New Gun Friendly Video Channel. Full30.com (Spread The Word)

SQLGeek said:

...repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

...and that's the mid-term future goal.

Beyond that, the removal of all firearms from "civilian" hands is the end game.

We realize it here but I'm surprised how few people understand that the invalidation of inherent human rights is the ultimate goal of many of these folks. We must fight them every step of the way. Right now, the hottest battlefield with the most at stake in the long term is Youtube. YT is the default online reflection of our culture; change it and you change real life. They should have never been allowed to become so powerful but now that they are, we have to deal with it.

The stakes are high, folks.

benenglish said:

...and that's the mid-term future goal.

Beyond that, the removal of all firearms from "civilian" hands is the end game.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And they've smartened up to realize that without a repeal, this can't be accomplished. They are a lot more honest about their intentions than they used to be en toto.

Right now, the hottest battlefield with the most at stake in the long term is Youtube. YT is the default online reflection of our culture; change it and you change real life. They should have never been allowed to become so powerful but now that they are, we have to deal with it.

The stakes are high, folks.

Click to expand...

Precisely how I see it.

And now I am at quite the personal philosophical cross-roads between the rights of a private entity to run their business as they see fit and the right to suppress legal speech in what has become the de facto place for video publishing.

The internet sure has muddied the waters hasn't it?

SQLGeek said:

The internet sure has muddied the waters hasn't it?

Click to expand...

Not really. Anti-trust provisions have long been accepted as a reasonable intervention in the market by a government that wants to keep the playing field level.

Alphabet/Google/YT is a large, anti-competitive trust and should have been subjected to legal penalties long ago. Unfortunately, ever since the Microsoft anti-trust case fell apart the tech industries have learned how to lobby and spent plenty of money to make themselves untouchable.

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?

Ted Cruz, in the absence of any political will to bring anti-trust law to bear, may have hit upon a stop-gap solution - The Communications Decency Act. It grants immunity from liability only for neutral public forums. (ETA - Yes, I know this interpretation of the CDA is arguable. For the moment, I prefer to believe Cruz has it right.) During a hearing last January, his closing statement to witnesses from Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter included the following:

The pattern of political censorship we are seeing across the technology companies is highly concerning and the opening question I asked of whether you are a neutral public forum — if you are a neutral public forum, that does not allow for political editorializing and censorship. And if you are not a neutral public forum, the entire predicate for liability immunity under the CDA [Communications Decency Act] is claiming to be a neutral public forum, so you cannot have it both ways.

Click to expand...

This isn't a good solution. If a finding that they are not neutral happened, then there would have to be many small cases brought that address each instance of censorship. That's unwieldy.

But it's also a darn sight better than anything we're doing now.

It's 7 minutes long and most people won't want to watch it but for the sake of completeness the entire line of questioning by Cruz can be seen here:

benenglish said:

Not really. Anti-trust provisions have long been accepted as a reasonable intervention in the market by a government that wants to keep the playing field level.

Alphabet/Google/YT is a large, anti-competitive trust and should have been subjected to legal penalties long ago. Unfortunately, ever since the Microsoft anti-trust case fell apart the tech industries have learned how to lobby and spent plenty of money to make themselves untouchable.

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?

Ted Cruz, in the absence of any political will to bring anti-trust law to bear, may have hit upon a stop-gap solution - The Communications Decency Act. It grants immunity from liability only for neutral public forums. During a hearing last January, his closing statement to witnesses from Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter included the following:This isn't a good solution. If a finding that they are not neutral happened, then there would have to be many small cases brought that address each instance of censorship. That's unwieldy.

But it's also a darn sight better than anything we're doing now.

It's 7 minutes long and most people won't want to watch it but for the sake of completeness the entire line of questioning by Cruz can be seen here:

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, getting the government involved often doesn't relate to better.

benenglish said:

Not really. Anti-trust provisions have long been accepted as a reasonable intervention in the market by a government that wants to keep the playing field level.

Click to expand...

Certainly. But has there ever been a platform before where private companies have been in charge of a public forum the size of social media networks? The press, perhaps, but they are the content creators themselves.

I think this is a new beast. And my struggle is how anti-trust fits. But I think it is going to to have to be addressed. I don't think gun channels are going to force it but will be one piece of a larger pie.

easy rider said:

Unfortunately, getting the government involved often doesn't relate to better.

Click to expand...

True but anti-trust is a special case. When corporations get to be as large as governments and the tail starts to wag the dog, government involvement is warranted. It doesn't always work out well but there's justification to try.

That's been settled law for over 100 years.

For example, the post-WWII boom years saw lots of anti-trust action on much, much smaller entities than Alphabet/Google/YouTube. The results were generally good, so we know an activist federal government taking on too-big businesses can work out for the best.

Unfortunately, I have far less trust that things would work out well these days. Nevertheless, I still think it's the duty of federal law enforcement agencies to at least try to enforce the law in this regard.

The devil, as always, is in the details.

I am hoping with increases in technology, we will see an alternative to videos hosted in one place or perhaps a decrease in storage and server costs. I have sent a message to Tim from MAC/Full30 and I told him to explore things like Amazon Web Services or something similar for mass access/write storage.

Honestly though, it all comes down to numbers. We need more people who share our belief system. Get to evangelizing immigrants/the uninitiated and/or start popping out kids.

MTA89 said:

We need more people who share our belief system. Get to evangelizing immigrants...

Click to expand...

That's been a hot topic at Gun Rights Policy Council meetings for years.

Immigrants, especially latinos, come from places where only the oppressors have guns. We're missing a golden opportunity by failing to learn Spanish and teach them that owning guns is a symbol of American freedom. Owning guns, whether they realize it or not, is part of the reason they came to this country. They just need to be educated.

The willingness of the gun establishment to reach out to potential constituents for whom Spanish is their native language is, not to put too fine a point on it, lacking.

Folks may feel free to speculate on the root causes of that demureness.

benenglish said:

That's been a hot topic at Gun Rights Policy Council meetings for years.

Immigrants, especially latinos, come from places where only the oppressors have guns. We're missing a golden opportunity by failing to learn Spanish and teach them that owning guns is a symbol of American freedom. Owning guns, whether they realize it or not, is part of the reason they came to this country. They just need to be educated.

The willingness of the gun establishment to reach out to potential constituents for whom Spanish is their native language is, not to put too fine a point on it, lacking.

Folks may feel free to speculate on the root causes of that demureness.

Click to expand...

I have seen plenty of hispanic people at the ranges around this area. Of course, I wouldn't know if they were born American or naturalized Americans, but they are speaking spanish, although many don't like it called spanish.

easy rider said:

I have seen plenty of hispanic people at the ranges around this area. Of course, I wouldn't know if they were born American or naturalized Americans, but they are speaking spanish, although many don't like it called spanish.

Click to expand...

What do they call it then? Mexican?

MTA89 said:

What do they call it then? Mexican?

Click to expand...

Spanglish?

benenglish said:

Spanglish?

Click to expand...

Texmex.
The dialect varies between regions as much as our "English" does across the US.
The southern Mexicans and Guatemalans can barely converse with Mexicans from the Texas border.
I vividly recall the children of the "undocumented illegals" back in the 70s taking Spanish in school, because it would be easy for them. They failed miserably and made the teacher's job much more difficult .

Border Mexicans do not speak Spanish.
Cubans speak Spanish and Spanglish.

MTA89 said:

What do they call it then? Mexican?

Click to expand...

Hispanic or Mexican, yes. I heard some say "I'm not from Spain". I laughed and said "well, I'm not from England".