This guy's next interview: "food and beverage companies are making products that people like to consume! Its so corrupt and dangerous because a couple people had a food addiction!"
Joe – may I plead for you to comsider having Yuval Harari for a guest. I’m listening to his interviews and people say he is pure evil. I’d like to listen to hom for a good 2-3 hours straight. I think he has good insight on the same subject and more, and i don’t understand where the Evil about him comes to play, and there are thousands of these comments. Reminds me of the situation with Jordan B Peterson, where there is strange opposition that i just can not comprehend. All the best!
"“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” "
If you live in another country with their laws/rules, are you able to do whatever you like in a private business, because it's not government owned?
No… you cannot.
You're trying to relate this to the censorship on the internet. In which case I say to you, can the phone company cut off your call because they don't like what you're talking about?
No… they cannot.
But why, you ask. Because it is a utility.
"The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations.
This means that: A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy; A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job; and A private “media” company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with."
This is why MSM has been calling any social platform on the internet, "media". So they can use this last line here… Thing is… it's not media. It's 2 way. The tv is media. A picture/movie is media. But the internet, can be connected between 2 people for communication. Like a telephone that you can see each other with.
The viewer and the poster can communicate back and forth, kind of like a visual phone call. Though it seems like the internet is one-sided, it's actually capable at any moment for communication between 2 or more parties. This turns it from just a picture on a screen (media) to an interactive chat room with sharing or how the movie was made, or talking about the movie.
My point is, it's a 2+ way conversation, therefore, the internet (as a whole) should be treated the same way the phones are, as a utility. What I'm saying is, social SHARING platforms have manipulated this one word in our constitution. They have found a backdoor to GOING AGAINST THE BASIC RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
It's not right that they do it. Nobody has been able to stick it to them yet. It's all coming to a head though. I have faith in my American brethren. The internet needs to be treated as a Utility. It's not currently, and that's how they've been getting away with the censorship. It is all coming to a head though. Soon. We are hitting a point where our Constitution must be adapted to the internet, and any future technologies that may become a PUBLIC SQUARE of communications.
We must stop calling them social “media” websites. They are social “sharing” websites/platforms. Technicality is everything. In the world of contracts, a single word can change EVERYTHING.
This guy's next interview: "food and beverage companies are making products that people like to consume! Its so corrupt and dangerous because a couple people had a food addiction!"
Joe – may I plead for you to comsider having Yuval Harari for a guest. I’m listening to his interviews and people say he is pure evil. I’d like to listen to hom for a good 2-3 hours straight. I think he has good insight on the same subject and more, and i don’t understand where the Evil about him comes to play, and there are thousands of these comments. Reminds me of the situation with Jordan B Peterson, where there is strange opposition that i just can not comprehend. All the best!
My friend says nothing is more detestable than your family’s household. Says your personality sucks and you smell bad.
Selling our data is not that far from Selling someone's soul. 🤫
"“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” "
If you live in another country with their laws/rules, are you able to do whatever you like in a private business, because it's not government owned?
No… you cannot.
You're trying to relate this to the censorship on the internet. In which case I say to you, can the phone company cut off your call because they don't like what you're talking about?
No… they cannot.
But why, you ask. Because it is a utility.
"The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations.
This means that:
A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy;
A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job;
and A private “media” company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with."
This is why MSM has been calling any social platform on the internet, "media". So they can use this last line here… Thing is… it's not media. It's 2 way. The tv is media. A picture/movie is media. But the internet, can be connected between 2 people for communication. Like a telephone that you can see each other with.
The viewer and the poster can communicate back and forth, kind of like a visual phone call. Though it seems like the internet is one-sided, it's actually capable at any moment for communication between 2 or more parties. This turns it from just a picture on a screen (media) to an interactive chat room with sharing or how the movie was made, or talking about the movie.
My point is, it's a 2+ way conversation, therefore, the internet (as a whole) should be treated the same way the phones are, as a utility. What I'm saying is, social SHARING platforms have manipulated this one word in our constitution. They have found a backdoor to GOING AGAINST THE BASIC RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
It's not right that they do it. Nobody has been able to stick it to them yet. It's all coming to a head though. I have faith in my American brethren. The internet needs to be treated as a Utility. It's not currently, and that's how they've been getting away with the censorship. It is all coming to a head though. Soon. We are hitting a point where our Constitution must be adapted to the internet, and any future technologies that may become a PUBLIC SQUARE of communications.
We must stop calling them social “media” websites. They are social “sharing” websites/platforms. Technicality is everything. In the world of contracts, a single word can change EVERYTHING.