Restructuring for freedom

While I do not agree with all in this video, its worthy thinking and some good ideas and some of it is spot on. I am tempted to make a video in response to this actually so ill wait to write out my own thoughts. But if I don’t make the vid, Ill come back to it later.

He is on to something about using torrent based sites.

I will likely try it out and post on it once I have had a chance to figure out what, if any, the additional technical knowledge to use it is required.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

6 Replies to “Restructuring for freedom”

  1. The narrator has no idea what the US Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights protects individuals from government encroachment on their inherent, natural, God given rights. Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al are not government, they are businesses. The narrator advocates “extending the First Amendment to these platforms”, what he really means is compelling these businesses to contract. That’s antithetical to liberty.

    Streaming video to many thousands of users requires a lot of costly infrastructure. Google/Youtube built that infrastructure and allows its use without charge. They make their money by gathering information on each user’s interests. There is nothing preventing Jones or others from either building their own infrastructure or paying a hosting company. If he wants to rely on a no charge platform like Youtube well… he who pays calls the tune.

    • I fully agree with you John. However fraud is still fraud and applies to private businesses. if the platform tells yuo they have no agenda or bias and conform to 1st amendment standards, then allow you to invest and build a massive business generating revenue for you and them, then kick you off for bogus reasons, you have a very legitimate fraud case.

      This is the approach they should be taking IMO. Suing for fraud, misrepresentation etc. Its no different than if a bank keeps all your money after telling you that they have decided that your account is not within their rules and shut it down and don’t return your money.

      • Way too many people don’t ever think of using the current laws to fight back, to their minds you have to have a new law covering the specific problem that is occurring. This attitude is the result of decades of the left not teaching the Constitution and not teaching the students to think, the left wants this because every new law gives them a greater hold on you. US Code is already so big and invasive if the governments starts investigating the person instead of the crime they can discover where everyone has committed some crime.

      • A business conforms to “1st Amendment standards”? A non-sequitur and my point has been missed.

        While I believe Youtube’s reasons are bogus they are within their rights. I don’t see where there is any fraud (as far as I know no money has been paid by Jones to Youtube, I’d have to see what the contractual terms are).

        The point is: Jones nor anyone else has a *right* to Google/Youtube’s property.

        Just because it’s “internet” doesn’t make it special. Should every person be provided with a printing press or a TV transmitter?

        Should every person be provided with a server and bandwidth of unlimited capacity?

        I think the analogy in your second paragraph is bogus. Jones has not deposited any money in the Youtube “bank”, their canceling of his account does not withhold (“not return”) any money that was on deposit – there was no money deposited to begin with.

        Anyone can contract with Rackspace, MediaTemple, etc to serve their content. If they choose to rely on no charge content distribution then they are at the mercy of the distributor.

        What’s the problem?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*