Good stuff, that! Media censorship of conservative views, and particularly 2A related free speech has long gotten out of control.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Publisher vs platformSo basically an instructional video on building 80% receivers is considered free speech and a private entity doesn't have a right to censor its content?
As mentioned, they have to change their ways and decide if they are truly a platform, or a publisher/provider.So basically an instructional video on building 80% receivers is considered free speech and a private entity doesn't have a right to censor its content?
So, there's a bunch of folks thinking wrongly in the big tech world, they believe they have the powers to censor any content that violates their CoC's BUT, and this is the biggy, there is ZERO oversight, who makes the rules, and who holds them accountable, or holds their feet to the fire for honesty?So basically an instructional video on building 80% receivers is considered free speech and a private entity doesn't have a right to censor its content?
That's what "they" want you to believe. Thanks for drinking their kool-aid??I thought it was long well known by now that private entities can censor whatever they want?
no koolaid, share with me how this works then?That's what "they" want you to believe. Thanks for drinking their kool-aid??
"I" most certainly don't know or acknowledge anything of the sort.
It's the removal at the behest of gov agents that is the issue IMO.But when was it decided that an instructional video was free speech?
I thought it was long well known by now that private entities can censor whatever they want?
That certainly plays a big part. The specific content being cited in the AG's letter, YT removed it under direction of 4 democrat senators "request" that it be removed. Massive no-no but reaches much further beyond just those cited incidents and just the blaringe examples of systemic discrimination.It's the removal at the behest of gov agents that is the issue IMO.
No government entity can use a private entity to violate the constitution. Don't have a link, but it's my understanding that this has been case law for a long time.
There is a very distinct difference between Utube and a private forum! YT is an open platform specifically set up to allow the sharing of ideas, content, entertainment, and all that, it's PUBLIC, that's the key! NWFA is a privately owned Publisher owned by Joe Link, it's his baby and his rules! While Joe and staff do an excellent job of moderating what gets posted here, the key difference is: it's NOT free speech, you have no 1st rights here! While it's generally very open and accommodating and mostly invisible, it still regulates what can and cannot be shared, and there are hard lines covering that if you read the CoC'sno koolaid, share with me how this works then?
So a private entity sets up a platform, like this forum... should NWFA not be allowed to censor pro gun control posts and discussions?
ok this makes more sense. I think it will be very difficult to prove Youtube removed those specific videos at the behest of those gov agents, considering Youtube has many pro gun channels.It's the removal at the behest of gov agents that is the issue IMO.
No government entity can use a private entity to violate the constitution. Don't have a link, but it's my understanding that this has been case law for a long time.
That's getting deep into the rabbit hole and would require legal council from someone specializing in free speech issues, but I believe part of might be gounded within "special interest group" classifications... but that is quite honestly well beyond my wheelhouse.So a private entity sets up a platform, like this forum... should NWFA not be allowed to censor pro gun control posts and discussions?
It would be... if they didn't have the letter from those 4 demo's requesting those specific videos to be removed... hu!?ok this makes more sense. I think it will be very difficult to prove Youtube removed those specific videos at the behest of those gov agents, considering Youtube has many pro gun channels.
respectfully, Im not certain yet i agree with that. NWFA is open to the public (like this thread is visible...) and each one of us here posting and commenting is actually publishing with every reply just like we can publish a video on a Youtube channel.There is a very distinct difference between Utube and a private forum! YT is an open platform specifically set up to allow the sharing of ideas, content, entertainment, and all that, it's PUBLIC, that's the key! NWFA is a privately owned Publisher owned by Joe Link, it's his baby and his rules! While Joe and staff do an excellent job of moderating what gets posted here, the key difference is: it's NOT free speech, you have no 1st rights here! While it's generally very open and accommodating and mostly invisible, it still regulates what can and cannot be shared, and there are hard lines covering that if you read the CoC's
Bottom line here, YT is a Public Platform, NOT a publisher, and as such, both are governed by specific rules and protections! If you post video content to YT, you still "Own" that content, vs posting here, Joe owns whatever gets posted, it's his and his alone once you hit enter!
I agree.ok this makes more sense. I think it will be very difficult to prove Youtube removed those specific videos at the behest of those gov agents, considering Youtube has many pro gun channels.
My guess is they would have to prove that those demos threatened legal action against youtube similar to the pro gun lawyer.It would be... if they didn't have the letter from those 4 demo's requesting those specific videos to be removed... hu!?
Others.. it's incredibly easy to prove. The owners know what they posted, they know when it's removed and have notifications from YT proving YT removed them.