Please discuss the Russia hoax elsewhere. That is off topic here.
im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.
This is the classic Libertarian view. I usually am in favor of free markets, but not with the major tech companies. I don’t think these companies are doing business fairly in an objective sense. They earn money via advertising for the most part and mostly do not charge their users. In an open and free market, I would expect to see companies compete with google and other tech companies by paying customers to use their services but we are not seeing that.
More importantly, google and other tech companies have special protection from the government from legal liability for libel. In exchange for receiving this protection, it should not be unreasonable to expect these companies to be neutral, at least towards mainstream ideas.
well im not a libertarian you mean but my ethics views are libertarian
any info about prorection they receive from the government? im not trolling, ive never heard it before. if they receive they should just stop receiving it lol.
i know, that big tech companies dont pay taxes not because of laws but because they can, which shows
how useless progressive taxation is how bad they are, but you should punish them for not paying taxes, not for banning trump supporters
The protection I am referring to is the protection from libel lawsuits under section 230 of the DCMA. If a tech company displays content that is libelous to a third party, written by another third party, it cannot be sued for libel by the defamed party, even if they are aware of the defamation.
This protection from defamation lawsuits is a key part of tech companies business models because they do not have to validate truth to what they display.
The idea behind this protection is it promotes open and free speech, and debate.
Project Veritas has shown google to removing a portion of free and open debate and speech, while keeping the low costs and positive user experience associated with not having to moderate content for truth.
Taxation is an entirely different issue. All corporations do their best to pay as little taxes as they can while following the law. If they paid more taxes than the law requires, they would be short-charging their shareholders. Taxing corporations in the first place is a form of double taxation because owners of corporations will pay taxes on dividends or capital gains, in addition to the corporation paying taxes on its income.
