Trump= 2A threat.

[Joe_K]

This is why Machine Guns, SBR’s, SBS’, AOW’s, DD’s, Mail order surplus rifles, shotguns, and handguns, Chinese firearm imports, SVD’s, Russian 5.45x39 7N6 ammo, Russian AK’s, and for a time Pistol braces were either flat out illegal, or highly regulated. Because people said to themselves “Well it don’t effect me none, I don’t use _______XYZ item, so as long as it doesn’t effect me, it’s cool!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrPrena]

This is why Machine Guns, SBR’s, SBS’, AOW’s, DD’s, Mail order surplus rifles, shotguns, and handguns, Chinese firearm imports, SVD’s, Russian 5.45x39 7N6 ammo, Russian AK’s, and for a time Pistol braces were either flat out illegal, or highly regulated. Because people said to themselves “Well it don’t effect me none, I don’t use _______XYZ item, so as long as it doesn’t effect me, it’s cool!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1.

[Skip]

I know it’s hard for some to comprehend but their is a comprehensive all out, bare knuckled, no rules assault being carried out NOW on YOUR 2A and the rights recognized therein. Also believe it or not but YouTube channels like MAC, Hank Strange, MrGunsandgear, Reid Henrichs, and others HAVE more pull and sway over the outcome on this fight than the NRA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reading about this on Twitter today too. Google owns YouTube and is not just censoring pro gun channels/people but pulling search results. They are targeting not just gun owners but anyone questioning these mass murder shootings (e.g. "crisis actors").

I think the answer here is to nationalize these search engines and socials for the greater good. They are no longer content providers but free speech facilitators who have a monopoly on information. If they want to take a position in the marketplace of ideas, that's fine. But using their personal beliefs to censor means they are shutting down the marketplace against common interests

An analogy... Imagine three companies in 1776 owning all the printing presses and refusing to sell one to Franklin. If a person doesn't have a vehicle for free speech, he has no free speech.

(I'm half way kidding, relax. I do think it should be threatened... Use their own rules against them.)

[Grant H.]

Reading about this on Twitter today too. Google owns YouTube and is not just censoring pro gun channels/people but pulling search results. They are targeting not just gun owners but anyone questioning these mass murder shootings (e.g. "crisis actors").

I think the answer here is to nationalize these search engines and socials for the greater good. They are no longer content providers but free speech facilitators who have a monopoly on information. If they want to take a position in the marketplace of ideas, that's fine. But using their personal beliefs to censor means they are shutting down the marketplace against common interests

An analogy... Imagine three companies in 1776 owning all the printing presses and refusing to sell one to Franklin. If a person doesn't have a vehicle for free speech, he has no free speech.

(I'm half way kidding, relax. I do think it should be threatened... Use their own rules against them.)

Unfortunately, Youtube/Twitter/FB/Instagram etc, are private companies that provide a service and can therefore restrict what information is shared on their service. While they are large and do, in effect, maintain a monopoly on information on the internet, there are alternatives to Google/Youtube/etc (not so much FB, if you want to avoid corporate data farming and control), so anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws don't apply currently.

To change this, they would have to be classified as a public service, and would then be required to allow all messages, but would restrict them in other ways (FCC decent language and conduct rules).

This kind of move may be coming, but will bring a whole new set of problems with it. While I agree that there is an "all out, no holds barred" war against the second amendment, and the voices on YT are an important part of the puzzle, they are, in fact, using a companies service and being paid in the process...

The reality of "he who pays the piper, picks the tune" is absolutely true.

[Skip]

Unfortunately, Youtube/Twitter/FB/Instagram etc, are private companies that provide a service and can therefore restrict what information is shared on their service. While they are large and do, in effect, maintain a monopoly on information on the internet, there are alternatives to Google/Youtube/etc (not so much FB, if you want to avoid corporate data farming and control), so anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws don't apply currently.

To change this, they would have to be classified as a public service, and would then be required to allow all messages, but would restrict them in other ways (FCC decent language and conduct rules).

This kind of move may be coming, but will bring a whole new set of problems with it. While I agree that there is an "all out, no holds barred" war against the second amendment, and the voices on YT are an important part of the puzzle, they are, in fact, using a companies service and being paid in the process...

The reality of "he who pays the piper, picks the tune" is absolutely true.

Use the Bell model. Zuckerberg has too much money anyway.

Forward!

(I don't believe this should be done, but in the world Libs are creating it would only be consistent)

[Grant H.]

Use the Bell model. Zuckerberg has too much money anyway.

Forward!

(I don't believe this should be done, but in the world Libs are creating it would only be consistent)

Wouldn't do anything to Zuckerberg's financial situation. Xcel still gets to make a profit.

Google and all the others will still get to make money, even if they were turned into a government allowed/protected monopoly on the internet.

[Skip]

Wouldn't do anything to Zuckerberg's financial situation. Xcel still gets to make a profit.

Google and all the others will still get to make money, even if they were turned into a government allowed/protected monopoly on the internet.

Sigh. Why are you crushing my collectivist dreams?

The Bell approach would break YT from Google and give YT it's own board that would have to be independent. If those officers in anyway colluded with Google to sensor free speech it would be a criminal offense. Doesn't FB own IG? Same approach.

Ultimately we need freedom focused platforms and now the have the precedent to censor speech we don't like even if it violates our mission statement ("town square").

[Grant H.]

Sigh. Why are you crushing my collectivist dreams?

The Bell approach would break YT from Google and give YT it's own board that would have to be independent. If those officers in anyway colluded with Google to sensor free speech it would be a criminal offense. Doesn't FB own IG? Same approach.

Ultimately we need freedom focused platforms and now the have the precedent to censor speech we don't like even if it violates our mission statement ("town square").

LOL... Sorry, wasn't exactly picking up the direction you were going.

Agreed.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I think the answer here is to nationalize these search engines and socials for the greater good. They are no longer content providers but free speech facilitators who have a monopoly on information. If they want to take a position in the marketplace of ideas, that's fine. But using their personal beliefs to censor means they are shutting down the marketplace against common interests

No, nationalizing assets is what the regressive Stalinists/Maoists do. I'd say the thing to do is hit them where it hurts and show the public that Google/YouTube are NOT free speech facilitators but in fact speech monetizers and censors. In addition to that, set up the infrastructure and monetization that directs people to a different domain for free speech about the Second and Tenth Amendments or other issues that Google stomps on. These channels host on YouTube because they make it free and easy but there's no reason they couldn't host the videos elsewhere. Yes, they'd have to pay for storage and bandwidth but Google pays for that now and gets its money back by monetizing the content. Creators could monetize their content themselves instead of letting Google make all (or most) of the money from them.

The other excuse I hear is that YouTube makes it easy for people to search for video content but if someone has a link to your webpage, you can already point them to your videos regardless of where they are hosted.

[Skip]

No, nationalizing assets is what the regressive Stalinists/Maoists do. I'd say the thing to do is hit them where it hurts and show the public that Google/YouTube are NOT free speech facilitators but in fact speech monetizers and censors. In addition to that, set up the infrastructure and monetization that directs people to a different domain for free speech about the Second and Tenth Amendments or other issues that Google stomps on. These channels host on YouTube because they make it free and easy but there's no reason they couldn't host the videos elsewhere. Yes, they'd have to pay for storage and bandwidth but Google pays for that now and gets its money back by monetizing the content. Creators could monetize their content themselves instead of letting Google make all (or most) of the money from them.

The other excuse I hear is that YouTube makes it easy for people to search for video content but if someone has a link to your webpage, you can already point them to your videos regardless of where they are hosted.

That's my point.

If we live in a post-Constitutional America, let's get post-Constitutional already!

I too think the solution is to create Conservative platforms but I am reminded of how Gab was attacked and similars. Unless you are hosted at Sealand, you are vulnerable. Net Neutrality was an attempt to bring much of the webs under centralized control.

It would be all too easy to say a Conservative platform is harmful (e.g. Russian bots interfering in an election) and censor.

I think the general public knows these companies do actively censor. There are two groups that fall along the lines of political polarization...

1. Those who are okay with it because their political enemies are harmed
2. Those who are not okay with because they are harmed