Good point. We can thank Ronald Reagan and his "get government out of the way" agenda for this.

As things stand, there are censors all the way down the line.

Available ISPs can just not let you on their service.

Those same ISPs can block any content they wish. Brett Kavanaugh thinks this is their Constitutional "free speech" right.

Other ISPs who share networks can cut you off deep in the cyber network.

Search engines can block whatever content they choose.

ISPs can block whatever content they choose, particularly their own content competition.

Bulletin boards and community sites can ban you any time for any reason.

Host servers can turn off your web pages.

All it takes is one of these things to prevent you from saying or seeing anything.

The only answer is regulation.

"The only answer is regulation"

Hell to the no.

The government interference into the market, giving ISP's billions and billions and protecting the market, is the source of the problems.

Sorry to crack your ideology but the government created the internet. They should have kept it as a public service, but assuming a "private" market, regulation is surely needed.

To step back and deal with your ideology more directly, the New World was funded by large government expenditures and railroads were created by large government intervention, and electricity was supplied to rural areas by government action.

Who manages the infrastructure of the internet?

Mostly the same people who want to manage the infrastructure of the transportation system and space travel. All on the backs of government. Governments have always funded the bulk of basic technology, and in the case of the internet, most everything we do online was created by nonprofits who made it useful.

Here is a question for you. Given all of the choke points of censorship, some as I listed above, what is your suggestion to keep the censorship down?

We agree on one point. The government should provide the infrastructure. I'd give them a few responsibilities.

1. Provide infrastructure
2. Provide for the common defense
3. Enforce laws that society agrees are necessary.

Beyond that, it should get out of the way. Hence, no censorship at all at the government level.

Focus. We were talking about corporate censorship. I asked you for a "suggestion to keep the censorship down." Your comment that there should be "no [government] censorship" completely avoided the question.

Rather, you tried to turned it around. Because I am concerned about business censorship, you imagined that somehow doing something about business censorship would be government censorship and responded to your own irrational fears.

At no time did I or anyone else on this page suggest or promote government censorship.

Are you going to answer the question or not? Or are you fine with all those choke points?

No, we are talking about corporate cronyism and the solutions for it. You think it's more regulations from the government. I don't.

Sorry to crack your ideology but, the "Government" is a Corporation.

Sorry to crack your retort, but the word "corporation" is usually understood to mean profit business corporation and you could tell that in context this time too. :)

The Federal Government is a private for profit Corporation and States are Subsidiaries of said parent Corporation.

All governments are corporations, the only difference is they're allowed to do things that normal corporations aren't. Such as violence and assassination.

The second someone does any of this they become a competitor to these companies. They will work to put them out of business.

Very true!

Private companies who take U.S. taxpayer money.

at least you're talking about what matters most: collapse.

I haven't seen much (any) action taken against right-leaning websites. The websites that are getting hit tend to be radical, far right websites filled with anti-semitism and racism.

Toss up some examples of "right-leaning" (and not racist/anti-semite) websites that got hit and I will admit I am wrong.

Stop making sense. Where do you think you are?

There has been quite a few youtube channels that were centrist or mild right that got banned. This censorship will eventually cross partisan lines and bleed into a total worldwide censorship. No one will be safe. Just look to the UK to do it first as they are leading this Orwelian brave new world.

Can you name one such YouTube channel?

filled with anti-semitism

By which you mean critical of Israel.

That's not what I mean at all. Go check out voat for example it's easy to see

It's bringing about the order out of chaos "hegelian dielectric" for a one world government. The beast system is almost complete so stay vigilante.

If you think it's the "leftists" you haven't been paying attention to who is bribing your so-called representatives.

What is happening is the corporate center is shaking in their damned skin and attacking both the actual left and actual right. MSNBC is not "left". They have a long history of firing anyone against the wars or calling out corruption.

Take a look at the Open Secrets page of the RNC and DNC. You might find on similarities. Many of the same people who funded Trump are the same ones who fund the DNC. I think if you are conservative, then support the Libertarians, and if you lean progressive then support the Greens. Fire both major parties. Stop falling for the corporate duopoly which is fully corrupt.

Left sites and indie news (world socialist web Site, Jimmy Dore, Empire Files, Tim Black, ect) are getting delisted, demonetized, and censored as well if you look beyond your normal bubble. We are resorting to Patreon, Steemit, and other crowd funding.

I think the future for dissenters are going to be Crypto payments and decentralized platforms.

The future for dissenters is crypto voting.

Issues, not parties.

Digital democracy or death.

Neoliberalism does not lean right or left.

If the political spectrum was correctly described, i.e. from the far left (total government) to to the far right (no government), then all mainstream political parties would be on the left. Nazism and Bolshevism, the twin ideologies, would correctly be labelled together.

My new favorite is all the websites that ask for money even if it’s just a dollar a month to keep the add cartels at bay. And then hearing all the defenders come out and say see how expensive it is to run a website therefore justifying the bullshit add companys to keep throwing it in our faces and all this bullshit. I just told them I’m pretty sure in the early 2000‘s ebaumsworld’s wasn’t trying to flee stone its users for “ad revenue money“. What a fucking shit show this Internet is turning out to be. These people literally want you to believe that it cost so much money to send a signal through the Internet, that the only way these websites that exist strictly on electricity can exist is through their benevolent ads.

Liberals when there are thousands of bakeries: You have to bake that cake bigot!

Liberals when there is one reddit/twitter/etc: It's a private company they don't have to serve you! Go start your own!

Freedom of the press only applies to those who own a press.

Is this a partisan sub?

The right is no better but at least they don’t wanna throw me in a camp for wrongthink.

Can you name the party that routinely chants 'lock her up' at rallies?

Because she actually did soemthing you and anyone else would be on jail for rn. Who's the partisan hack now? Hillary proved we have a 2 tiered justice system.

So she was found guilty by the FBI?

No because Comey read intent into the law when it's literally not there. He changed the rules on the fly and the language used to exonerate her.

So she wasn't found guilty but 'lock her up'?

Can you explain due process to me, exactly?

We literally did that and made saidit.net

The future for dissenters is crypto voting.

Issues, not parties.

Digital democracy or death.

Because she actually did soemthing you and anyone else would be on jail for rn. Who's the partisan hack now? Hillary proved we have a 2 tiered justice system.

No because Comey read intent into the law when it's literally not there. He changed the rules on the fly and the language used to exonerate her.