Tucker Carlson: Should the govt regulate Google?

[unknown]

The bigger question, should government regulate any corporations in terms of their size, monopolies etc?

If, for example, theyre engaged in "suppression" or coercion of competition, shouldn't that be addressed in the courts?

He poses the question at 2:44


https://youtu.be/VyGfOgxii8Q?t=164

[DamianTV]

How about quit letting Google bribe govt with Lobbyists first? If you dont get rid of the Lobbyists, then it doesnt matter if its Google or whatever follows Google.

[goldenequity]

The bigger question is always
Should we allow the government to masquerade as a corporation?
How The CIA Made Google
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-28/how-cia-made-google

[TheTexan]

I completely agree with Tucker.

Google should be regulated.

We can't trust Google.

But we can trust Government, to regulate them, just fine.

[Weston White]

"Companies", such as Google will just outspend individuals and small businesses in court. Perhaps, an oversight board were complains can be filed and investigated, then the offender fined and issued an administrative injunction against further violations, while if the offender contests to any degree the burden will shift onto them to file in court and the US will defend on behalf of the victim.

[CaptUSA]

"Conservatives" used to be vehemently against such things. But I guess that only applied to talk radio.

Just goes to show that there are very few people who have principles. They all just want a government to work in their favor.

[EBounding]

Should the government regulate a branch of the NSA? Sure.

I'm just kidding of course. A "regulated" Google would be even worse.

[acptulsa]

"Conservatives" used to be vehemently against such things. But I guess that only applied to talk radio.

Just goes to show that there are very few people who have principles. They all just want a government to work in their favor.

Hm. Well, you know, when government sets up a corporation to hide the fact that it's government, so the Constitution doesn't apply to it, then passes itself laws which prevent the people from competing with its corporation and prevents the laws which apply to other companies from applying to it, some would consider those who approve of this to be 'conservatives'.

But we all know those people are actually fascists. And not the kind that AntiFa sees behind every rock and tree, either, but actual, true fascists.

The irony here isn't that conservatives--without the quotation marks--could disapprove of Google, it's that Tucker Carlson could think the answer is more of the same government that created Google.

[timosman]

Hm. Well, you know, when government sets up a corporation to hide the fact that it's government, so the Constitution doesn't apply to it, then passes itself laws which prevent the people from competing with its corporation and prevents the laws which apply to other companies from applying to it, some would consider those who approve of this to be 'conservatives'.

But we all know those people are actually fascists. And not the kind that AntiFa sees behind every rock and tree, either, but actual, true fascists.

The irony here isn't that conservatives--without the quotation marks--could disapprove of Google, it's that Tucker Carlson could think the answer is more of the same government that created Google.

How do you get on on this gravy train? What college should I send my kid to?:cool:

[bunklocoempire]

Peer to peer.

I don't expect to ever hear Tucker/Fox entertain any thought of peer to peer solutions, or competition.
Peer to peer terrorist activity, fear mongering, and more government? Sure, always lots of that crap.


Tucker's Thoughts: Google fired James Damore just because he expressed his alternate views on their diversity philosophy and practice. We once trusted Google not to be evil. But it can't be trusted to not distort the free flow of info #Tucker

:rolleyes:
F off Tucker. Using fear, outrage and ignorance to get the boiling frogs begging for more heat.

What are YOU doing to promote peer to peer, liberty solutions?

[goldenequity]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bunklocoempire again.


Peer to peer.
I don't expect to ever hear Tucker/Fox entertain any thought of peer to peer solutions, or competition.

What are YOU doing to promote peer to peer, liberty solutions?

What is WebTorrent? (https://webtorrent.io/faq)

WebTorrent is the first torrent client that works in the browser. YEP, THAT'S RIGHT. THE BROWSER.

It's written completely in JavaScript – the language of the web – and uses WebRTC for true peer-to-peer transport. No browser plugin, extension, or installation is required.

Using open web standards, WebTorrent connects website users together to form a distributed, decentralized browser-to-browser network for efficient file transfer.
Why is this cool?

Imagine a video site like YouTube, where visitors help to host the site's content. The more people that use a WebTorrent-powered website, the faster and more resilient it becomes.

Browser-to-browser communication cuts out the middle-man and lets people communicate on their own terms. No more client/server – just a network of peers, all equal. WebTorrent is the first step in the journey to redecentralize the Web.


The way we code the Web will determine the way we live online. So we need to bake our values into our code. Freedom of expression needs to be baked into our code. Privacy should be baked into our code. Universal access to all knowledge. But right now, those values are not embedded in the Web.

— Brewster Kahle, Founder of the Internet Archive (from Locking the Web Open)



---------

Free Speech Social Network ‘Gab’ Threatened with Termination from Domain Provider
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/18/free-speech-social-network-gab-threatened-5-days-change-domain-service/

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/08/GabBanned-640x480.jpg

In an email, Asia Registry, an Australian company,
claimed that the social network violated their “Abuse Policy” and “Australian federal and state anti-discrimination laws,
which prohibit public vilification on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic origin.”

“This action from Asia Registry, just days after our lawsuit with Google was filed, is unprecedented.
We have acted in good faith with Asia Registry and had no problems
up until
we raised our funding round
and
launched our lawsuit against Google,” he concluded.

“This exemplifies the need for a decentralized domain registrar solution.
ICANN being handed off to the EU was the most devastating blow to the free and open internet of our generation.
The Obama Administration and our Congress should be ashamed.
This should be a big wakeup call for engineers to start building pro-free speech alternative technology infrastructure solutions.”

In August, domain service GoDaddy gave neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer 24 hours to move to a different provider,
prompting them to briefly move to Google,
where the company then seized the website’s domain.

The website was also suspended from Cloudflare,
a company that refused to crackdown on ISIS sites in 2015 over censorship concerns,
forcing The Daily Stormer to move to the dark web.

In a statement, Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince claimed,
“I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the internet,” admitting,”No one should have that power.”

Following the incident, both former Breitbart Senior Editor Milo Yiannopoulos and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) condemned the censorship.

[Southron]

I wonder what percentage of internet traffic goes through Google.

[goldenequity]

I wonder what percentage of internet traffic goes through Google.

If I understand the Webtorrent concept (https://webtorrent.io/faq) correctly...
imagine sites like a 'peoples' Search Engine that 'crawls the data cloud'
powered by networked-browsers and not (corporate owned) servers.
(Do I have this right?) :confused:

[bunklocoempire]

If I understand the Webtorrent concept (https://webtorrent.io/faq) correctly...
imagine sites like a 'peoples' Search Engine that 'crawls the data cloud'
powered by networked-browsers and not (corporate owned) servers.
(Do I have this right?) :confused:

That's how I understand it.

A copy of the info that I am searching for can be right next door, yet my info request has to go to the mainland to a central, resource-hogging server, and back again with the info requested, just to retrieve something I could've retrieved from next door? Ludicrous.

As a computer noob, WebTorrent is exactly how I thought the internet worked when I started going online in the 90's.
Boy was I wrong. I sure am glad WebTorrent and the concept of freedom that comes with it is available today.

I find it telling that Google is all down for alternative energy to power itself, but a peer to peer alternative to move away from resource hogging central servers? -not so much. Not that I've found, anyway.

[PierzStyx]

How about quit letting Google bribe govt with Lobbyists first? If you dont get rid of the Lobbyists, then it doesnt matter if its Google or whatever follows Google.

So we should disregard the constitutional privlege of being able to petition the government? That seems like a cure worse than the symptoms.

[The Rebel Poet]

So we should disregard the constitutional privlege of being able to petition the government? That seems like a cure worse than the symptoms.

This.

x1000

[nikcers]

no- we need to encourage them to change their ways by using competition or stop using their service.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWR5DF23f5c

[DamianTV]

So we should disregard the constitutional privlege of being able to petition the government? That seems like a cure worse than the symptoms.

People should have Rights, not Corporations. Google is not acting like a person. And really, Google should be adhering itself to the Constitution, not manipulating lawmakers to bypass and circumvent existing protections so it can make more money at our expense.

Just my two cents.

[ChristianAnarchist]

"Should the goonerment regulate..." -- NO!!!!!!!!!

[Swordsmyth]

People should have Rights, not Corporations. Google is not acting like a person. And really, Google should be adhering itself to the Constitution, not manipulating lawmakers to bypass and circumvent existing protections so it can make more money at our expense.

Just my two cents.

Corporations are groups of people, they have just as many rights as the people in the group.

[nikcers]

Corporations are groups of people, they have just as many rights as the people in the group.
Can you put a corporation in jail? Can you deduct living expenses from your taxes like a corporation deducts business expenses? The whole problem is when people want to assign rights to groups, and then people try to fix that problem by giving groups rights. Individuals have rights.

[Swordsmyth]

Can you put a corporation in jail? Can you deduct living expenses from your taxes like a corporation deducts business expenses? The whole problem is when people want to assign rights to groups, and then people try to fix that problem by giving groups rights. Individuals have rights.

Corporations are in need of reform, but preventing people from exercising their rights together as a group is not one of the needed reforms.

[nikcers]

Corporations are in need of reform, but preventing people from exercising their rights together as a group is not one of the needed reforms.
I don't care about preventing people from exercising their rights as a group. I care about one group of people running all of the presidential candidates we get to pick from and they all get financed from the same pocket through a shell company.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't care about preventing people from exercising their rights as a group. I care about one group of people running all of the presidential candidates we get to pick from and they all get financed from the same pocket through a shell company.

One of the dangers we have to take with freedom.

It is possible to beat them because we still have our right to group speech, without it they will be the only voices heard in the smoke filled back rooms and in the "impartial" MSM.

The state of American politics is entirely the fault of the American voter.

[nikcers]

The state of American politics is entirely the fault of the American voter.
bullshit, voters don't get any say in the matter. Iraq? We voted two presidents in that was a mandate to get out of Iraq. WE don't have representation and you can't blame people for not wanting to suicide against the government. We play lip service to having free speech because we can bitch about shit on the internet but that's not stopping the starvation in the middle east, the creation of a new Israel.

[Swordsmyth]

bull$#@!, voters don't get any say in the matter. Iraq? We voted two presidents in that was a mandate to get out of Iraq. WE don't have representation and you can't blame people for not wanting to suicide against the government. We play lip service to having free speech because we can bitch about $#@! on the internet but that's not stopping the starvation in the middle east, the creation of a new Israel.

Yeah, there were no better choices than W and Obummer, UH HUH! There was no Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul or any other 3rd party candidates:rolleyes:

[nikcers]

Yeah, there were no better choices than W and Obummer, UH HUH! There was no Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul or any other 3rd party candidates:rolleyes:

Well I think Ron Paul would of had a good chance in 2011 but Trump would of probably ran 3rd party like he said he would.

[Swordsmyth]

Well I think Ron Paul would of had a good chance in 2011 but Trump would of probably ran 3rd party like he said he would.

None of that matters, the voters have had many superior choices to those they selected for decades and they are responsible for our current desperate straits.

[nikcers]

None of that matters, the voters have had many superior choices to those they selected for decades and they are responsible for our current desperate straits.
Not really that many choices for liberty. Ron Paul made liberty popular again. They stole the election but they can't make us forget the ideas he taught us.

[Brian4Liberty]

Answer: Eliminate barriers to competition.

[DamianTV]

Corporations are groups of people, they have just as many rights as the people in the group.

Then you end up with a Democracy, exactly what those like Jefferson, one of the first true Anti Federalists, wanted desperately to avoid at all costs. Does being a part of a group make any man "more" equal than any other man? That is exactly what is implied with Corporations and Democracy. "I am part of Group X, therefore my voice carries more weight than that individual." And Democracy is nothing more than the group with more people taking away the rights of the group with less people.

[Swordsmyth]

Then you end up with a Democracy, exactly what those like Jefferson, one of the first true Anti Federalists, wanted desperately to avoid at all costs. Does being a part of a group make any man "more" equal than any other man? That is exactly what is implied with Corporations and Democracy. "I am part of Group X, therefore my voice carries more weight than that individual." And Democracy is nothing more than the group with more people taking away the rights of the group with less people.

We are talking about speech, the voters and the legislators still hold the power.

What you propose would allow the government to prevent any group from speaking as a group, the public would be relegated to speaking one at a time with little influence while the elite would wield power and influence in smoke filled back rooms.

The cure for mob rule is constitutional restrictions like the Bill of Rights not letting the government limit speech.

[DamianTV]

We are talking about speech, the voters and the legislators still hold the power.

What you propose would allow the government to prevent any group from speaking as a group, the public would be relegated to speaking one at a time with little influence while the elite would wield power and influence in smoke filled back rooms.

The cure for mob rule is constitutional restrictions like the Bill of Rights not letting the government limit speech.

No, what I want is a smaller govt where there is no one in power for groups of any label to influence.

Restriction of Govt IS Free Speech. That includes limiting govts privilege to listen only to the groups based on label, such as "Business" and "Corporation".

[Swordsmyth]

No, what I want is a smaller govt where there is no one in power for groups of any label to influence.

Restriction of Govt IS Free Speech. That includes limiting govts privilege to listen only to the groups based on label, such as "Business" and "Corporation".

No you want to prevent businesses and corporations (groups you disagree with) from speaking, that is no different from AntiFa's position.

We need less controls on speech not more, if you don't like the influence of businesses and corporations then compete with them, find or form your own group and lobby and campaign for candidates that support your beliefs, if the government can limit the ability of corporations to engage in political speech it can limit you and that is BAD.

There is no way to force government to listen to you and forcing others not to speak will not help.

[The Rebel Poet]

Answer: Eliminate barriers to competition.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

[PierzStyx]

People should have Rights, not Corporations. Google is not acting like a person. And really, Google should be adhering itself to the Constitution, not manipulating lawmakers to bypass and circumvent existing protections so it can make more money at our expense.

Just my two cents.

You cannot regulate a corporation or business. Businesses are just dumb things. When you "regulate" a corporation what you are doing is telling the people in it what they can and cannot do. You violate their rights to say and do what they wish with their liberty and their property.

[DamianTV]

No you want to prevent businesses and corporations (groups you disagree with) from speaking, that is no different from AntiFa's position.

We need less controls on speech not more, if you don't like the influence of businesses and corporations then compete with them, find or form your own group and lobby and campaign for candidates that support your beliefs, if the government can limit the ability of corporations to engage in political speech it can limit you and that is BAD.

There is no way to force government to listen to you and forcing others not to speak will not help.

There is a big difference between using ones Freedom of Speech, and flat out BUYING Politicians. There is a big difference between an individuals free speech and corporations free speech. If you havent been paying attention, the corporations shit on us by manipulating and coercing and bribing our elected representatives. Elected. Yeah, that is kind of funny tho isnt it? The head of the FDA was already employed by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), or has been offered a job at Monsanto once they leave their position of high power. Does that sound like corporations really have our best interests in mind?

Corporations are NOT people, and being "a group of people" does not entitle them to more Rights than any one person, which is exactly what they are doing. If things were all peachy keen, then why is it that so many of our disastrous bills are flat out written by Corporate Lawyers and not even read at all by most of our representatives?

[DamianTV]

You cannot regulate a corporation or business. Businesses are just dumb things. When you "regulate" a corporation what you are doing is telling the people in it what they can and cannot do. You violate their rights to say and do what they wish with their liberty and their property.

And they violate ours by coercion of govt by the ability to establish a Monopoly.

Edit:

Should Google be Regulated? NO. Not unless they become such a monopoly that they are effectively a Utility.

[goldenequity]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avNy8iQtbAc

[shakey1]

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/media/121365/1984-google-big-brother.jpg

[CaptUSA]

There is a big difference between using ones Freedom of Speech, and flat out BUYING Politicians. There is a big difference between an individuals free speech and corporations free speech. If you havent been paying attention, the corporations shit on us by manipulating and coercing and bribing our elected representatives. Elected. Yeah, that is kind of funny tho isnt it? The head of the FDA was already employed by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), or has been offered a job at Monsanto once they leave their position of high power. Does that sound like corporations really have our best interests in mind?

Corporations are NOT people, and being "a group of people" does not entitle them to more Rights than any one person, which is exactly what they are doing. If things were all peachy keen, then why is it that so many of our disastrous bills are flat out written by Corporate Lawyers and not even read at all by most of our representatives?

Sorry to interject, here, but the problem with money in politics is NOT that people (or corporations) are buying politicians; it's that politicians have something to sell. If they didn't have the power to influence the market at all, it wouldn't matter who "had our best interests" in mind. Carry on.

[DamianTV]

Sorry to interject, here, but the problem with money in politics is NOT that people (or corporations) are buying politicians; it's that politicians have something to sell. If they didn't have the power to influence the market at all, it wouldn't matter who "had our best interests" in mind. Carry on.

Good point. Politicians sell their votes.