Well thats was disappointing, absolutley zero information on my porn history, just what apps i use and movies i've got through the playstore, sigh, guess i'm not important enough to keep information on.

Hey! I actually like Windows Mobile. No, not Windows Phone.

you should print it and stand with the banner near their phone shop. make 'em starve without sales :)

I mean, they already shut down all phone efforts, didn't they? They bought Nokia's phone division, and then went "meh, can't be bothered" after having it collect dust for a few months and shut it down, because no one liked Windows Phone.

That's a valid point. The problem is that the legislative process in all countries has been woefully inadequate for keeping up with advancements in technology as they have accelerated. The same situation is likely to play out with the wider adoption of autonomous vehicles... the legislation surrounding them will likely take years to catch up to the actual adoption rate.

It seems as though law makers really only get moving on this stuff once something lights a fire under them. For autonomous vehicles that would probably be something like a horrible accident. For social media as a communication channel it seems as though the catalyst will be national security concerns. The problem with security being the catalyst for legislation is that freedom of information won't necessarily be the highest priority.

Whilst I agree with your point of regulating mass media, I don't think they should be regulated to avoid censorship but to hold them accountable for the information which flows through their channels.

I know my opinion on the matter ins't a popular one but considering Youtube's algorithm favours outrage, controversies, viral videos, daily uploads, lengthy uploads, response videos amongst popular channels, etc. I think Youtube needs to censor itself, especially since they have such a massive potential influence over democratic processes no matter which side we're talking about. Youtube needs censorship because Youtube is designed to hook viewers up with an iron grip and that is much easily accomplished with emotion than with erudition. Youtube moneymakers know this and they shape their information accordingly, lest we forget the title of the video posted by the OP, "Google's Censorious Urges are Playing a VERY DANGEROUS Game" which is clickbaity and tendentious but it's great for views count standards.

Google, Facebook, etc. can't and should not allow everything on their platform, not because they're private ventures and can do with their platforms whatever they please, but because their immediacy, scale, popularity and design can be devastating if allowed to host and indirectly or directly promote certain types of harmful content. I know this one will come harshly but remember the Rwandan genocide? A local radio station played a major role on the massacre. Imagine what could happen today if globalised mass media platforms were not scrutinised and censored to a degree, what could happen if those 'digital streets' which are full and thrive on stupidity and ignorance (tide pod challenge anyone?) were let loose. The fact is that comparing them to a street is a false equivalence because on the streets there isn't the same degree of anonymity and there's also patrolling police, people on the street act more rationally and what they say has a limited reach.

Let's not kid ourselves, more often than not the debate on 'freedom of speech' is a euphemism for manipulation and control, not a quest for enlightenment.

Except you're wrong. When Antifa goes to the street and starts pushing people around cops don't do squat. There is a video on youtube about that. Oh, wait. Not anymore.

The government owns the broadcast lines or whatever those stations use, which is why they're regulated. So yeah, like I said above, if the government steps in and regulates the internet proper then you've got an argument. As of right now though there's no government ownership of Google, and Google isn't leasing the "internet lines," so it's not the same thing at all.

And what's the difference? In both cases we have a small group of people (government or Google directors board) who decide what other people say and see on the Internet.

Well, they were temporarily with the Net Neutrality laws, and should be again.

You could say the same about the gun-nut who fired his weapon in the middle of a crowd, about 15 feet away from 3 cops, and they didn't even flinch.

Or that. This is exactly what happens when there is no rules and restrictions, or the ones who ought to enforce rules and restrictions don't do their job. People just become crazier and crazier - both on the net and on the streets.

Everyone knows Google is pro-Racism and pro-SJWs. This nothing new.

I'd rather they partner with Jim Morrison and call themselves Big Tobacco.

The sources may be good but often MSM outlets bury their sources, hide them, etc and it's nearly impossible to check into them(if at all).

What about the gog.com one? o.0

That's actually the alphabet agency's job. :\

The difference is Google's board run a private company and have the right to make those decisions. The government is completely unrelated, and should stay out of private business unless people are actually being harmed, which they of course are not.

It's a popular trend lately though to want nanny government to come in and stop people you disagree with, so the reaction to this surprises me not at all. I'm not gonna pretend I agree with it though.