As an outsider and, I think, unbiased let me say this...

The whole thing is a cesspool. It is leaking out onto the rest of the 'net. Let them do what they will and build a community of your own if you do not like it - that goes for any/all sides. While it is done on private property you have no control. If one is being censored on one platform your recourse is not to whinge but to do something constructive about it. Make your own site, make it popular, and maybe make some money on the side. Keep it open (or closed) as you see fit.

Now, about it leaking to the rest of the internet. Let me also point out that I am not helping prevent this. I am giving my eyeballs and my random pixels to the cause. I am aware of this. However... Really? Hang your dirty laundry up in the house. Have you no shame? The rest of us are proverbial perverts (and real perverts) so we will watch (and speculate) much like we would watch the results of a spectacular car wreck.

It should be done with beautiful women and used their breasts. They can call it Tits or GTFO.

Alice posts a video using music that Bob owns the copyright to. Carol posts a video that uses music Bob falsely claims to also hold the copyright for. Unfortunately Bob's false claim against Carol doesn't change the fact that he actually does have a legitimate legal claim against Alice's video. So kicking him off the system means he's going to issue a takedown against Alice. The whole point of bringing him into the system was to give him an incentive to leave Alice alone.

The problem here isn't Bob and Alice -- that part of the scenario is working fine. The problem is Bob and Carol. There's no incentive for Bob not to make false claims against Carol. That's the bit that has to be fixed.

I think I may help shed some light on this. I am not sure how good it will be but I will try.

Some say that atheists do not believe in a god. Others say that atheists believe there is no god. In both it requires a belief, believing that there is no god. The verbiage just brings that aspect to the forefront. So, if one actively believes there is no god then that is a belief system ergo a religion by some definitions.

I offer no opinion other than the above. What you believe is entirely up to you as is how you opt to identify yourself.

Your post is mostly gibberish but to reply...

A company can restrict your ability to use their property as your platform for speech. The government can also do so, we call them "free speech zones."

You should also read my post. I make it quite clear that this is applicable to the United States and that other nations can and have different laws and that some include no right to free speech at all. This is not a complicated subject but your incorrect ranting is cute. What is also amusing is that someone actually noticed your capitalization and punctuation and thought you were saying something pertinent. They absolutely could not have read it before moderating it or, alternatively, they just are inept.

Investments are the money doing work. You do not invest in a company so that the company can just sit on the money. They take that money and spend it doing things like growing their business, hiring new people, buying supplies, investing in growth, creating new products, and other things. When you put money in a bank it does not just sit idle in a bank. That money is also invested, it is used to loan other people money, it pays salaries and works. Unless you are storing it in a shoe box, or a proverbial shoe box, it is working. Obviously you should have some in a shoe box so that you have access to it.

So, after you take someone else's money what are you going to do when that money is gone? If you stole all the money from the 1% you could run the federal government on that money alone for a grand total of a little over four days (using someone else's math but checking it indicated that it was the correct sum) and then they will have the same situation they were in before (and fewer investments in short or long-term growth) and, worse, because of all the money being exchanged and the wealth removed the deflated dollar will have even less buying power than it had before that.

YTMND! So, what is next? You have no more wealthy people but you do have a bunch of new people who collected those lowered-value dollars. Are you going to take it from them next? How many times are you going to do this? Are you going to drive the country into the ground as quickly as you can or are you going to make it slow and painful?

What was surprising and did not match the rest of my home-use experiences was that I get the same address every time. The one that remained turned off got the same IP address back after about a six week disconnect from the power that ran the router. That is what was different than my usual experiences. I typically would return home after a weeks vacation and find the IP address had changed when I powered the router back on. That was the expected behavior from what I had been conditioned to anticipate. Having it different, a static IP address, was a nice surprise.

I used to pay attention to my IP address because I would often connect from work to retrieve data that I did not bring with me. It was important that I use an IP-to-domain service that enabled me to just use a single URL to connect to my system and access my files. I would just update that information when my IP address changed and eventually found a freeware application that enabled me to just skip the manual updating. I think the service I used was dyndns and the freeware application is behind unwilling to power on neurons.

This is where I meant to post this response. Somehow I ended up posting it in a different thread. I can only assume that stupidity was involved. My own involvement is the reason that I suspect stupidity. With this reply, though, that has been taken care of.

Ignore my other post. The actual reply is threaded below the nonsensical reply. The nonsensical reply, while a nice enough post and all, does not belong here. My gibberish knows no bounds and my inability to comprehend even simple things is unlimited.

Those are not the words you are looking for.

Ignore that. I had several tabs open and I am functionally retarded.

What I meant to say, to you, was along the lines of; Yeah. I found it a bit odd that they were "seeing" things in the other person's post. It was remarkable how much insight they could gather from those limited sentences. Their ability to grasp a person's mental health status with so limited information should be lauded and investigated as they truly can change the psychiatric medical field. I suspect they will get a Nobel Prize and be featured on the cover of both Time and Rolling Stone magazines. Also, the ladies will be impressed so they will further their genetic profile far and wide.

What was surprising and did not match the rest of my home-use experiences was that I get the same address every time. The one that remained turned off got the same IP address back after about a six week disconnect from the power that ran the router. That is what was different than my usual experiences. I typically would return home after a weeks vacation and find the IP address had changed when I powered the router back on. That was the expected behavior from what I had been conditioned to anticipate. Having it different, a static IP address, was a nice surprise.

I used to pay attention to my IP address because I would often connect from work to retrieve data that I did not bring with me. It was important that I use an IP-to-domain service that enabled me to just use a single URL to connect to my system and access my files. I would just update that information when my IP address changed and eventually found a freeware application that enabled me to just skip the manual updating. I think the service I used was dyndns and the freeware application is behind unwilling to power on neurons.

Well yeah. It has been this way for as long as I can think of and further back than that. I was born so long ago that the Sun had a price tag on it still. It was illegal even then. The amusing part is that someone opted to down-mod my post when the replies have, I have not read all replies yet, paraphrased what I said or added information and clarification to it. I do not care about the moderation but I find it sad that someone was unable to understand it. I had thought my writing fairly clear.

Anyhow, yes. Speech has consequences and you do have a right to free speech or even a freedom of speech. The latter is superfluous and it is only constrained by physically removing that right. Even a gag order does not prevent free speech - it just means that there are consequences for violating it. A gag order removes one's right to speak on that particular subject as you seemingly know.

You absolutely do have that right. You have that right but are not free to say anything you want without repercussions. So, yes. That is what I said but with much more detail. There have, as far as I know, limits to our "free speech." I, for one, do not always like the speech but I would never dream of silencing someone. One of my concerns is that these things should already have been illegal (the variances determined by their people) and not require a new law because of "internet."

I like to put it this way: I am free to kill you, I am not at liberty to do so.

Ultimately, any moral structure you choose to enforce is a choice. Including the one you've apparently chosen where inherent properties are given higher standing than chosen properties. Strictly from a physical (inherent) standpoint, there was nothing wrong with Hitler's belief that certain members of the human race needed to be exterminated. Evolution is after all about survival of the fittest, and if those peoples could not survive his extermination attempt, then obviously they were not fit enough for their environment. Others chose to believe differently - that those people had an inherent right to exist regardless of the circumstances they were born into. And they believed in that choice strongly enough to go to war over it even though it resulted in over 50 million deaths

So it's self-contradictory to argue that things based on a choice deserve less protection than things that are inherent. Such a moral position is in itself a choice, and by your definition cannot be defended if e.g. someone inherently physically stronger than everyone else decides to go around smashing in the heads of people who believe as you do (regardless of your race or gender).

Religious intolerance is included because historically it has been one of the main reasons people have been persecuted and discriminated against. Heck, people are being executed for it right now in Syria and Iraq. Probably a lot more than because of their race or gender. Even atheism is a choice (essentially, a religion). The scientific method cannot prove a negative, so it cannot prove that a god does not exist. So to go from agnosticism (uncertainty about whether a diety exists) to atheism (certainty that no deity exists) requires a leap of faith - a choice.

If you boil it down, I think you'll agree that the key principle worth defending is the right to self determination - the freedom to make the choices you want to make. Such choices are worth protecting up to the point where they begin to interfere with other people's freedom to make their own choices. It's all about choices.

You know that content gets voted by the community and only appears on the front page if enough people care, right?

And everyone votes. And everyone takes their day-off July 3rd holiday to go to reddit. And everyone... Show me a votes to daily-visits ratio before you declare what is a minority and what is not.