I guess various social media platforms have banned Alex Jones?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
Facebook is no different than your local pub.

Patently absurd.

1) They both allow friends, family and strangers to communicate with one another and share many things.
2) They both are open to the public.
3) They both have the right to kick you out for behaving like an arse.
4) They both can communicate with other like businesses to warn them of a disruptive guest so they can take proper action before something worse happens.

It really is no different, and it is good that the same things that are applied in person are finally being applied to places on the internet and treating it the same as anywhere else. That is long overdue.

A Pew poll in 2016 did not find that 44% of US adults get their news from ONE PARTICULAR "local pub".

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
Facebook is no different than your local pub.

Patently absurd.

1) They both allow friends, family and strangers to communicate with one another and share many things.
2) They both are open to the public.
3) They both have the right to kick you out for behaving like an arse.
4) They both can communicate with other like businesses to warn them of a disruptive guest so they can take proper action before something worse happens.

It really is no different, and it is good that the same things that are applied in person are finally being applied to places on the internet and treating it the same as anywhere else. That is long overdue.

Out of curiosity, do you apply that logic consistently and believe that businesses, even ones like social media that have effective utility status, should be allowed to refuse service to gays, Muslims, socialists, blacks or any other group that one could make your argument for refusing to do business with them simply because the business in question doesn't like such people? I mean sure, you could pretend this is because of how Alex Jones acts (even though that argument lost any ability to retain water when no specific incidents where used as justification for the bans, they all occurred too close together to possibly have been because of past incidents, some services that banned him are physically impossible for him to have done something on it to warrant a ban, and some even banned him minutes after he started using their service, meaning his actions in the past have no connection to this and anyone trying to push that lie has no argument and knows it but for some reason still wants their hat in the ring), but even if we pretend it is because of that, you'd still need to accept religion as a reason to refuse service.

Honestly this whole thing is a moot point given previous court rulings on the state of social media. Even if we ignored the fact a Cruz Missile is inbound because the threats he made during his grilling of Zuckerburg back in January had a 0% probability of being a bluff, there's already too much precedent to pretend these already semi-utility status companies can act as fully private ones and abuse that position. Though if they bend the knee when the Cruz Missiles hit they'll probably be better off then MasterCard, who are totally fucked after what they did to that Muslim Reformists which probably broke a few laws and is practically begging for Sherman Act application.

Interesting times to say the least, especially since we can see how few self proclaimed socialists buy their own bull given how next to none have taken a stance consistent with their claimed ideological views on this whole fiasco that keeps growing by the day. Not that I was personally under any illusion socialists exist in the West.

image

Almost poetic that it took'll take a Hispanic Canadian to save America from Silicon Valley Technofascists. The absurdity of this timeline keeps one upping itself, it's like we're in the last season of a TV show where the writers know it's getting cancelled so they're throwing in as much as they can before the grand finale.

Zontar:
Silicon Valley Technofascists

I call dibs on this for my indie band name. Mine, no one else can have it. That's what dibs means. Suck it, losers.

Okay, back to your regularly-scheduled internet slapfight.

Zontar:

Out of curiosity, do you apply that logic consistently and believe that businesses, even ones like social media that have effective utility status, should be allowed to refuse service to gays, Muslims, socialists, blacks or any other group that one could make your argument for refusing to do business with them simply because the business in question doesn't like such people? I mean sure, you could pretend this is because of how Alex Jones acts (even though that argument lost any ability to retain water when no specific incidents where used as justification for the bans, they all occurred too close together to possibly have been because of past incidents, some services that banned him are physically impossible for him to have done something on it to warrant a ban, and some even banned him minutes after he started using their service, meaning his actions in the past have no connection to this and anyone trying to push that lie has no argument and knows it but for some reason still wants their hat in the ring), but even if we pretend it is because of that, you'd still need to accept religion as a reason to refuse service.

...Alex Jones isn't being denied service because he's a straight, white, (presumably) Christian rightwing dude. Alex Jones is being denied service because Alex Jones is a massive, PR-disaster causing asshole.

That's not a protected class.

Zontar:

Honestly this whole thing is a moot point given previous court rulings on the state of social media. Even if we ignored the fact a Cruz Missile is inbound because the threats he made during his grilling of Zuckerburg back in January had a 0% probability of being a bluff, there's already too much precedent to pretend these already semi-utility status companies can act as fully private ones and abuse that position. Though if they bend the knee when the Cruz Missiles hit they'll probably be better off then MasterCard, who are totally fucked after what they did to that Muslim Reformists which probably broke a few laws and is practically begging for Sherman Act application.

Interesting times to say the least, especially since we can see how few self proclaimed socialists buy their own bull given how next to none have taken a stance consistent with their claimed ideological views on this whole fiasco that keeps growing by the day. Not that I was personally under any illusion socialists exist in the West.

"The people I call socialists don't act how I think socialists should act and that's their fault somehow"

Zontar:

Almost poetic that it took'll take a Hispanic Canadian to save America from Silicon Valley Technofascists. The absurdity of this timeline keeps one upping itself, it's like we're in the last season of a TV show where the writers know it's getting cancelled so they're throwing in as much as they can before the grand finale.

Takes a bold man to both want to keep net neutrality dead and regulate "neutrality" in private companies.

Like, if the net were neutral still, ISPs like Comcast wouldn't be allowed to favor big media like Twitter or something, so "the market" could solve this problem.

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Patently absurd.

1) They both allow friends, family and strangers to communicate with one another and share many things.
2) They both are open to the public.
3) They both have the right to kick you out for behaving like an arse.
4) They both can communicate with other like businesses to warn them of a disruptive guest so they can take proper action before something worse happens.

It really is no different, and it is good that the same things that are applied in person are finally being applied to places on the internet and treating it the same as anywhere else. That is long overdue.

A Pew poll in 2016 did not find that 44% of US adults get their news from ONE PARTICULAR "local pub".

Well, "get news". Not necessarily "all their news".

I mean, I "get news" from Facebook, given that I occasionally see news articles on it. I "get news" from the newspapers at McDonalds too.

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Patently absurd.

1) They both allow friends, family and strangers to communicate with one another and share many things.
2) They both are open to the public.
3) They both have the right to kick you out for behaving like an arse.
4) They both can communicate with other like businesses to warn them of a disruptive guest so they can take proper action before something worse happens.

It really is no different, and it is good that the same things that are applied in person are finally being applied to places on the internet and treating it the same as anywhere else. That is long overdue.

A Pew poll in 2016 did not find that 44% of US adults get their news from ONE PARTICULAR "local pub".

You do realize that saying they get their news from " facebook" also means they are getting their news from a variety of sources and just viewed it on facebook? People sign up for different sources and that is what they read there in addition to whatever is trending and even on the trending news, it is not "ONE source". It is no different than reading different newspapers and magazines from a stand set in the corner of a local pub, or watching news on the tele while visiting. Albeit a big pub, with so many teles you can watch news from any station all at once if you like, they did not create the news, they just have it available for people to read and watch and even choose what sources they receive it from.

Although that is irrelevant to this topic, as Alex Jones does not produce news, he promotes fiction and misrepresents it as fact, which makes him a con artist not a newscaster.

Zontar:

trunkage:
I'd point out that this has been going on for years. Adpocalypse 1 and 2 decimated a lot of channels that werent related to the actual incidents. Youtube's decision to restrict ads and recommendation to high volume and viewer channels sqaushed a lot of smaller ones. Advertisers have demanded to be in control. People on the Left have been attacked just as much as the Right.

Yes this has been going on for years, but not this hard, not this openly, and not with this much of an attempt to purge people from the internet and make it impossible to create their content (Patreon is the lifeblood of creators now, at least until Mastercard began using intimidation tactics on them to purge Islamic Reformists from their service). It should also be noted that the right gets it worst, the left has no equivalent to the Jones purge despite having equivalents to Jones, though I suppose only time will tell if this is a case of it being one sided or if it's a case of the right getting it first.

Pretending Jones is an isolated incident is false. It could be the last straw. I dont know where everyone will go, but pretending that Jones was the deciding factor doesnt tell a complete story. I expect fragmentation. And more forceful and authoritative Libertarians

Government intervention is inevitable at this point, too many people on both the left and the right are in agreement that it's necessary at this point given the clear collusion at work in the tech industry. No one outside of Silicon Valley wants to see them dictate anything, let alone the internet (no one sane anyway). Also odd how much has been happening this week, Mad Max Bernier has been dropping inconvenient truths about the current state of politics up here, statements that have been getting 80%+ approval despite being well outside the overton window of Canadian politics, and the party is stuck between a rock and a hard place because they can't kick him out because he controls the largest wing of the party (and had it not been for ballot stuffing would have been the party leader right now), but if they keep him then he'll continue to force a return to sanity in Canadian politics.

Seems odd this would happen now of all times. Could be a coincidence, but I don't think so, the timing just feels too perfect.

God do we not need the government involved in another thing in our lives. But, until it gets involved, it's the Wild West. The until both sides grow up, we'll just get more government interventions. Then we start playing the game of twisting the law to met your ends.

Zontar:
snipped for space

They are not refusing business because they do not " like him" they are refusing business because he has proven himself harmful to others within their community. That is not in any way the same as being racist, sexist or xenophobic as you propose it to be. He has incited violence against others, he has caused great harm and suffering to others through his actions. Pizza gate,Sandy Hook, Parkland, and his call to take up arms against the media have all crossed the line between "not liking someone" and being a danger to the community. When people have others show up to their work firing off guns due to something Alex told them, and grieving children are forced to have body guards due to nonsense he made up, he has well crossed the line to being banned by anyone who chooses to ban him at that point. He brought it on himself by causing such harm to come to members of the community through his arrogant and reckless actions. Him causing people harm =\= not liking them.

Lil devils x:
You do realize that saying they get their news from "facebook" also means they are getting their news from a variety of sources and just viewed it on facebook?

You're not getting around the point that the editorial discretion of facebook amounts to vastly more influence than "a local pub".

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
You do realize that saying they get their news from "facebook" also means they are getting their news from a variety of sources and just viewed it on facebook?

You're not getting around the point that the editorial discretion of facebook amounts to vastly more influence than "a local pub".

The news people read on facebook is not edited by facebook, it comes straight from the news sites that run the story. People can choose what news sources they view there. Do you even read the news on facebook?

Lil devils x:
The news people read on facebook is not edited by facebook, it comes straight from the news sites that run the story. People can choose what news sources they view there. Do you even read the news on facebook?

Facebook does control what news items pop up when people look at FB, though.

OTOH, it is a privately run platform. And...yeah, I don't want the US government running FB.

Thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
The news people read on facebook is not edited by facebook, it comes straight from the news sites that run the story. People can choose what news sources they view there. Do you even read the news on facebook?

Facebook does control what news items pop up when people look at FB, though.

OTOH, it is a privately run platform. And...yeah, I don't want the US government running FB.

They now utilize limited control over " what is trending" due to past issues of manipulation of algorithms making some pretty bad stuff pop up, but outside that they do not edit people's feeds, it is according to whatever they sign up for or how they customized their content.

Them even taking action on that though was due to the outrage over fake news articles and such, as they previously did not even exercise limited controls over the trending news during the presidential election. That was what the outrage was about in the first place.

Lil devils x:

Thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
The news people read on facebook is not edited by facebook, it comes straight from the news sites that run the story. People can choose what news sources they view there. Do you even read the news on facebook?

Facebook does control what news items pop up when people look at FB, though.

OTOH, it is a privately run platform. And...yeah, I don't want the US government running FB.

They now utilize limited control over " what is trending" due to past issues of manipulation of algorithms making some pretty bad stuff pop up, but outside that they do not edit people's feeds, it is according to whatever they sign up for or how they customized their content.

Them even taking action on that though was due to the outrage over fake news articles and such, as they previously did not even exercise limited controls over the trending news during the presidential election. That was what the outrage was about in the first place.

Let me put this in other words, so that you can hopefully understand why people would have a problem with this.

"Facebook manipulate 'trending' due to controversial topics being shown.
Facebook decided what is 'fake news'..and such. because they previously allowed dissenting political opinion during the 2016 election."

Their own company/platform..sort of, yes. But Facebook undeniably exerts a huge influence on peoples everyday lives.
What would your take on it be, if it came out that governments has approached Facebook to "work closer together" to alter what is shown?

Vendor-Lazarus:

Lil devils x:

Thaluikhain:

Facebook does control what news items pop up when people look at FB, though.

OTOH, it is a privately run platform. And...yeah, I don't want the US government running FB.

They now utilize limited control over " what is trending" due to past issues of manipulation of algorithms making some pretty bad stuff pop up, but outside that they do not edit people's feeds, it is according to whatever they sign up for or how they customized their content.

Them even taking action on that though was due to the outrage over fake news articles and such, as they previously did not even exercise limited controls over the trending news during the presidential election. That was what the outrage was about in the first place.

Let me put this in other words, so that you can hopefully understand why people would have a problem with this.

"Facebook manipulate 'trending' due to controversial topics being shown.
Facebook decided what is 'fake news'..and such. because they previously allowed dissenting political opinion during the 2016 election."

Their own company/platform..sort of, yes. But Facebook undeniably exerts a huge influence on peoples everyday lives.
What would your take on it be, if it came out that governments has approached Facebook to "work closer together" to alter what is shown?

That is not accurate.

Facebook utilized limited control due to "ALGORITHM ABUSE", not just that bad stuff was being shown. It was the means they went about manipulating the algorithms to make the bad stuff show in the first place that is the problem moreso than the content being shown. The content is what drew their attention and caused them to investigate, however, the results of their investigation were that there was an apparent issue with Algorithm manipulation that had to be addressed.

1)Facebook never decided what was fake news and what was not, they utilize 3rd party fact checking resources for that instead, so that is not accurate.
2) Dissenting opinion was irrelevant to what was determined fake and not fake. Dissenting opinion still exists on facebook and has not been regulated/ edited or removed.
3)They banned users who had created fake accounts and misrepresented themselves, who turned out to be in reality "Russian Trolls"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/business/facebook-russian-trolls-removed.html

Vendor-Lazarus:

Lil devils x:

Thaluikhain:

Facebook does control what news items pop up when people look at FB, though.

OTOH, it is a privately run platform. And...yeah, I don't want the US government running FB.

They now utilize limited control over " what is trending" due to past issues of manipulation of algorithms making some pretty bad stuff pop up, but outside that they do not edit people's feeds, it is according to whatever they sign up for or how they customized their content.

Them even taking action on that though was due to the outrage over fake news articles and such, as they previously did not even exercise limited controls over the trending news during the presidential election. That was what the outrage was about in the first place.

Let me put this in other words, so that you can hopefully understand why people would have a problem with this.

"Facebook manipulate 'trending' due to controversial topics being shown.
Facebook decided what is 'fake news'..and such. because they previously allowed dissenting political opinion during the 2016 election."

Their own company/platform..sort of, yes. But Facebook undeniably exerts a huge influence on peoples everyday lives.
What would your take on it be, if it came out that governments has approached Facebook to "work closer together" to alter what is shown?

So... like any other media from movies to radio to newspapers. Media has always told you what to think. And they have always used stats to manipulate you. They have always used your info against you. They only show negative items because we, as a society, want

The stupidity of Fake News is that media has always lied. Since at least the printing press was made. Pretending any different is more about naivete than anything else.

This is not to discount concerns about Facebook. It is literally awful. Its also par for the course for media.

Saelune:

Gergar12:
As much as I dislike Alex Jones, censorship is a double edge sword. Soon they will possibly come for us liberals, social democrats, and etc.

1. Vague wording (basically giving them more power to do almost whatever they want)

2. Not pointing to specific videos

That being said It couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.

I wonder if people thought when things like rape and murder were made illegal that suddenly 'Oh no, if they come for the rapists and murderers, it is a slippery slope before they come after me!'

Some things should just not be allowed. We should not be afraid to make things punishable because we think it will lead to making things punishable that should not be, we should just make sure when they try to punish people they actually shouldn't, we oppose it.

Alex Jones should be even more punished than he is. He is an intentionally malicious liar and that should not be ok.

But free speech is already being banned. And some of it does affect left-wingers.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

They HAVE come for us. look at the censorship of youtube, we had LGBTQ activists banned/demonetized, along with TYT, Secular Talk, and a whole host of POLITICAL speech channels because companies didn't like it. Of course, the Daily Wire, and InfoWars were also at the time demonetized, but one had billionaire backers, and another had pseudomedicine sales.

Unless Left-wing backers get billionaire backers in which case they would be influenced by said backers, like how Glen Greenwald's The Intercept is backed by someone who was originally by Iran and didn't want his homeland bombed so he created the Intercept, or how he turned in a Bernie Sanders fan/NSA Leaker to the NSA because it had information damaging to the US President (Trump) who didn't want a war with Russia so Glen liked him.

If I was outside of the mainstream on youtube I would get Patreon. But it's not enough. Your fans contributions are from people would job, and they can be doxed.

The above point is this, Capitalism is starting to be a direct threat to the diversity of opinion. It can't just be I want 35% taxes on X vs 40%. It has to be Communism, and Free Palestine all the way to white supremacists, and neo-nazis. More speech means is better than some speech, as you cannot kill an idea, you can only laugh at it, and marginalized it with logic.

I have never seen someone outlaw an opinion, and then the opinion dies completely. We still have modern day Whigs, Neo-Nazis in Germany, House Christians in PRC China, and etc.

Gergar12:

Saelune:

Gergar12:
As much as I dislike Alex Jones, censorship is a double edge sword. Soon they will possibly come for us liberals, social democrats, and etc.

1. Vague wording (basically giving them more power to do almost whatever they want)

2. Not pointing to specific videos

That being said It couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.

I wonder if people thought when things like rape and murder were made illegal that suddenly 'Oh no, if they come for the rapists and murderers, it is a slippery slope before they come after me!'

Some things should just not be allowed. We should not be afraid to make things punishable because we think it will lead to making things punishable that should not be, we should just make sure when they try to punish people they actually shouldn't, we oppose it.

Alex Jones should be even more punished than he is. He is an intentionally malicious liar and that should not be ok.

But free speech is already being banned. And some of it does affect left-wingers.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

They HAVE come for us. look at the censorship of youtube, we had LGBTQ activists banned/demonetized, along with TYT, Secular Talk, and a whole host of POLITICAL speech channels because companies didn't like it. Of course, the Daily Wire, and InfoWars were also at the time demonetized, but one had billionaire backers, and another had pseudomedicine sales.

Unless Left-wing backers get billionaire backers in which case they would be influenced by said backers, like how Glen Greenwald's The Intercept is backed by someone who was originally by Iran and didn't want his homeland bombed so he created the Intercept, or how he turned in a Bernie Sanders fan/NSA Leaker to the NSA because it had information damaging to the US President (Trump) who didn't want a war with Russia so Glen liked him.

If I was outside of the mainstream on youtube I would get Patreon. But it's not enough. Your fans contributions are from people would job, and they can be doxed.

The above point is this, Capitalism is starting to be a direct threat to the diversity of opinion. It can't just be I want 35% taxes on X vs 40%. It has to be Communism, and Free Palestine all the way to white supremacists, and neo-nazis. More speech means is better than some speech, as you cannot kill an idea, you can only laugh at it, and marginalized it with logic.

I have never seen someone outlaw an opinion, and then the opinion dies completely. We still have modern day Whigs, Neo-Nazis in Germany, House Christians in PRC China, and etc.

In reality Christians have been censoring " the left" for a very long time, it is only recently that it has been okay to have gay people kiss on television, for any sort of nudity or swearing to be allowed.. you see this was the "Standard" for a very very long time. They have always been able to Censor television, radio, even lock out local businesses due to Church control. The fact that any of this has moved forward at all was due to extreme effort and pushback. In many areas of the US, however, this still has not happened yet and local radio and television STILL allow the church to censor their broadcasting. There are schools in west Texas where the students still do not have access to computers and all of their media is still controlled by the Church.

Gergar12:

Saelune:

Gergar12:
As much as I dislike Alex Jones, censorship is a double edge sword. Soon they will possibly come for us liberals, social democrats, and etc.

1. Vague wording (basically giving them more power to do almost whatever they want)

2. Not pointing to specific videos

That being said It couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.

I wonder if people thought when things like rape and murder were made illegal that suddenly 'Oh no, if they come for the rapists and murderers, it is a slippery slope before they come after me!'

Some things should just not be allowed. We should not be afraid to make things punishable because we think it will lead to making things punishable that should not be, we should just make sure when they try to punish people they actually shouldn't, we oppose it.

Alex Jones should be even more punished than he is. He is an intentionally malicious liar and that should not be ok.

But free speech is already being banned. And some of it does affect left-wingers.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

They HAVE come for us. look at the censorship of youtube, we had LGBTQ activists banned/demonetized, along with TYT, Secular Talk, and a whole host of POLITICAL speech channels because companies didn't like it. Of course, the Daily Wire, and InfoWars were also at the time demonetized, but one had billionaire backers, and another had pseudomedicine sales.

Unless Left-wing backers get billionaire backers in which case they would be influenced by said backers, like how Glen Greenwald's The Intercept is backed by someone who was originally by Iran and didn't want his homeland bombed so he created the Intercept, or how he turned in a Bernie Sanders fan/NSA Leaker to the NSA because it had information damaging to the US President (Trump) who didn't want a war with Russia so Glen liked him.

If I was outside of the mainstream on youtube I would get Patreon. But it's not enough. Your fans contributions are from people would job, and they can be doxed.

The above point is this, Capitalism is starting to be a direct threat to the diversity of opinion. It can't just be I want 35% taxes on X vs 40%. It has to be Communism, and Free Palestine all the way to white supremacists, and neo-nazis. More speech means is better than some speech, as you cannot kill an idea, you can only laugh at it, and marginalized it with logic.

I have never seen someone outlaw an opinion, and then the opinion dies completely. We still have modern day Whigs, Neo-Nazis in Germany, House Christians in PRC China, and etc.

People censoring things they should not does not mean we should not censor things that should be censored. Just because sometimes an innocent man goes to jail for a murder he did not commit, doesn't mean we should stop punishing murderers, rather we should learn to better identify the innocent from the guilty and punish fairly and accordingly.

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Patently absurd.

1) They both allow friends, family and strangers to communicate with one another and share many things.
2) They both are open to the public.
3) They both have the right to kick you out for behaving like an arse.
4) They both can communicate with other like businesses to warn them of a disruptive guest so they can take proper action before something worse happens.

It really is no different, and it is good that the same things that are applied in person are finally being applied to places on the internet and treating it the same as anywhere else. That is long overdue.

A Pew poll in 2016 did not find that 44% of US adults get their news from ONE PARTICULAR "local pub".

They might if the pub were big enough

Palindromemordnilap:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

1) They both allow friends, family and strangers to communicate with one another and share many things.
2) They both are open to the public.
3) They both have the right to kick you out for behaving like an arse.
4) They both can communicate with other like businesses to warn them of a disruptive guest so they can take proper action before something worse happens.

It really is no different, and it is good that the same things that are applied in person are finally being applied to places on the internet and treating it the same as anywhere else. That is long overdue.

A Pew poll in 2016 did not find that 44% of US adults get their news from ONE PARTICULAR "local pub".

They might if the pub were big enough

A pub that big should probably be broken up... if it didn't collapse in on itself from the gravity.

image

image

image

He who laughs last, laughs best.

All they had to do was not be evil, it was even the motto of one of them, but those days are over, just like the says of Silicon Valley Technofascists are numbered.

Zontar:

image

image

image

He who laughs last, laughs best.

All they had to do was not be evil, it was even the motto of one of them, but those days are over, just like the says of Silicon Valley Technofascists are numbered.

He literally said they should have their press passes revoked and not be allowed report. So "I don't ask for their sick behaviour to be removed" is another in a remarkable series of easily disproved lies hat of course you take at face value.

CheetoDust:
He literally said they should have their press passes revoked and not be allowed report. So "I don't ask for their sick behaviour to be removed" is another in a remarkable series of easily disproved lies hat of course you take at face value.

You do realize that being a reporter doesn't entitle you to a press pass right? In fact the near totality of journalistic outlets don't have one since there's a very limited number that can be handed out since you can't have 10,000 people crammed into a tiny room. Plus, given how outlets like CNN, MSNBC and ABC refuse to report the facts, why not give those passes to outlets that... will?

Zontar:

CheetoDust:
He literally said they should have their press passes revoked and not be allowed report. So "I don't ask for their sick behaviour to be removed" is another in a remarkable series of easily disproved lies hat of course you take at face value.

You do realize that being a reporter doesn't entitle you to a press pass right? In fact the near totality of journalistic outlets don't have one since there's a very limited number that can be handed out since you can't have 10,000 people crammed into a tiny room. Plus, given how outlets like CNN, MSNBC and ABC refuse to report the facts, why not give those passes to outlets that... will?

Like Breitbart, Fox news or Trump propaganda channels who don't report any facts Trump wouldn't like.

Hades:

Like Breitbart, Fox news or Trump propaganda channels who don't report any facts Trump wouldn't like.

Why do people who've never seen Fox News outside of whatever 10 second clip late night shows take out think Fox is pro-Trump? Tucker Carlson is pretty much the only one there who's pro-Trump, but even that only goes so far as supporting him in general since he doesn't hesitate to call him out (then again being the current gold standard for cable reporting, that's to be expected. How the hell has the media fallen so far that Tucker Fucking Carlson is the gold standard?).

If there's one thing you can expect from CNN, MSNBC and ABC when reporting on Trump, it's complete inaccuracy. I mean my god, despite the fact the investigation into Russian Collusion is no longer looking into Trump himself since its been concluded he had no connection to Russia, they still push that conspiracy theory on their viewers, and many still believe it.

It's downright pathetic to live in a time where if the media says one thing and the government another, that the smart bet is to assume the media is lying because that's the more likely outcome. From Forth Estate to Fifth Column. Reminds me of how the media freaked out this week over Mad Max's tweets being objectionable, only for polls to show over 80% of Canadians agree with him.

Zontar:

Hades:

Like Breitbart, Fox news or Trump propaganda channels who don't report any facts Trump wouldn't like.

Why do people who've never seen Fox News outside of whatever 10 second clip late night shows take out think Fox is pro-Trump? Tucker Carlson is pretty much the only one there who's pro-Trump, but even that only goes so far as supporting him in general since he doesn't hesitate to call him out (then again being the current gold standard for cable reporting, that's to be expected. How the hell has the media fallen so far that Tucker Fucking Carlson is the gold standard?).

If there's one thing you can expect from CNN, MSNBC and ABC when reporting on Trump, it's complete inaccuracy. I mean my god, despite the fact the investigation into Russian Collusion is no longer looking into Trump himself since its been concluded he had no connection to Russia, they still push that conspiracy theory on their viewers, and many still believe it.

It's downright pathetic to live in a time where if the media says one thing and the government another, that the smart bet is to assume the media is lying because that's the more likely outcome. From Forth Estate to Fifth Column. Reminds me of how the media freaked out this week over Mad Max's tweets being objectionable, only for polls to show over 80% of Canadians agree with him.

You're existence is hilarious to me.

Zontar:

CheetoDust:
He literally said they should have their press passes revoked and not be allowed report. So "I don't ask for their sick behaviour to be removed" is another in a remarkable series of easily disproved lies hat of course you take at face value.

You do realize that being a reporter doesn't entitle you to a press pass right? In fact the near totality of journalistic outlets don't have one since there's a very limited number that can be handed out since you can't have 10,000 people crammed into a tiny room. Plus, given how outlets like CNN, MSNBC and ABC refuse to report the facts, why not give those passes to outlets that... will?

The same way Alex Jones isn't entitled to say whatever he wants on social media?

generals3:

Zontar:

CheetoDust:
He literally said they should have their press passes revoked and not be allowed report. So "I don't ask for their sick behaviour to be removed" is another in a remarkable series of easily disproved lies hat of course you take at face value.

You do realize that being a reporter doesn't entitle you to a press pass right? In fact the near totality of journalistic outlets don't have one since there's a very limited number that can be handed out since you can't have 10,000 people crammed into a tiny room. Plus, given how outlets like CNN, MSNBC and ABC refuse to report the facts, why not give those passes to outlets that... will?

The same way Alex Jones isn't entitled to say whatever he wants on social media?

I didn't realise that getting a press pass was effectively the same as having access to a utility.

Zontar:

generals3:

Zontar:

You do realize that being a reporter doesn't entitle you to a press pass right? In fact the near totality of journalistic outlets don't have one since there's a very limited number that can be handed out since you can't have 10,000 people crammed into a tiny room. Plus, given how outlets like CNN, MSNBC and ABC refuse to report the facts, why not give those passes to outlets that... will?

The same way Alex Jones isn't entitled to say whatever he wants on social media?

I didn't realise that getting a press pass was effectively the same as having access to a utility.

facebook and YouTube are utilities now? So when do we start paying for them?

CheetoDust:

Zontar:

generals3:

The same way Alex Jones isn't entitled to say whatever he wants on social media?

I didn't realise that getting a press pass was effectively the same as having access to a utility.

facebook and YouTube are utilities now? So when do we start paying for them?

Back when the government gave them each tens of millions in targeted tax breaks, and in YouTube's case being owned by Google for the near totality of its existence, direct investment from DARPA. Not that that would even matter given that social media, like it or not, has wormed its way into society and business to the point of being a utility, so claiming that someone who you don't like should be banned from it is tantamount to saying you think someone you don't like should have no access to water and power for all the difference it makes.

Not that it matters, people are still pushing the "it's consequences to his actions" lie, so it's not like there's much to discuss between technofascists and the rest of society on this matter. The only good I've seen out of all this is the fact it has proven once and for all that socialism doesn't exist in the West since none who identify as such have been taking a non-corporate stance. At least it's another issue liberals and conservatives have united behind though, so that's nice to see, even if it also shows how few liberals remain these days.

Zontar:

CheetoDust:

Zontar:

I didn't realise that getting a press pass was effectively the same as having access to a utility.

facebook and YouTube are utilities now? So when do we start paying for them?

Back when the government gave them each tens of millions in targeted tax breaks, and in YouTube's case being owned by Google for the near totality of its existence, direct investment from DARPA. Not that that would even matter given that social media, like it or not, has wormed its way into society and business to the point of being a utility, so claiming that someone who you don't like should be banned from it is tantamount to saying you think someone you don't like should have no access to water and power for all the difference it makes.

Not that it matters, people are still pushing the "it's consequences to his actions" lie, so it's not like there's much to discuss between technofascists and the rest of society on this matter. The only good I've seen out of all this is the fact it has proven once and for all that socialism doesn't exist in the West since none who identify as such have been taking a non-corporate stance. At least it's another issue liberals and conservatives have united behind though, so that's nice to see, even if it also shows how few liberals remain these days.

Haha priceless.

CheetoDust:
Haha priceless.

For everything else, there's MasterCard... unless you're a Muslim who wants to see the religion lose its extremists.

Zontar:

CheetoDust:
Haha priceless.

For everything else, there's MasterCard... unless you're a Muslim who wants to see the religion lose its extremists.

There's Muslim's who don't like the extremists?

CheetoDust:

Zontar:

CheetoDust:
Haha priceless.

For everything else, there's MasterCard... unless you're a Muslim who wants to see the religion lose its extremists.

There's Muslim's who don't like the extremists?

Yup, and apparently MasterCard doesn't like them, so much that they'll refuse to do business with them and force companies that do so to stop. So MasterCard's official stance on such Muslims is that they're worsts then most domestic terrorist groups.

Zontar:

CheetoDust:

Zontar:

For everything else, there's MasterCard... unless you're a Muslim who wants to see the religion lose its extremists.

There's Muslim's who don't like the extremists?

Yup, and apparently MasterCard doesn't like them, so much that they'll refuse to do business with them and force companies that do so to stop. So MasterCard's official stance on such Muslims is that they're worsts then most domestic terrorist groups.

Going to have to see a source on your hot take here because this screams "Zontar was told something on 4chan/t_d and completely misinterpreted/is misrepresenting it."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here