Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Who Will Google Silence Next?" video.

  1. Certainly Marxists use the term Fascist to mean anybody who disagrees with them. It does not follow that everyone who uses the term means that. Fascism means: 1. Everything controlled by, but not necessarily administered or owned by, the state. 2. Central control of media. 3. Strict control of expression of thought within narrow bounds (narrow "Overton Window") 4. "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state" That is precisely what Google supports, and what we oppose, and what we meant.
    9
  2. +Tycho Caine " Until a court case happens in which YouTube is categorized as a 'public commons'" Until they are sued, no court case will happen at all. This is the sort of case that can establish this sort of precedent. "Lol they own YT" Legalities aside for the moment, what would any decent person find amusing about this situation? Leftists are always complaining about authoritarian corporate power, here it is on display and they are silent, or supporting the bad guys. Here is what separates the leftists from the liberals. “This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” (Prager ) concerning the "private property" dodge, quoting from the complaint: http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf Defendants believe that they have unfettered, unbridled, and unrestricted power to censor speech or discriminate against public speakers at their whim for any reason, including their animus toward and political viewpoints of their public users and providers of video content, because Defendants are for profit organizations rather than governmental entities. Google/YouTube, you are wrong. As the California Supreme Court has stated: “[t]he idea that private property can constitute a public forum for free speech if it is open to the public in a manner similar to that of public streets and sidewalks” has long been he law in California. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 858. The United States Supreme Court also recognized more than a half century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property. /end quote Folks, the venue (California courts and/or California juries) may well militate against their winning (due to the bias of California courts and juries), but they wouldn't have brought the suit if they didn't have a case. It is not as simple as you're trying to make it. And as for taking sides, do you want to keep your free speech? Martin Niemöller First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
    8
  3. "Yes, because a private company has absolutely no rights" It is unclear what you mean. By ample legal precedent, a private company cannot interfere with free speech in a venue open to the public, just because they own the land the speech takes place on. They have some rights. They don't have THAT right.
    7
  4. +Pedagogic "Do something about it." +IFlax "Pedagogic it’s close to impossible" +Pedagogic "IFlax I know that's why I think complaining about it is pointless." Martin Niemöller First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Jesus Christ I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
    6
  5. "You cant say he was in favor of trotsky and against socialism" But I can say he was against what he saw as socialist tyranny. In fact, I believe I did.
    4
  6. "The revolutionary communist George Orwell? " The REFORMED revolutionary communist George Orwell. In "1984" Winston knew that "The Party" had once had a name, "EngSoc" (English socialism). He wrote "1984" and "Animal Farm" to warn against socialist tyrany. He continued to believe that a socialist dictatorship was very likely, but he was no longer in favor of it.
    3
  7. +Nicolas Fouqet "repeating the slogans of the marxists." Alright, fake fascist black flag front of the communists, what "slogans of the Marxists" are you talking about?
    2
  8. Leftists are always complaining about authoritarian corporate power, here it is on display and they are silent, or supporting the bad guys. Here is what separates the leftists from the liberals. “This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” (Prager ) Concerning the "private property" dodge, quoting from the complaint: http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf Defendants believe that they have unfettered, unbridled, and unrestricted power to censor speech or discriminate against public speakers at their whim for any reason, including their animus toward and political viewpoints of their public users and providers of video content, because Defendants are for profit organizations rather than governmental entities. Google/YouTube, you are wrong. As the California Supreme Court has stated: “[t]he idea that private property can constitute a public forum for free speech if it is open to the public in a manner similar to that of public streets and sidewalks” has long been he law in California. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 858. The United States Supreme Court also recognized more than a half century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property. /end quote Folks, the venue (California courts and/or California juries) may well militate against their winning (due to the bias of California courts and juries), but they wouldn't have brought the suit if they didn't have a case. It is not as simple as you're trying to make it. And as for taking sides, do you want to keep your free speech? Martin Niemöller First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
    2
  9. Net neutrality was about bandwidth and commercial competition, not content. Opposing net neutrality was the free speech side of the issue. The federal government was claiming the right to regulate through the FCC like radio stations.
    2
  10. What? Defending free speech? They are cooperating with China to censor.
    1
  11. Leftists are always complaining about authoritarian corporate power, here it is on display and they are silent, or supporting the bad guys. Here is what separates the leftists from the liberals. “This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” (Prager) Concerning the "private property" dodge, quoting from the complaint: http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf Defendants believe that they have unfettered, unbridled, and unrestricted power to censor speech or discriminate against public speakers at their whim for any reason, including their animus toward and political viewpoints of their public users and providers of video content, because Defendants are for profit organizations rather than governmental entities. Google/YouTube, you are wrong. As the California Supreme Court has stated: “[t]he idea that private property can constitute a public forum for free speech if it is open to the public in a manner similar to that of public streets and sidewalks” has long been he law in California. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 858. The United States Supreme Court also recognized more than a half century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property. /end quote Folks, the venue (California courts and/or California juries) may well militate against their winning (due to the bias of California courts and juries), but they wouldn't have brought the suit if they didn't have a case. It is not as simple as you're trying to make it. And as for taking sides, do you want to keep your free speech? Martin Niemöller First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
    1
  12. "North Korea is run by Deep State CIA ops" Which is why China subsidizes it?
    1
  13. Leftists are always complaining about authoritarian corporate power, here it is on display and they are silent, or supporting the bad guys. Here is what separates the leftists from the liberals. “This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” (Prager) Concerning the "private property" dodge, quoting from the complaint: http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf Defendants believe that they have unfettered, unbridled, and unrestricted power to censor speech or discriminate against public speakers at their whim for any reason, including their animus toward and political viewpoints of their public users and providers of video content, because Defendants are for profit organizations rather than governmental entities. Google/YouTube, you are wrong. As the California Supreme Court has stated: “[t]he idea that private property can constitute a public forum for free speech if it is open to the public in a manner similar to that of public streets and sidewalks” has long been he law in California. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 858. The United States Supreme Court also recognized more than a half century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property. /end quote Folks, the venue (California courts and/or California juries) may well militate against their winning (due to the bias of California courts and juries), but they wouldn't have brought the suit if they didn't have a case. It is not as simple as you're trying to make it. And as for taking sides, do you want to keep your free speech? Martin Niemöller First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
    1