Topic: Google allegedly prevent Trump from winning in 2020, push far left agenda - page 2. (Read 633 times)

Quote from: Mastrhiggins on June 26, 2019, 04:17:22 PM

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia .....

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

There are two impacts of flooding our borders with illegal immigrants.

First, there is the certainty that some of these will directly vote, illegally, in our elections.

Second there is a likelihood they will largely be Democratic voters, which would affect outcomes in swing states.

FYI, these are well understood tactics of the US Democratic Party, nothing new at all.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 1958

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 26, 2019, 04:14:00 PM

Quote from: Mastrhiggins on June 26, 2019, 04:12:25 PM

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

It is illegal for them to vote*

There, I fixed that for you.

Oh you are one of those conspiracy theorists I see.

So do not focus on Russia influencing the election because it favored your side but all of a sudden you are worried about Google doing the same thing. Wonder why?

Ah, ad hominem attacks, the last bastion of those without any logical argument. It is a fact that illegal aliens are voting even though they are legally prohibited from doing so. This is the main motivation behind issuing them drivers licenses, because many states automatically add people to the voter registration rolls when they apply for one. Russia isn't shipping millions of people into the country to vote. Russia also does not have the power to almost completely silence 50%+ of the population.

r1s2g3

sr. member

Activity: 742

Merit: 395

I am alive but in hibernation.

Surprising, Are you saying that Trump is not aware of it and did not warn these companies?
I think companies can be held accountable if they are discriminating the user on the basis of their political associations.

PrimeNumber7

copper member

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1899

Amazon Prime Member #7

Please discuss the Russia hoax elsewhere. That is off topic here.

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 26, 2019, 04:14:00 PM

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.

Mastrhiggins

jr. member

Activity: 31

Merit: 2

Quote from: Mastrhiggins on June 26, 2019, 04:12:25 PM

Quote from: Mastrhiggins on June 26, 2019, 04:12:25 PM

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

It is illegal for them to vote*

There, I fixed that for you.

Oh you are one of those conspiracy theorists I see.

So do not focus on Russia influencing the election because it favored your side but all of a sudden you are worried about Google doing the same thing. Wonder why?

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 1958

First Exclusion Ever

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

It is illegal for them to vote*

There, I fixed that for you.

Mastrhiggins

jr. member

Activity: 31

Merit: 2

Quote from: fatnet on June 26, 2019, 03:46:34 PM

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1386

...
freedom of speech and freedom of association cant exist without each other. while blocking google on banning ppl they want to ban on their servers they own you are being a threat to their freedom of association, which, btw, was in your law list till, if im not mistaking, 60s
ive already said, that laws are not the criteria of anything

What you are really saying is (blah-blah-blah) it's okay for Google to dictate the results of the next election.

And no, it's not.

fatnet

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 4

Quote from: Spendulus on June 26, 2019, 03:36:51 PM

Quote from: fatnet on June 26, 2019, 09:18:46 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 26, 2019, 09:14:49 AM

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.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

yeah, its unethical, but forbidding them doing this is much less ethical, ive already wrote my first reply in this thread about this

Nobody is forbidding them to break existing law.

There are simply clear consequences if they do, and they have.

Nobody is going to prevent them from doing things that cause them to do significant jail time.

freedom of speech and freedom of association cant exist without each other. while blocking google on banning ppl they want to ban on their servers they own you are being a threat to their freedom of association, which, btw, was in your law list till, if im not mistaking, 60s
ive already said, that laws are not the criteria of anything

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 1958

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: fatnet on June 26, 2019, 09:18:46 AM

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1386

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 26, 2019, 09:14:49 AM

Quote from: mOgliE on June 26, 2019, 10:43:39 AM

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.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

yeah, its unethical, but forbidding them doing this is much less ethical, ive already wrote my first reply in this thread about this

Nobody is forbidding them to break existing law.

There are simply clear consequences if they do, and they have.

Nobody is going to prevent them from doing things that cause them to do significant jail time.

fatnet

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 4

Who would have thought that giving too much power to companies without regulating them is a bad idea?

Incredible no?

corporation called google has too much power?
lets give enough power to corporation called america to destroy it.
lol

mOgliE

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1251

Who would have thought that giving too much power to companies without regulating them is a bad idea?

Incredible no?

fatnet

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 4

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 26, 2019, 09:14:49 AM

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.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

yeah, its unethical, but forbidding them doing this is much less ethical, ive already wrote my first reply in this thread about this

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 1958

First Exclusion Ever

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.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

fatnet

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 4

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.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 1958

First Exclusion Ever