Tucker: Google tries to censor content it disagrees with

[ThinkingSapien]

Therefore, to hurt Google you would need to boycott their advertisers. Find out who they are, and stop patronizing them.

Yeah, good luck with that. When Google experienced the boycott that resulted in them reducing the content that could receive ads there were 250+ entities involved in the boycott. Here are a few of their names:

• Argos
• Audi
• Aviva
• Havas Group UK froze all of its spend. The agency manages major brands including Dominos Pizza, O2, Royal Mail, BBC, and Hyundai Kia.
• Heinz
• Honda
• HSBC
• ITV
• L’Oreal
• Lloyd’s Bank
• Marks & Spencer
• McDonald’s
• RBS
• Sainsbury’s
• Tesco
• The Guardian
• Toyota
• Transport for London
• UK Government
• Volkswagen
• Dish Network
• Enterprise
• FX Networks
• General Motors
• GSK
• Johnson & Johnson
• Nestle
• PepisCo
• Starbucks
• Verizon
• Walmart

Note that a number of these are parent companies for a wide range of brands. For example, some brands owned by Nestle:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

PepsiCo has quite a number of brands too.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Tucker talks about someone loosing monetization because of what others are putting in the comments section. If I remember correctly one of the incidents that happened before that occurred was apparent pedophiles coming to videos in which children appeared posting things. Understandably advertisers didn’t want to have association with that. IT’s not necessarily that the channel owner is being punished. It is more that some conversations on a video may make the environment not ad friendly.

There was a legal matter for which some lost ad revenue too. The FTC fined Alphabet because there are some laws against tracking children. Tracking can include allowing them to comment, recommending a next video based on statistics of a video being currently watched, and a number of other things that not everyone might recognize as tracking. As a result of this channels that featured kids could suddenly find their comments turned off and their ability to receive ads disabled (this happened to a channel that I watched from a Christian comedian in which he occasionally had his kids show up in video).

I know it is easy to simply point to Google and attribute all of this to them. But the pressure for these restrictions comes from a number of different entities.

Not using Google’s sites will have no effect whatsoever on their bottom line.

It’s also worth noting that Google offers various types of hosting services. Just as by using Netflix someone is going through an Amazon service (Netflix is hosted by Amazon) by using a number of other services someone is using something that drives revenue to Google.

 

[Balto1]

The people using Google sites and accounts have no power, and no clout in these matters. We are the product.

Exactly my point. Conservatives should stop lining Google’s pockets by using its sites (they seem to miss the irony of Carlson complaining about Google while posting so much content on Youtube) and use any of the many other services available, some free some paid.

 

[JonNC]

False advertising. There’s no such thing as the next Hendrix. Just like there’s no such thing as the next Johnny Gimble.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Exactly my point. Conservatives should stop lining Google’s pockets by using its sites

Google advertising isn’t limited to Google sites. Using any site that uses Google Ad Words results in them receiving revenue. Looking at the source code for this page (Catholic Forums) I see that some of the ads that are showing for me are coming from Google.

 

[Balto1]

Yes, conservatives should boycott sites that use Google ads.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes, conservatives should boycott sites that use Google ads.

Uhm, but if you are conservative and if you follow that advice then you won’t be posting here anymore.

 

[WingedHussar]

Adblock works well.

 

[Maximian]

Tucker can say what he likes on his own show. The media giants are censoring what other people are saying on theirs.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Adblock works well.

True, but it is worth noting that ad-blockers can also result in sites that are supported by ads to cover maintenance costs may also take a hit if such filtering is used in force.

 

[silentwitness]

The people using Google sites and accounts have no power, and no clout in these matters. We are the product.

Yes the answer will be to use legislation to ensure they are more a platform or else to break the company up and then boycott the one that is censoring.

The boycott only makes sense when you can hurt the company for its actions. That day is not here yet but it will be at some stage and these companies will then see that bad will towards its customers does have a price .

That is supposed to be a part of capitalism which makes it such a good economic model.

 

[Anesti33]

I don’t see where any scale of boycott could harm Google in the foreseeable future, much as the conservatives boycotting Target have probably bolstered its sales and patronage.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes the answer will be to use legislation to ensure they are more a platform

That sounds like a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Google has First Amendment rights too, which puts prohibitions on the Government taking action because of Google’s “Speech.” Google’s speech includes them being able to decide to not promote a video or deciding not to participate in paring someone’s video with another entity’s ad. See the decision for PragerU v YourTube from a few months ago to hear the court expressing an opinion on this. As PragerU tried to take them to court over getting demonetized.

Such a move might also violate laws on property rights.

The entities that have standing to take a greivence against Google to court would be the advertisers themselves as they are the ones engaging in some form of commerce with Google.

 

[silentwitness]

That sounds like a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

It doesn’t really matter how it is argued. If the government wants it done, it will be done.

Whether it be anti trust laws, a cancellation of article 230 or some other legislation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It doesn’t really matter how it is argued.

It actually does. Court cases succeed or fail on their arguments.

If the government wants it done, it will be done.

The Government wanted to restrict free speech on the Internet and make “adult” material illegal. It made a law to do this. But that violated the First Amendment of the Constitution and the SCOTUS struck the law down. Whatever is done ( if anything ) must be within the constraints of the constitution.

 

[silentwitness]

There is more than one way to skin a cat ThinkingSapien.

If the government wants it done it will be.

The constitution is the guiding document but like all law it works on categorisation and the government has a lot of control in how things are categorised.

To take your example, there are a lot of places where that material is not allowed to be shown. That is because it is categorised differently.

 

[Anesti33]

“The government”? You act as if Google is subject to the United States somehow.

Google, aka Alphabet, is a transnational global conglomerate that knows no borders. It will not be contained by the laws of these USA; if this nation becomes hostile to Google, Google will simply uproot what can be sued and move it all to somewhere more hospitable, and in this wide world, there will always be someone hospitable to the Almighty Buck.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If the government wants it done it will be.

This is demonstrably false. This statement appears to have no supporting argument or other foundation.

The constitution is the guiding document

That’s an understatement. The constitution is the foundational law of the nation. “Guide” minimizes this. Mandating that advertisements be placed on content that is deemed extremists or not “brand-friendly”, that money be routed from advertisers to entities with which they have expressed they do not wish to do business (as the courts recognize spending money as speech) is not only a violation of Constitutional Free Speech but also of a body of case law on these topics.

categorised

That speeling is chiefly used outside the USA. Are you from outside the USA? The laws on “Free Speech” vary considerably from one nation to another.We may be working from different concepts of “Free Speech.”

To take your example, there are a lot of places where that material is not allowed to be shown.

There are several common law exceptions to free speech. These include defamation, incitement to riot, fraud, copyright violation, speech that is part of an illegal act, and obscenity. The “obscenity” exception failed with respect to the Internet for the same reason that it fails with respect to one’s private adult material within their house (see Stanley v Georgia, 1969, Constitutional Fourth Amendment).

 

[silentwitness]

“The government”? You act as if Google is subject to the United States somehow.

Google, aka Alphabet, is a transnational global conglomerate that knows no borders. It will not be contained by the laws of these USA; if this nation becomes hostile to Google, Google will simply uproot what can be sued and move it all to somewhere more hospitable, and in this wide world, there will always be someone hospitable to the Almighty Buck.

It will be contained for the United States market as Google is subject to every countries laws in which it operates.

China for example only allows Google to operate if it can have veto on what sort of sites one can visit. Google of course if it wants to operate in China must comply.

Try going to China and use google to look up western political sites. Google won’t let you because it complies with the Chinese government.

Just like China, the United States is a big market and has friendly diplomatic relations with many other key markets. If the United States sets its sights on google, like the China experience, it will come to heal. It has little choice.

That’s an understatement. The constitution is the foundational law of the nation.

Yes it also says something about the right to assemble. How did that go during the pandemic?

We all know if the government wants to curtail Google it will.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes it also says something about the right to assemble. How did that go during the pandemic?

The Constitution implicitly grants some emergency powers that are subject to the scrutiny of the court.

We all know if the government wants to curtail Google it will.

Hmmm…it looks that there is no futher argument to be presented with this position. Oh well.

if this nation becomes hostile to Google, Google will simply uproot what can be sued and move it all to somewhere more hospitable

I doubt that Alphabet would have much interest in uprooting. But as things stand now it hasn’t been alleged anything illegal happened from them choosing not to promote certain ads or not pair all videos/channels with advertisers. Before corrective or punitive action be taken illegal or injurious behaviour would need to be identified. As of yet that hasn’t happened.

 

[silentwitness]

Hmmm…it looks that there is no futher argument to be presented with this position. Oh well.

It is not a matter of argument Sapien. It is not up to me to provide an argument and it is certainly not up to you to decide whether such argument is acceptable. It is the political class who rule that will decide. The rest is simply details to join the dots and make it official.

Yes the government can use such emergency powers with Google by declaring them against the national interest or a threat to security or facilitating foreign actors in opposition to the United States. This is an example of simply changing categories that the the government can do so that google is now in a different category for the plethora of laws it is subject to.

Of course the government can also create new taxes to tax them out of existence or make regulations so strict that no company could comply or create a law that certain information that google has must either be in the public domain or else completely shredded which takes away the business model. Similarly they can limit the percentage share of searches for the national interest or limit the percentage of online advertising a conglomerate can command. Almost anything can be done in the name of national interest including confining citizens to their home, closing down businesses and churches or telling citizens they must wear certain attire.

It will not be difficult if there is a political will.

We all now that deep down that is how the system works.

The question is not ‘can the government stop or regulate google’ but ‘if there is a political will’.