I guess various social media platforms have banned Alex Jones?

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

Avnger:

Zontar:

CheetoDust:
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."

I mean, googling resulted in this: https://onenewsnow.com/business/2018/08/16/mastercard-demands-islam-critics-acct-closed#

That?s not Muslims criticizing Muslims though. Also anyone seriously worried about the ?Islamization? of America is likely a hateful person deserving of such a label because that is literally not a problem. Rise of fascism or even ?far left? ideology possesses some merit, but this country is far from being islamized either with this president or any previous one.

EDIT: His quotes on the SPLC site are equally distasteful and I once again agree with their labeling of a hate figure. Look at the quotes yourself: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/robert-spencer

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.

That's MasterCard's business really. If you don't want to serve someone because they're gay, working for the president, black or don't support the systematic decimation of the white way of life then that's up to you.

Skatologist:

EDIT: His quotes on the SPLC site are equally distasteful and I once again agree with their labeling of a hate figure.

The SPLC is a long discredited hate group who are currently being sued by dozens of organisations due to the fact that their liable and slander has financial consequences due to some institutions making the mistake that they are worth listening to (to say nothing of that shooter who tried to murder people due to their lies).

Hell they labelled Maajid Nawaz an "Anti-Muslim Extremists", a mistake that lost them 3.375 million dollars and any ability of propagandists to pretend the group has any legitimacy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.d9aa4b9dd7f3

CheetoDust:

Zontar:

CheetoDust:
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.

That's MasterCard's business really. If you don't want to serve someone because they're gay, working for the president, black or don't support the systematic decimation of the white way of life then that's up to you.

Does this mean that if every business acts in its self interest and refuses to do any business with communists and socialists, thus forcing them to be homeless on the street, you are alright with that state of affairs?

Says nothing about Spencer and would really appreciate you either finding a correct link for your claim or acknowledging you being wrong once again. Ok, thnx bye!

Zontar:

Skatologist:

EDIT: His quotes on the SPLC site are equally distasteful and I once again agree with their labeling of a hate figure.

The SPLC is a long discredited hate group who are currently being sued by dozens of organisations due to the fact that their liable and slander has financial consequences due to some institutions making the mistake that they are worth listening to (to say nothing of that shooter who tried to murder people due to their lies).

Hell they labelled Maajid Nawaz an "Anti-Muslim Extremists", a mistake that lost them 3.375 million dollars and any ability of propagandists to pretend the group has any legitimacy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.d9aa4b9dd7f3

CheetoDust:

Zontar:

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.

That's MasterCard's business really. If you don't want to serve someone because they're gay, working for the president, black or don't support the systematic decimation of the white way of life then that's up to you.

Does this mean that if every business acts in its self interest and refuses to do any business with communists and socialists, thus forcing them to be homeless on the street, you are alright with that state of affairs?

We already have the worst homelessness since my country became a country so I don't think much would change. Why? are you saying business refusing to do business with someone is a bad thing?

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?

Head of state acting against media that refuses to kiss his ass: Eh, it's not like they have a right to it.

Private organizations not wanting to give a platform to a man who gets the survivors of school shootings harassed when he baseless defames them: FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Maybe this would ring less hollow if it didn't come off as you acting like right = always right and left = always wrong.

Oh, speaking of Sandy Hook.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/us/politics/alex-jones-evidence-infowars.html

This sort of discourse is very strange to me.

Like, the people saying Comcast shouldn't be forced to give equal priority to internet traffic are saying Facebook should be forced to give equal priority to internet traffiic.

At what level is the hand of the market supposed to have free reign?

altnameJag:
This sort of discourse is very strange to me.

Like, the people saying Comcast shouldn't be forced to give equal priority to internet traffic are saying Facebook should be forced to give equal priority to internet traffiic.

At what level is the hand of the market supposed to have free reign?

Let me say this.

If Alex Jones had been a left wing conspiracy theorists, none of the people defending him would have any interest in defending him.

It's simple tribalism really.

Zontar:

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

Firstly social media are not utilities. Secondly you're right it's not the same. The former is much worse. A government, ENTIRELY paid by tax payers, refusing members of the press simply because they don't like their questions is much worse than a private company removing someone from their platform because they repeatedly broke the rules.

Zontar:

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.

The government gives targeted tax breaks to all kinds of companies/sectors/people. That doesn't make one a "utility".

And you make a comparison with water and electricity, well guess what. There too you have to adhere to the rules of the contract. If you don't pay you lose access. The rules are different but the principle is the same. But let's consider education: Education is much more important than social media yet there too if you misbehave a school can suspend or expel you.

generals3:

Zontar:

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

Firstly social media are not utilities. Secondly you're right it's not the same. The former is much worse. A government, ENTIRELY paid by tax payers, refusing members of the press simply because they don't like their questions is much worse than a private company removing someone from their platform because they repeatedly broke the rules.

Zontar:

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.

The government gives targeted tax breaks to all kinds of companies/sectors/people. That doesn't make one a "utility".

And you make a comparison with water and electricity, well guess what. There too you have to adhere to the rules of the contract. If you don't pay you lose access. The rules are different but the principle is the same. But let's consider education: Education is much more important than social media yet there too if you misbehave a school can suspend or expel you.

Wait, so you're saying all the corn syrup doesn't mean Coke is a public utility?

erttheking:

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?

Head of state acting against media that refuses to kiss his ass: Eh, it's not like they have a right to it.

Private organizations not wanting to give a platform to a man who gets the survivors of school shootings harassed when he baseless defames them: FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Maybe this would ring less hollow if it didn't come off as you acting like right = always right and left = always wrong.

Its honestly funny watching him stretch and cartwheel to justify one and demonise the other. He should take that show on the road

Palindromemordnilap:

erttheking:

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?

Head of state acting against media that refuses to kiss his ass: Eh, it's not like they have a right to it.

Private organizations not wanting to give a platform to a man who gets the survivors of school shootings harassed when he baseless defames them: FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Maybe this would ring less hollow if it didn't come off as you acting like right = always right and left = always wrong.

Its honestly funny watching him stretch and cartwheel to justify one and demonise the other. He should take that show on the road

Does anyone even take it seriously anymore? Either he means it and it's hilarious or he doesn't and it's sad.

Zontar:

The SPLC is a long discredited hate group who are currently being sued by dozens of organisations due to the fact that their liable and slander has financial consequences due to some institutions making the mistake that they are worth listening to (to say nothing of that shooter who tried to murder people due to their lies).

Hate group against whom? Being sued by whom?

renegade7:

Zontar:

The SPLC is a long discredited hate group who are currently being sued by dozens of organisations due to the fact that their liable and slander has financial consequences due to some institutions making the mistake that they are worth listening to (to say nothing of that shooter who tried to murder people due to their lies).

Hate group against whom? Being sued by whom?

Here: https://pjmedia.com/trending/update-on-the-60-separate-defamation-lawsuits-against-the-splc-under-consideration/

I'm at work, so I didn't have time to reread this. If I remember, some were Christian groups that are pro-life and violently protesting at parenting clinics. Assaulting people going in and vandalising clinics. Yelling at women calling them murderers. This isn't in this link becuase, as can be seen by the title, this is clearly a biased article.

As to Zontar's claim that they have been long debunked, I'd say that people have hated them for a long time. So he is apply his (or at least his side's) belief to the general population (which don't hate them.) But thinking that there is only a small group that think they are debunked would be wrong too.

renegade7:

Zontar:

The SPLC is a long discredited hate group who are currently being sued by dozens of organisations due to the fact that their liable and slander has financial consequences due to some institutions making the mistake that they are worth listening to (to say nothing of that shooter who tried to murder people due to their lies).

Hate group against whom? Being sued by whom?

They're a "hate group" against "conservatives;" keep in mind that these claims are largely coming from the same people that claim the most discriminated against group in Western society is those who are Christian, straight, white, cis, and male.

The SPLC's definition for what constitutes a hate group hasn't changed much over the years. However, US conservatives (as a generalized whole) have during the past 3ish decades embraced their more radical fringes and brought them into the mainstream including many groups and individuals with anti-Islamic, anti-LGBT, anti-womens-rights, xenophobic, and/or straight up white supremacist viewpoints. This has lead to conservatives frequently finding their allies and public figures labeled as hate groups by the SPLC. These people then embrace what seems to be the modern US-based conservative's favorite tool, projection, and label the SPLC a "hate group" in turn.

renegade7:
Hate group against whom? Being sued by whom?

Traditionally, the SPLC has focused on monitoring and opposing white nationalists. Which, obviously, makes it particularly unpopular with the US (and in terms of Zontar, Canadian) new right.

Obviously, like all organisations it makes errors, and it is virtually impossible to operate without some controversy. However, in our Brave New World, it seems that goes from "infallible" to "utterly discredited" with one anecdote.

altnameJag:
If you can see why Facebook would boot Jones, why could'nt Apple or Youtube?

Oh, I could, though most did not offer reason. Some, such as credit card companies, hosing locations, and personal e-mail though, considering they were used for direct business and not hosting his controversial stuff itself, I see as a lot less likely.

The problem is not the single example, but the entirety of the action of all the sites, all at once.

No, it makes it look like you shouldn't be held to your worst moments your entire life. Like I've said before: if Gunn had been making those tweets last week or last month, I'd be more than okay with giving him the boot. I imagine I'm not alone.

You are not wrong. But the conflict at its very nature is one of using outrage to justify punishment for political disagreement. Thus it doesn't matter if you or some others think it was enough time to forgive, it just matters that some people are pissed and want their pound of flesh.

Recall recently a driver lost a sponsorship because of what his father said 10 years before he was born. Your personal opinions on what justifies punishment for outrage is irrelevant to the fact that all it takes is that there IS outrage.

So fuck what?Gunn was paid to make popular entertainment for the masses, Jones was paid to *checks notes* libel the parents of dead children by claiming they were all in on their shooting deaths, and that those dead children weren't dead and may not actually exist.

Both are paid to entertain. You are just making an argument that because Gunn appeals to what you want from entertainment and Jones does not, that it is justified to punish jones when people are offended, but not Gunn when other people are.

As I said, your personal opinions on what is or is not acceptable amounts of outrage are irrelevant. The weapon on the battlefield is outrage, you don't get to decide how your opponent uses it or what they feel is justified use of it. That you would use it yourself though strips away any reason for anyone to care about your personal justifications for using it though if they oppose you.

Saelune:
One, it is a fact. Alex Jones didn't quit being a nut job.

Him being "a nut job" is you personal opinion, not a fact. Hell, I hear it is a personality he puts on anyways, so your testimony there would support more that he is a good actor at what he does to entertain folks.

Still, even if you think he is a nut, that is not justification for censoring someone across the internet, else we would need to apply the same treatment to every "killallmen" activist, every "trump will kill the gays" chicken little, and every "punch all nazi" from the internet as well for being equally nutty to anyone else.

And two, if personal opinion is not enough, then why does yours matter more than mine?

Who said mine mattered more than yours to the greater whole of the internet? My point was that your personal opinion on what offends you is no more or less valid than someone who was offended by Gunn. If offended-ness is justification for retribution, then that is the weapon everyone has access to. You will never be justified in tell someone else that their being offended is mistaken while declaring that your being offended should be taken seriously as justification to punish someone by getting them fired or censroing them from the internet.

Offended? HE SUED MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS! That's way beyond 'offended' dude.

No, not really. His actions, which we are presuming were perfectly legal, you find offensive. Thus your entire opposition to him, and justification of censorship of him, is based exclusively on the fact he did something that you personally dislike and got offended by.

You are excusing his mass censorship from the internet because he offended you. I disagree, but that is fine, that is your own opinion. But you don't get to them turn around and say that those calling for Gunn to be punished for offending them are wrong for that. Both are built around the notion that offending someone justifies punishment.
If you dislike that it is used against those you like, perhaps you should stop cheering the use of the weapon in the first place just because it helps your personal political beliefs at the moment. If you use mustard gas on your opponents, they will use it back because you justified the use of it.

ObsidianJones:

How does a company look when they allow an individual to walk all over them? How many times must a single individual break the rules of the company before they should act?

Email, credit card, web hosting... Nothing shown has indicated breaching the ToS of the professional side of his stuff, yet they acted just the same as the others. Remember, my point was about the conspiracy of of multiple sites and tech companies all coming together to punish jones all in unison, not that one site enacted their user policy.

As such, I cut out the rest of your reply for being irrelevant to that point.

His website being pulled... I'm thinking it's more of a stunt to get more people to download his app.

And, no. I don't think these companies have too much power. I think they have the power intrinsic of their control. Youtube decides who and who can not youtube. Facebook decides who and who can not facebook. That is the scope and limit of their power, as it should be.

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple aren't inalienable rights. They are companies. If they got together and did this for someone who didn't violate their code of ethics that we all sign, who didn't have a mass group that's shown itself to be dangerous with no efforts of the individual to police them, and had no malicious message, yeah, I'm with you. Mainly because of the non violations itself.

But Alex Jones regularly did things on all platforms that would get you, me, and anyone else on this forum get kicked off.

Snopes is notoriously not a reliable fact-checking source when it comes to certain political persuasions, with a history of bias in their rulings. As such I see no reason for your posting it at all, especially when it is literally nothing more than a conspiracy theory rather than a story with something solid behind it to begin with.

It would be like me citing Fox news calling obama a muslim and pretending their claim to being "the most trusted name in news media" should make you give that story consideration.

As for them not being inalienable rights and all that, neither is electricity, yet because of the nature of utility and the reliance upon it the world has, kicking people from using it because of political belief, or because of other companies pressured them to, would not be seen as a good thing.

You keep claiming jones did things to get him kicked off all platforms, though I think you are underplaying just what all he got kicked off of. He got kicked off of more than just youtube or facebook after all and it is precisely the near internet-wide nature of it that makes me change from laughing at his misfortune to calling out the conspiracy involved between those companies that are now so ubiquitous in western society that they are utilities and public spaces rather than private message boards now.

People contact their representatives, share political opinions, host open forums and debates, and promote activism though the internet. To cut one person off the whole of it for political opinions would silence all those aspects of their free speech, and regardless how much of an asshole jones is, or how offended people get by what he says, that removal of such an important portion of free speech in the modern era simply can not be justified in the whole-sale.

If they did it in a manner where they incited the public to violence via their message and/or committed numerous violations of the code of ethics for their platforms, they should get taken down.

You seem to be arguing this as though it is just facebook got fed up with him where as I have been arguing this because of the collusion across multiple sites and even hosting that makes this such a problem and that means we aren't even quit talking the same subject here.

I see later on that you agree those that kicked him for non-violation are wrong, so a lot of this seems to be arguing a point I am not quite making.

Look, my stance is the policies and contracts people sign when they get onto these things. If you violate, don't be surprised if there's actions. I wouldn't bat an eye if anyone who shared my complete political beliefs got pulled from everything social known to humankind if they completely violated on multiple times the contracts they sign to use those programs.

There have been plenty of times on this very forum where I said I support racists' right to free speech. Even if it hurts me. It's not the message, it's how you convey it. If the message starts to sound like "You need to get all of them before they get you"... and some of the followers commit actions? Then they incited something. And that's criminal.

That sounds a lot like your personal interpretation of what their motivations are justifying consequence, not actual intention or message itself.

What it sounds like to you and what it sounds like to others could vary wildly, so I find that sort of subjective justification to be a very poor one for this sort of response. I do not disagree that inciting actual violence and calling for people to go shooting up the street needs to be stopped, but the way you word it would have that defined by how you interpret it specifically, and that subjectiveness should be opposed on principle there. Either he is doing that (determined by a court of law since that would be a violation of it) or he is not. The whole "sounds like it" bit can not ever be used to justify this sort of widespread deplatforming response.

You're right. Being Deplatformed is very different than being fired from a company. Because as a company providing a service, they need even less justification than a company that must follow legal guidelines to ensure fair treatment in workers. There is a Department of Labor. There is no Department of Social Media.

At best? You might have the Better Business Bureau or yelp.

That aside, the problem with the case you're presenting is subjective. You can't define the justification as flimsy just because you don't give them weight. Jones commits slander (and sometimes Libel if he writes it up) on the regular. He said Mueller rapes children. The community guideline that he violated included violence and child endangerment.

That's not flimsy. That's something I want more companies to champion.

Is committing slander justification for internet-wide censorship.

I think the legal consequences of slander is the punishment for it, and that adding this extra too it in just this case is beyond the pale. Same as I think the consequence of violating the ToS of a site is the punishment for that and that pushing for a multiple-site wide internet ban is beyond the pale.

The ones who did the non tos violations are wrong. Those who banned because they violated the rules are right. I agree with you on that.

That is fair then. Remember, my complaint is the collusion between sites not the individual choice of a site where the ToS was violated.

Agema:

Obviously, like all organisations it makes errors, and it is virtually impossible to operate without some controversy. However, in our Brave New World, it seems that goes from "infallible" to "utterly discredited" with one anecdote.

Yup, they make mistakes, that's why the US government no longer uses them in any capacity when it used to be considered a reliable source for the FBI, it's why innocent people nearly died when a man tried to shoot up a place because of their mislabelling them a hate group, it's why their (now former) leader flat out stated they attack conservative groups because they are their enemy, it's why they labelled a Muslim reformist an Islamophobe and had to pay out millions for that mistake (because you know that just happens by accident despite being the type of thing that could only happen from idiots who are too stupid to get into a position to make such a mistake in the first place), why they labelled that group which can no longer be named a hate group despite the FBI's own investigation into that finding that it was nothing of the sort.

Sorry, but there's a reason why the SPLC being a hate group and nothing more is yet another thing on the growing list of things liberals and conservatives are in agreement on, and continues to show the ideological split within the left between liberals and anti-liberal progressives.

CheetoDust:
Does anyone even take it seriously anymore? Either he means it and it's hilarious or he doesn't and it's sad.

You know it's funny, this is how conservatives and liberals see progressives. At least I can take comfort in the fact that subversive globalists have lost the war and we're in the mopping up phase of the conflict, so it doesn't matter how much the reality denial brigade tries to rewrite history and reality in the name of The Party.

Sonmi:

runic knight:
Considering the likes of Antifa still exist online in various places and forms despite being an outright terrorist organization, the concern and special punishment against Jones of all people shows a lack of either consistency in justification, or a lack of perspective about what are more dangerous.

Are you living under a rock?

The likes of BDS and Antifa members are routinely deplatformed online, and in real world, more specifically on University campuses.

Hell, business owners in the American South have to sign a waiver proclaiming they'll never support BDS if they want to keep their businesses open. This "targeting" of Alex Jones is small-fry if you want to talk about political censorship.

He's an asshole that regularly broke terms of agreement and endangered innocent lives who had a massive audience, the platforms decided he had gone too far and pulled the plug on him. What is so hard to understand?

Pretty sure you can find all sorts of antifa groups on facebook. Hey, you know what, I am going to try right now.
And look at that, lots of them pop up. Same across twitter, reddit, and elsewhere. Hell, there is groups in cities across the world, listed online and with gatherings off as well.

So I find little accuracy in the claims they are deplatformed to the same extent as jones was. Which would have at least been consistent even if I still disagreed with the sentiment.

Not sure what you are referring to with BDS though. Could be boycott, divestment and sanctions, could be misspelling BLM which I think I mentioned before, could be something else so I will wait for clarification on that one before commenting.

I would note though that if the comparison is not equivalent, then might be best to let that one drop after clarifying it. Remember, I made mention to Antifa specifically because they are a domestic terrorist organization that was being treated less hostilely than jones online despite being a far greater threat and problem. If your BDS is in the same boat as a domestic terrorists organization, then it may be redundant to the previous example.

As for him going to far, I will reiterate my problem from before. It is not that he got kicked off one site, but rather he got kicked off many all at once, including those he did not breech ToS on. The organized effort to censor him from the internet by depriving any platform on it they could is my problem. It is not that it is hard to understand your claim, it is that your claim is not what my complaint is in the first place, thus it is irrelevant to what I have been saying.

Zontar:
[
Yup, they make mistakes, that's why the US government no longer uses them in any capacity when it used to be considered a reliable source for the FBI, it's why innocent people nearly died when a man tried to shoot up a place because of their mislabelling them a hate group,

I'm not gonna condone a shooting, but the Family Research Council is absolutely an anti-LGBT hate group.

generals3:
Firstly social media are not utilities. Secondly you're right it's not the same. The former is much worse. A government, ENTIRELY paid by tax payers, refusing members of the press simply because they don't like their questions is much worse than a private company removing someone from their platform because they repeatedly broke the rules.

First of all you're flat out wrong about social media not being a utility. You might not like the fact that it is, but it is, and that's just how life is. It's as much a utility as the internet is, and I don't see you being the type to fight and die on that hill.

Second, media outlets do not have a right to a press pass, and the 300+ outlets that released the same article on the same day declaring war on the administration certainly don't given their clear antagonistic intent over the reporting of facts. Yellow Journalists and other subversives have no right to those passes, just as anyone else doesn't, and it is an outright lie to pretend the likes of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, The Times or the New York Times have any interest in reporting the facts over being active enemies of the administration even if they need to lie to make Trump look bad, the past three years have shown that without any reasonable doubt.

The forth estate has for the most part been subverted and turned into a fifth column. An unfortunate state of affairs but the state none the less.

The government gives targeted tax breaks to all kinds of companies/sectors/people. That doesn't make one a "utility".

It does make them accountable, and I don't recall any of them abusing their powerful position over society and the economy to kick out people and to try and silence decent.

And you make a comparison with water and electricity, well guess what. There too you have to adhere to the rules of the contract. If you don't pay you lose access. The rules are different but the principle is the same. But let's consider education: Education is much more important than social media yet there too if you misbehave a school can suspend or expel you.

Last time I checked if you where expelled or refused service they had to give an actual reason for why it happened, which happened exactly 0 times with Alex Jones. Not one actually showed what he did wrong, only stating he broke their rules without ever showing us which rules where broken and when they where broken. Hell some sites banned him within minutes of creating an account, making it impossible for him to have even broken their rules (and in the case of LinkIn, he couldn't break their rules to begin with given how the site works).

It also doesn't help that there are countless examples of others who "broke the rules" who got away with it. I wonder why they where not punished, couldn't have anything to do with being left wing, pro-big government, pro-megacorporation, anti-liberty, pro-tyranny types, such as those defending the Silicon Valley Technofascists in this fight. Nope, this overt "rules for thee, but not for me" is just a conspiracy theory but those who... can observe reality... oh boy...

Thank god Trump and Cruz aren't letting this tyrannical power play by the fascists of our society go without opposition. Only downside is that it has shown the world how few liberals exist in modern society. I guess liberalism really is dead. Oh well.

runic knight:

Pretty sure you can find all sorts of antifa groups on facebook. Hey, you know what, I am going to try right now.
And look at that, lots of them pop up. Same across twitter, reddit, and elsewhere. Hell, there is groups in cities across the world, listed online and with gatherings off as well.

Can probably find plenty of white supremacy groups too...

So I find little accuracy in the claims they are deplatformed to the same extent as jones was. Which would have at least been consistent even if I still disagreed with the sentiment.

They've never been platformed to the extent Jones has.

altnameJag:

Zontar:
[
Yup, they make mistakes, that's why the US government no longer uses them in any capacity when it used to be considered a reliable source for the FBI, it's why innocent people nearly died when a man tried to shoot up a place because of their mislabelling them a hate group,

I'm not gonna condone a shooting, but the Family Research Council is absolutely an anti-LGBT hate group.

No more then most left wing organisations are anti-conservative hate groups. That's not to defend them, but if you're going to be that broad that begs the question why the leviathan number of leftist groups that fall under the banner of hate groups aren't being included. I mean I understand why the SPLC refuses to do it, but they too are a hate group and have long been disregarded by law enforcement as anything but nutters for a reason.

altnameJag:
This sort of discourse is very strange to me.

Like, the people saying Comcast shouldn't be forced to give equal priority to internet traffic are saying Facebook should be forced to give equal priority to internet traffiic.

At what level is the hand of the market supposed to have free reign?

The opposition to "net neutrality" has nothing to do with allowing ISPs to have unequal internet service (and wouldn't matter anyway because the already existing laws, which predate it and have not been overturned, already prevented that to begin with), it stems from the fact the bill was poorly conceived and the fact that it didn't include this very issue of internet companies conspiring to keep people they don't like off the internet from doing just that.

A quickrundown on the issues people took with net neutrality, but there is no internal contradiction if you actually know what problem people had with the bill was instead of what some silicon valley technofascist who never spoke with someone who opposed it said it was.

Zontar:

First of all you're flat out wrong about social media not being a utility. You might not like the fact that it is, but it is, and that's just how life is. It's as much a utility as the internet is, and I don't see you being the type to fight and die on that hill.

And here I thought Net Neutrality was unnecessary.

Last time I checked if you where expelled or refused service they had to give an actual reason for why it happened, which happened exactly 0 times with Alex Jones. Not one actually showed what he did wrong, only stating he broke their rules without ever showing us which rules where broken and when they where broken. Hell some sites banned him within minutes of creating an account, making it impossible for him to have even broken their rules (and in the case of LinkIn, he couldn't break their rules to begin with given how the site works).

Thanks to people who theoretically believe in "the hand of the market", you don't actually have to give a reason to exclude somebody. I mean, it's probably bad PR, and if you do it to enough people, there's gonna be a good chance they find out why...

That said, if lying about the families of school shooting victims for years after being asked to stop doesn't break your site's ToS, it probably should.

It also doesn't help that there are countless examples of others who "broke the rules" who got away with it. I wonder why they where not punished, couldn't have anything to do with being left wing, pro-big government, pro-megacorporation, anti-liberty, pro-tyranny types, such as those defending the Silicon Valley Technofascists in this fight. Nope, this overt "rules for thee, but not for me" is just a conspiracy theory but those who... can observe reality... oh boy...

Thank god Trump and Cruz aren't letting this tyrannical power play by the fascists of our society go without opposition. Only downside is that it has shown the world how few liberals exist in modern society. I guess liberalism really is dead. Oh well.

Yep, just countless examples. Far too many to even attempt to provide examples of.

Weird how Ted Cruz hates Net Neutrality when applied to, say, Comcast, but is absolutely in favor of Net Neutrality in the context of individual social media companies. You know, instead of letting the market solve that pesky "conservative social media spreading lies about dead school children, targeting families by name" problem.

Zontar:

altnameJag:
This sort of discourse is very strange to me.

Like, the people saying Comcast shouldn't be forced to give equal priority to internet traffic are saying Facebook should be forced to give equal priority to internet traffiic.

At what level is the hand of the market supposed to have free reign?

The opposition to "net neutrality" has nothing to do with allowing ISPs to have unequal internet service (and wouldn't matter anyway because the already existing laws, which predate it and have not been overturned, already prevented that to begin with), it stems from the fact the bill was poorly conceived and the fact that it didn't include this very issue of internet companies conspiring to keep people they don't like off the internet from doing just that.

The old rules got overturned in 2014. Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)

Please pay attention.

altnameJag:
And here I thought Net Neutrality was unnecessary.

Why? People who opposed the bill never made the claim (or at least it wasn't what a noteworthy number where).

Thanks to people who theoretically believe in "the hand of the market", you don't actually have to give a reason to exclude somebody. I mean, it's probably bad PR, and if you do it to enough people, there's gonna be a good chance they find out why...

That said, if lying about the families of school shooting victims for years after being asked to stop doesn't break your site's ToS, it probably should.

If he broke the rules, they could actually state which rules where broken and what instances he broke them. Not that they'll do that, since doing that would mean exposing the fact others get away with breaking those rules (or in LinkIn's case, just not liking their face since they couldn't brake their rules if they tried).

Funny how actions only have consequences if your not a socialist, oh and you'll never know what actions caused those consequences to begin with. Certainly an odd way to rule, make it impossible to tell which rules get what punishment given some get away with everything without consequence.

Yep, just countless examples. Far too many to even attempt to provide examples of.

Weird how Ted Cruz hates Net Neutrality when applied to, say, Comcast, but is absolutely in favor of Net Neutrality in the context of individual social media companies. You know, instead of letting the market solve that pesky "conservative social media spreading lies about dead school children, targeting families by name" problem.

So why not actually give examples then? Oh right, because if you actually set a standard, then you'd have the issue that Jones' left wing equivalents would be open to having the hammer smashed on their skulls too if they didn't want everyone to see their bias (not that anyone is under the delusion the silicon valley technofascists hasn't for years been trying to push their combination of sociailst and corporatist views).

And sorry, but again, there's no contradiction if you actually look at what people who opposed the bill believed rather then looking at the laughably wrong image painted by fascists from silicon valley who intentionally lied for corporatists reasons. Just because you don't want to bother understanding why half the country didn't support the bill doesn't change the reasons to whatever you tell yourself they are.

altnameJag:

Zontar:

altnameJag:
This sort of discourse is very strange to me.

Like, the people saying Comcast shouldn't be forced to give equal priority to internet traffic are saying Facebook should be forced to give equal priority to internet traffiic.

At what level is the hand of the market supposed to have free reign?

The opposition to "net neutrality" has nothing to do with allowing ISPs to have unequal internet service (and wouldn't matter anyway because the already existing laws, which predate it and have not been overturned, already prevented that to begin with), it stems from the fact the bill was poorly conceived and the fact that it didn't include this very issue of internet companies conspiring to keep people they don't like off the internet from doing just that.

The old rules got overturned in 2014. Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)

Please pay attention.

Problem is that didn't actually overturn the rulings that created de facto net neutrality to begin with, which was why Netflix didn't sue for the lower speed it experienced after the ruling (helped that it turned out they had done that themselves and the ISPs had nothing to do with it, which is why there hasn't been a corresponding drop in speed after the bill was overturned and no longer the law). You ask me to pay attention, yet you aren't even looking into why half the country opposed the specific bill we're talking about.

Not that it matters, the entire problem arose because of government enforced monopoly to begin with.

Here's the surprising thing about Antifa. There was a couple of thousand people who claimed to be Antifa in Amerida and a couple of hundred in Australia at the start of 2017. Journalists were trying to do research on this new (old) fad back then and they couldn't find that many. And now there's 10 times that many. It's like they are rising up against a particular cause. I couldn't imagine what that might be. (Insert sarcasm here.) And no, the answer this time isn't Trump.

All you have to do, as a society, is to get rid of fascist and Antifa will disappear. They literally have no other platform.

I was listening to Sargon thing this week, he said it right. You need to get rid of all extremes from your side. Left or Right. And I think a lot of people know here that I detest Sargon for being a Regressive. I'd take the Unite the Right Rally volume 2 as a possible indication that most the Right realise siding with fascists is irresponsible. I call out any violence Antifa perpetrate and think they need to step back a bit to see what the future holds for Nazis in America.

Zontar, I'd look up Leonard French from Lawful Masses. Last week he went through all the claims from each company and the claimed breach of ToS. He goes from the plausible to the outright silly (LinkedIn being one) including Pornhub's.

trunkage:
And I think a lot of people know here that I detest Sargon for being a Regressive.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Ol' Sargon is a whole mess of contradictions:


OT: Surely no one trusts facebook, google and the rest to remove people from their platforms purely for moral reasons. Frankly, its arguable that the platform holders aren't even incentivized to remove people who break their terms of service. The only constant among all this purging is an overriding business concern.

Its fun to watch as someone who thoroughly deserves to be de-platformed is finally kicked off, but there's nothing really to stop anything from being removed. Most channels/users break the ToI at some point, as is intended by the ToI creators. Whether or not those channels are removed is solely down to the usefullness of that content to the site operator.

Today its Jones (which is pretty funny) but tomorrow it could be a lot of people. Alternatively these platform owners will sanitize their domains into an add-friendly hellscape where even swearing will instantly lead to being de-monotized and isolated through the search algorithim.

runic knight:

Snopes is notoriously not a reliable fact-checking source when it comes to certain political persuasions, with a history of bias in their rulings.

Citations please.

runic knight:

Saelune:
One, it is a fact. Alex Jones didn't quit being a nut job.

Him being "a nut job" is you personal opinion, not a fact. Hell, I hear it is a personality he puts on anyways, so your testimony there would support more that he is a good actor at what he does to entertain folks.

Still, even if you think he is a nut, that is not justification for censoring someone across the internet, else we would need to apply the same treatment to every "killallmen" activist, every "trump will kill the gays" chicken little, and every "punch all nazi" from the internet as well for being equally nutty to anyone else.

And two, if personal opinion is not enough, then why does yours matter more than mine?

Who said mine mattered more than yours to the greater whole of the internet? My point was that your personal opinion on what offends you is no more or less valid than someone who was offended by Gunn. If offended-ness is justification for retribution, then that is the weapon everyone has access to. You will never be justified in tell someone else that their being offended is mistaken while declaring that your being offended should be taken seriously as justification to punish someone by getting them fired or censroing them from the internet.

Offended? HE SUED MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS! That's way beyond 'offended' dude.

No, not really. His actions, which we are presuming were perfectly legal, you find offensive. Thus your entire opposition to him, and justification of censorship of him, is based exclusively on the fact he did something that you personally dislike and got offended by.

You are excusing his mass censorship from the internet because he offended you. I disagree, but that is fine, that is your own opinion. But you don't get to them turn around and say that those calling for Gunn to be punished for offending them are wrong for that. Both are built around the notion that offending someone justifies punishment.
If you dislike that it is used against those you like, perhaps you should stop cheering the use of the weapon in the first place just because it helps your personal political beliefs at the moment. If you use mustard gas on your opponents, they will use it back because you justified the use of it.

Either he is literally crazy, or he is literally a big fat liar. Neither are good.

Alex Jones has a huge platform! I think people who have as big a platform as ALex Jones who are as fucked up as Alex Jones, should not have a huge platform!

No nutjob like him should be as big and influencial as him. You bring up all these fictional others but none of them have his influence.

Alex Jones is a horrible person and there is nothing wrong with putting a stop to it.

You think it is ok to be a horrible person, I disagree. Mass censorship? Alex Jones is one very horrible very crazy person, so unless you're making a fat joke about it, it is not 'mass censorship'.

Im really unclear on how some of you are so casually able to classify someone instigating harassment of the parents of murdered children as 'entertainment'. Leading people to torment these grieving parents with accusations their children never even existed.

Pretty appalling.

Kwak:

runic knight:

Snopes is notoriously not a reliable fact-checking source when it comes to certain political persuasions, with a history of bias in their rulings.

Citations please.

How does one cite their hurt fee fees? I don't think MLA has a section for that.

 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