the "muh private company" argument here. Fact is these companies are monopolies in their sectors that were built upon public funds (e.g. internet). There is no viable alternatives to Paypal/Amazon/Visa/etc. If you are a monopoly, you are not merely a "private company", and must therefore be regulated.

Post: #10

We need the adoption of cryptocurrencies now more than ever.

Post: #11

(12-15-2018 12:27 PM)zoom Wrote:  We need the adoption of cryptocurrencies now more than ever.

That exactly is the trap they are trying to lure you into. Who do you think a GLOBAL unregulated distributed currency serves and will support more: conservative nationalists or the globalists?

Plus cryptocurrencies are similarly controlled. You basically switch from a cabal of private bankers to a handful of crypto nerds who at best have only an academic understanding of how currencies work. For proof of that look no further than the recent BCH fork debacle.

If you want to put your savings into their hands, go right ahead. At least with the Feds I know what I get: ~2% inflation of my assets every year and zero interest rates. Yeah, that's a shit sandwich but it beats the alternative: sudden death syndrome on a recurring basis.

But anyway, you guys must wrap your collective brains around the fact that a GLOBAL distributed currency outside of the control of nationalist governments are diametrically opposed to national conservative cultures and their respective economic interests. Again, for a good example of something very similar look at the Euro and what it has done to the economies of Southern Europe.

Crypto currencies represent a huge red herring inspired by the 2008 financial crisis. It started out with very good intentions but as the old saying goes....

Post: #12

(12-15-2018 01:31 PM)redpillage Wrote:  Cryptocurrency Rant

I think you went way off topic. If someone gets deplatformed from paypal, stripe, etc then I can send them payments/donations via cryptocurrency. It's a permissionless transaction that can't be blocked. If they want to sell that cryptocurrency for USD then they have the option to do so.

Post: #13

Allow me to play the Devil's advocate for a moment, alright?

Regulation is just another word for control. If you want control then you need to pay.

Water is a public service because it is payed for by tax money. Or to be more precise; the pipes below ground are public. The water is public. You pay for the cleaning and transport of the water. At least that is how it works here.

Amazon is not anything like this. Its warehouses, trucks, datacenters and the cables used to transport this data is all private and owned by corporations. They can always decide to move away or to stop business.

The place to find public books is a publicly funded library. Many libraries have extensive digital collections.

The internet itself is run by corporations. It might be "invented" at universities (and military) and the original research be publicly funded, but this is certainly not the case anymore. All recent (30+ years) developments of protocols and whatnot has been done by corporations like Microsoft, Google, IBM, Intel, Apple, etc. Besides and more importantly, all the cables, datacenters, servers, etc. are all owned and developed by corporations.

At best a small bit of cable in front of your house (or perhaps some bigger cables) is publicly funded. Everything else (including the undersea cables) is privately funded. Hell, even the electricity is in most cases privately funded.

None of these companies have anything close to a monopoly.

How does Amazon have a monopoly? The printing press was invented ages ago. You can ship books all around the world using FedEx and other companies. You can start your own online shop within a few minutes if you want.

How is PayPal a monopoly? There are countless different ways to transfer money around. Both offline and online. PayPal has many competitors.

Post: #14

(12-15-2018 12:26 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 08:16 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  These are private companies. They can refuse customers. They can use whatever excuse they want. For example: "Your head is ugly. I don't want your videos on MY platform." or "I can make more profit by removing your videos from MY platform."

They can even remove the entire platform. Perhaps tomorrow Google decides that Youtube is not profitable enough and delete it all. Nothing you can do about it. Google owns the servers, the infrastructure and pays the bills to keep those things running.

It is not a public service.

I'm surprised to see the "muh private company" argument here. Fact is these companies are monopolies in their sectors that were built upon public funds (e.g. internet). There is no viable alternatives to Paypal/Amazon/Visa/etc. If you are a monopoly, you are not merely a "private company", and must therefore be regulated.

Zuckerberg and Google are in bed with the NSA and CIA. They want regulation.

Post: #15

(12-15-2018 03:19 PM)zoom Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 01:31 PM)redpillage Wrote:  Cryptocurrency Rant

I think you went way off topic. If someone gets deplatformed from paypal, stripe, etc then I can send them payments/donations via cryptocurrency. It's a permissionless transaction that can't be blocked. If they want to sell that cryptocurrency for USD then they have the option to do so.

Oh I see - opposing viewpoints = VERBOTEN and are ridiculed. I guess this thread will be better off without me then. Have fun in your little echo chamber.

Post: #16

Rather than arguing with "muh private company monopoly" proponents it's better to just circumvent these companies if possible instead of holding your breath for the government to intervene.

Encourage use of Bitcoin and other crypto currency to get around payment processors like PayPal.

Post: #17

(12-15-2018 04:31 PM)renotime Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 12:26 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 08:16 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  These are private companies. They can refuse customers. They can use whatever excuse they want. For example: "Your head is ugly. I don't want your videos on MY platform." or "I can make more profit by removing your videos from MY platform."

They can even remove the entire platform. Perhaps tomorrow Google decides that Youtube is not profitable enough and delete it all. Nothing you can do about it. Google owns the servers, the infrastructure and pays the bills to keep those things running.

It is not a public service.

I'm surprised to see the "muh private company" argument here. Fact is these companies are monopolies in their sectors that were built upon public funds (e.g. internet). There is no viable alternatives to Paypal/Amazon/Visa/etc. If you are a monopoly, you are not merely a "private company", and must therefore be regulated.

Zuckerberg and Google are in bed with the NSA and CIA. They want regulation.

Not all forms of regulation are the same, however. Fundamentally it is correct that FB & Google want regulation that is going to act as a form of regulatory capture. However it's definitely possible that regulation could be drafted (if only Congress understood the internet / was not in the pocket of corporate interests) to enforce data privacy and other measures that would severely kneecap companies like Google & FB that rely upon spying to make their bucks.

Where I would start would be that ISPs are not allowed to snoop on customers' packets or usage patterns, and the social media networks > X size must provide cryptographically anonymization of all user data that can only be accessed using the user's cryptographic key. Enforce that users own their data, not Google / Facebook, and any attempts to access it must be directly authorized by users. Beyond that, I'd like to enforce that tech companies are literally unable to know who their users are, but this doesn't seem reconciliable with online personality-based brands. In those cases where moderation occurs the companies should be expected to publicly disclose all of their decisionmaking processes & data, with some type of judicial oversight for actions that involve censorship or account removal.

Post: #18

Every single private entity providing internet services could be set up in a unregulated/peer based/anonymous style environment. It's what the net does best - decentralised and remove control.


Facebook, google, twitter could all be replaced overnight with other platforms, if the majority of their users really are unhappy with the private companies doing it all for free currently.

Post: #19

(12-15-2018 12:26 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 08:16 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  These are private companies. They can refuse customers. They can use whatever excuse they want. For example: "Your head is ugly. I don't want your videos on MY platform." or "I can make more profit by removing your videos from MY platform."

They can even remove the entire platform. Perhaps tomorrow Google decides that Youtube is not profitable enough and delete it all. Nothing you can do about it. Google owns the servers, the infrastructure and pays the bills to keep those things running.

It is not a public service.

I'm surprised to see the "muh private company" argument here. Fact is these companies are monopolies in their sectors that were built upon public funds (e.g. internet). There is no viable alternatives to Paypal/Amazon/Visa/etc. If you are a monopoly, you are not merely a "private company", and must therefore be regulated.

With deplatforming there is an amazing amount of coordination and timing etc Patreon and Paypal deplatforming in tandem along with other companies that have been named to deplatform in coordination with those 2 payment companies.

Plus Visa and Mastercard has a chokehold which makes them quite strategically placed.

Post: #20

The libertarian notion that government never does anything right, and prosperity comes from private companies competing in a "free market" is a dangerous mythology.

The recent major inventions of this century came from 100% government funding. The cell phone was developed by researchers from JPL (NASA funded) who left and started Qualcomm as well as all the spread spectrum and coding used in cell phones came directly out of US military research. The Internet came out of the Arpanet which was government funded by DARPA (I had several accounts on the Arpanet in the 80s before the Internet came on line). Researchers, funded by government, at institutions like Stanford are in an advantageous position to move government funded inventions into private companies. In other words, the Internet was 100% funded by the American taxpayer.

Now that the Internet is a public forum, it has become an indispensable utility, and there is no justification for giving arbitrary power to individuals to keep out ideas they don't approve of, just because they were given a privileged position to do so. And there are also Antitrust laws on the books to break up monopolies. There needs to be a serious discussion and rules set out on what is a public forum and what is a private business in relation to the Internet.

Post: #21

Section 230
Marsh vs Alabama
Monopoly rules
Private company towns with public spaces

Nothing new here just in cyber space, they need to get their asses
handed to them

Post: #22

not exactly related to deplatforming, but I just learned a few days ago that the "breakup" of AT&T in the 80s has been completely undone without a peep from the media (or at least what I've taken in). all the "Baby Bells" are back together as one, plus more. I guess antitrust law is really dead.

Post: #23

(12-15-2018 06:43 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Every single private entity providing internet services could be set up in a unregulated/peer based/anonymous style environment. It's what the net does best - decentralised and remove control.


Facebook, google, twitter could all be replaced overnight with other platforms, if the majority of their users really are unhappy with the private companies doing it all for free currently.

New distributed platforms are the way forward however for many services it will be an uphill struggle if it's at all possible because of natural monopolies.

For example:

Google Search is incredibly difficult to do in a decentralised fashion because building an algorithm for search relevance takes years, people are used to it being a free utility and they won't give up the convenience/time-saving of seeing accurate results. There are a few projects like Presearch attempting to compete but so far haven't produced anything significant.

DNS (domain name resolution) is another difficult centralised system to change. You've got the power of ICANN, domain registries (VeriSign etc), domain registrars (GoDaddy etc), certificate authorities (Symantec etc), DNS hosts (Cloudflare etc). There are projects like Handshake who are attempting to decentralise this but gaining critical mass will be incredibly hard with so many interests aligned against it.

Other platforms are relatively simple to create decentralised alternatives for like social media, e-commerce, file hosting etc but there are a few areas where gaining a significant base of users will take a decade at the minimum.

Post: #24

I've always been curious whether the boycott could be applied in this day and age as an economic counter-strike without the target suing anyone who refused to have any commerce with them.

Can someone bring action if you don't deal with them on account of their objectionable beliefs? I think Britain might see this owing to divisions brought about by Brexit (probably in small numbers and pretty passive-aggressive in delivery, iff at all, because we're British) and it's the kind of measure there isn't any real retaliation to. If there was an organised refusal to not make transfers via PayPal, even by a minority of customers, or shoppers protested Amazon by buying on the high street or just through other websites, surely that'll make people notice.
And if individuals were singled out and sent to Coventry-shunned socially, for those of you who don't know our geography, there's probably no way to prevent it, since objecting makes them look the more unlikeable.
Obviously it's never that simple to organise or target, as whoever noplatforms media that's right of centre or even common-sense is likely to be an anomymous drone at YouTube or some professional bed-wetters with a hashtag, but it could be done and it couldn't be stopped.

Post: #25

Sam Harris leaves Patreon