Because, as the video above suggests, the time was right and those liberal players were in the right place when the Feds and the States were handing out money and tax breaks trying to get the thing kick started.

Now you have to get sponsors and try to solicit money from viewers... not an easy task, raising revenue like that.

OANN is a good site, but they need $$ and supporters too. This is why the bloggers on YouTube holler so loudly for you to like and subscribe. Clicks mean money to pay the bills to keep providing content.

Sorry.. Didn't mean complain in the bitch and moan complain but complain as in 'why?'. 'question' would be a much better word to use. I misspoke. Sorry.

Electric vehicles and hybrids were the answer to that.

Economic forces changed society and technology.

As far as making a new platform? Complacency.

Crtv may expand to include social media like platform, you never know.

Analogy.

There is no monopoly. You can start a new Facebook. You can choose satellite internet, mobile broadband, etc. You're not stuck with Comcast or Verizon or whomever..

There are options.

Translation:

There are t3 lines, and fiber optic lines available. But you have to play the same stupid game, to be allowed to use any of them. You have to look like us, walk like us, talk like us, vote like us, and dress like us. Not to mention pay through the nose.

But yeah, you have an option. You could go with a 16k dialup!!! See, we aren't a monopoly!

Show me a net medium in the Puget sound that isn't bound up with a company financially affiliated with one of these companies censoring.

I'm pushing 60 mb/s on Sprint....

There are options.

Facebook is not a utility.

I swear boy! Sometimes I think I could come in here and say I like ripple potato chips, and you'd give me 5 pages of dissent!

As long as I don't give you descent...

:-p

And ripple chips? They're OK... But if you want a real treat, grab some ripple chips and dump some old bay in the bag and shake it up...

It's an east coast thing, you'll thank me later...

Mmmm.. crab chips...



I see where you're coming from, and definitely think it's concerning, but it's just like private property. Their property, their rules.

Ughhhhh......baseball analogies. I'm falling asleep just thinking about baseball. Let's just speak in plain English, shall we?

Companies didn't monetize it, the free market did. Facebook and YouTube aren't the "free press" but lets for a moment assume they are. Isn't part of being a free press, by definition, the freedom to choose what you report on and what you don't? The reality is that Facebook and YouTube are private corporations that have made significant investments in intellectual property and infrastructure which allow them to host content. They got rich doing so, and at the same time made a lot of other people rich. No one is preventing you or me or Alex Jones from investing in infrastructure to host our own content.


Are Facebook and YouTube somehow impairing our ability to think critically? Are they making it impossible to create and/or participate in forums that allow us to hear differing and dissenting opinions? How did anyone hear a differing or dissenting opinion before the advent of Facebook? A lively public discourse existed in this country long before Al Gore descended from the heavens to bless us with the inter-web.


These companies aren't arbitrarily stifling any opinions. They are very deliberately stifling conservative opinion. As a conservative, I find it distasteful, but my feelings don't matter. But I agree with you. There should be consequences for these companies. But they should be market-driven, not government imposed.

Again with the consequences. Using the loaded gun of the government to compel companies to do what we want. Sounds like freedom to me.


When they start cutting off access to the internet based on your political leanings, we can all panic about censorship and free speech. Until then, all I see is a few left-leaning private corporations exercising their right to free speech by choosing not to provide a medium for opinions with which they disagree.

Sprint is in bed and trying to get more into bed with quite a few content owners. You cross Sprint and their interest with content owners and they'll shut you down.

https://nypost.com/2017/06/27/sprint-ex ... d-charter/

Next example.

Same could be said about A Sharpten...

Someone explain how Trump has to let irritating people twatt on his twatter account via First Ammendment but Zuckfuker can ban AJ?

Is 1A not an all-encompassing right?

You have the Freedom to speak your piece. I however, don’t have to give you my bullhorn to speak it.

Much as I dislike it, that’s I how I see the situation. AJ needs a new bullhorn.

The lame stream media does the same thing to Trump. If they don't want you to hear something he said, you won't.

My question is this: When the prez holds a State of the Union address, are the networks required to carry it?

Please watch this entire video. You will be surprised at some things he says.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH_QB0YSHuc