The end is nigh....

Phileas Frog

For poor Gemma anyway.

Autecher

Who is Gemma?

ohnonotgmail

George Soros finally got to her.

looksee

Not so much nigh as arrived.

Cina

Pretty weird representation of modern society that someone's "end" means their twitter account being suspended.

Phileas Frog

Cina wrote: »

Pretty weird representation of modern society that someone's "end" means their twitter account being suspended.

It's her venting platform. That'll be the end of her.

ohnonotgmail

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Social media censorship its finest, of course doesn't apply to hard left. Just like La Penn going on trial for sharing the truth on twitter.

I have little time for Gemma but I did catch a recent video of her in Longford a town destroyed.

Gemma wouldn't know the truth if it bit her on the arse.

Yay censorship!!

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Yay censorship!!

Yay not understanding what censorship is!

Junkyard Tom

Sunlight don't disinfect none - just grows more muther****in weeds yo.

Cina

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Social media censorship its finest, of course doesn't apply to hard left. Just like La Penn going on trial for sharing the truth on twitter.

I have little time for Gemma but I did catch a recent video of her in Longford a town destroyed.

All that woman does is spout dangerous bile designed to offend and cause controvery. If someone on the far left was as extreme and full of ridiculous, offensive conspiracy theories polluting the minds of gullible people on social media then they'd be suspended too.

She deserves to be removed from all potential streams where she can spew her hatred, not just twitter. She's a vile tw*t.

ohnonotgmail

Cina wrote: »

All that woman does is spout dangerous bile designed to offend and cause controvery. If someone on the far left was as extreme and full of ridiculous, offensive conspiracy theories polluting the minds of gullible people on social media then they'd be suspended too.

She deserves to be removed from all potential streams where she can spew her hatred, not just twitter. She's a vile tw*t.

not a fan then?

Timberrrrrrrr

She's a vile hate filled racist who posts lies to feed the gullible, This is not censorship, this is having her account suspended due to HER breaking the terms and conditions that SHE agreed to abide by when creating her account.

You see the same with people on here, they create an account, spew shìte all over threads (usually those about contentious issues) and then scream "censorship" when they get banned for breaking thensites T&C's.

Hopefully the hag gets banned from all social media, she literally puts the lives/health of children at risk.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Yay censorship!!

Yay not understanding what censorship is!

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations.

InTheShadows

She doesn't fit into the liberal agenda niche i suppose. She said a lot of nuts stuff but so do liberals and they don't get banned. Yes it's censorship and it's on the increase everywhere we look.

ollkiller

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The stats are there to back up the claims about Longford.

Go on then. Give us a link to the stats that show Longford is destroyed.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations.

you really shouldn't be looking at wikipedia for definitions.

ohnonotgmail

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

CSO.

that isn't a link.

swarlb

Autecher wrote: »

Who is Gemma?

Yes... who is Gemma ? Everyone here seems to know, except me and Autecher. She must be a very important person, no doubt !

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you really shouldn't be looking at wikipedia for definitions.

Ok..the Oxford English dictionary..

noun. 1The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

What might your definition of it be?..

ollkiller

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

CSO.

Ok you're telling me to go to the Central Statistics office. Not a link. If i claim something i'll back it up with a link underpinning my claim. Ball back in your court.

And just to clarify, I wouldn't know much about Gemma, but all the deplatforming that is happening does seem to have a particular ideological bent.. it's fine now because you agree with it..

First they came for Gemma o Doherty..etc..

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

And just to clarify, I wouldn't know much about Gemma, but all the deplatforming that is happening does seem to have a particular ideological bent.. it's fine now because you agree with it..

First they came for Gemma o Doherty..etc..

she was deplatformed for her hate-filled rants that broke twitter terms of service.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And just to clarify, I wouldn't know much about Gemma, but all the deplatforming that is happening does seem to have a particular ideological bent.. it's fine now because you agree with it..

First they came for Gemma o Doherty..etc..

Simple question.

Yoi have an account here on boards.ie

When you created your account you agreed to abide by the terms and conditions set down by the company.

Should you now be allowed to post whatever you like? If boards banned you/suspended you for what they deem to be a post that contravenes their site rules would you consider that to be censorship?

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations.

Freedom of speech does not equal the right to a platform. gemma can still spout all the hate she wants, just not on twitter.

Grayson

InTheShadows wrote: »

She doesn't fit into the liberal agenda niche i suppose. She said a lot of nuts stuff but so do liberals and they don't get banned. Yes it's censorship and it's on the increase everywhere we look.

They do get banned. Anyone who breaks the rules on twitter will eventually get banned. Except Trump. He's actually broken twitter T&C's.

There's certain elements on the right that have a martyr complex.

ohnonotgmail

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

One major difference here its Governments lobbying those platforms to allow what they see fit. FB and Twitter are becoming more like China everyday and allowing Governments to hide behind it.

Do you think that the government lobbied Twitter to ban Gemma?

Jackman25

Wouldn't normally be in favour of this sort of "deplatforming" regardless of the nonsense she was spouting, but the pictures of the kids were a step too far and in my book she should have been removed from Twitter far sooner once she started posting those.

InTheShadows

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

she was deplatformed for her hate-filled rants that broke twitter terms of service.

But that's the thing isn't it though, someone like Jo Brand say's it's okay to throw battery acid on conservative politicians and Twitter don't remove her.

Timberrrrrrrr

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

One major difference here its Governments lobbying those platforms to allow what they see fit. FB and Twitter are becoming more like China everyday and allowing Governments to hide behind it.

So set up a website (easy & cheap to do) and let her spout whatever shìte she wants on there, she will have free reign to say what she wants (she will control the content).

Funny how people talk about "censorship" yet never mention how Gemma blocks anyone who does not agree with her and deletes their posts.

Sabre0001

InTheShadows wrote: »

But that's the thing isn't it though, someone like Jo Brand say's it's okay to throw battery acid on conservative politicians and Twitter don't remove her.

She didn't make that comment on Twitter

Grayson

InTheShadows wrote: »

But that's the thing isn't it though, someone like Jo Brand say's it's okay to throw battery acid on conservative politicians and Twitter don't remove her.

She made a joke. It was made on a comedy show. She even said in the segment that it was a joke and she wouldn't even throw a milkshake. But it's an edited version that right wingers are passing around.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jun/12/farage-furious-over-jo-brands-throw-battery-acid-not-milkshake-joke

On the show, Brand said: “Why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?”

The comedian went on to say she was joking and not a fan of the milkshake stunts. “That’s just me. I’m not going to do it,” she said. “It’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry.”

However, this part was edited out of a clip that was widely shared online.

Also, she didn't say it on twitter. So why would twitter ban her?

Phileas Frog

Damn, she's back. Unfortunately that didn't last too long

ohnonotgmail

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Funny how social media giants decide be cater for the left but also claim to be independent and impartial platforms.

Do you have any examples of those on the "left" who have broken twitter rules to the same extent as Gemma and not been banned?

ohnonotgmail

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Not directly but Europe wide its happening.

any examples?

Timberrrrrrrr

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Funny how social media giants decide be cater for the left but also claim to be independent and impartial platforms.

Should you be allowed to post whatever you like on this site?

It's a simple question.

ohnonotgmail

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Yes provided there are no legal consequences for the poster or company.

The hate Gemma gets from people here is equally as bad as the hate she might direct at others.

so what then is your issue with Gemma being banned by twitter for breaking their rules?

ohnonotgmail

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Google/FBook selective factual coverage during elections/refs.

why dont YOU google to find evidence supporting what YOU claim and post it here. Nobody is going to do your homework for you. Until you do post some actual evidence your opinion will be dismissed.

ohnonotgmail

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

What legal consequences did she have on twitter relating to her posts?

that is irrelevant. she broke twitters terms of service.

Timberrrrrrrr

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Yes provided there are no legal consequences for the poster or company.

The hate Gemma gets from people here is equally as bad as the hate she might direct at others.

So you should be allowed to spout vile racist shìte even though when you signed up to the sites T&C's you agreed that you wouldnt do that?

Hurrache

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations.

She can say what she wants, but there's no obligation to anyone to provide her a platform to do so.

Twitter after all is a private company and have no obligation to anyone to allow use of their tools.

Timberrrrrrrr

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

If you are that interested in my claims why don't you do it.

The onus is on you to back up the claims that you make. That's how debate/discussions work.

If you can't / won't back up your claims, how do you expect anyone to believe them or to lend them any credence?

there's a burden of proof on whoever makes the claim.

ohnonotgmail

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

If you are that interested in my claims why don't you do it.

I'm not interested in them. I'm dismissing them

Grayson

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Not directly but Europe wide its happening.

Europe wide people who break twitter rules are banned. Wow, there's a news item. Twitter implements it's rules in every country.

You do realise that this martyr thing is only in your head?

Pherekydes

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The stats are there to back up the claims about Longford.

What stats?

ollkiller

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The population stats are available to view on CSO website and I'm sure poor planning details are on LCC site.

Still not a link. It's not that hard you know.

http://census.cso.ie/sapmap2016/Results.aspx?Geog_Type=ST2016&Geog_Code=B6928243-67FB-4B00-96C3-9881FCB67058#SAPMAP_T2_200

That's the link right there. Now that i've provided the link you should have can you show how said link proves that Longford has been destroyed.

Pherekydes

Ok, this is from wikipedia, but I'm sure you can verify this on the CSO:

Historical population
Year Pop. ±%
1813 3,062 —
1821 3,783 +23.5%
1831 4,516 +19.4%
1841 4,966 +10.0%
1851 4,467 −10.0%
1861 4,819 +7.9%
1871 4,375 −9.2%
1881 4,380 +0.1%
1891 3,827 −12.6%
1901 3,747 −2.1%
1911 3,760 +0.3%
1926 3,685 −2.0%
1936 3,807 +3.3%
1946 4,020 +5.6%
1951 3,845 −4.4%
1956 4,167 +8.4%
1961 4,073 −2.3%
1966 4,129 +1.4%
1971 4,791 +16.0%
1981 6,548 +36.7%
1986 6,835 +4.4%
1991 6,824 −0.2%
1996 6,984 +2.3%
2002 7,557 +8.2%
2006 8,836 +16.9%
2011 9,601 +8.7%
2016 10,008 +4.2%

It doesn't show any catastrophic drop in population. Fairly healthy growth, as far as I can see. Planning for such growth is probably lagging, but what would you expect from a right wing/conservative government?

Hardly destruction, though. How many buildings have been destroyed recently?

ohnonotgmail

Pherekydes wrote: »

Ok, this is from wikipedia, but I'm sure you can verify this on the CSO:

Historical population
Year Pop. ±%
1813 3,062 —
1821 3,783 +23.5%
1831 4,516 +19.4%
1841 4,966 +10.0%
1851 4,467 −10.0%
1861 4,819 +7.9%
1871 4,375 −9.2%
1881 4,380 +0.1%
1891 3,827 −12.6%
1901 3,747 −2.1%
1911 3,760 +0.3%
1926 3,685 −2.0%
1936 3,807 +3.3%
1946 4,020 +5.6%
1951 3,845 −4.4%
1956 4,167 +8.4%
1961 4,073 −2.3%
1966 4,129 +1.4%
1971 4,791 +16.0%
1981 6,548 +36.7%
1986 6,835 +4.4%
1991 6,824 −0.2%
1996 6,984 +2.3%
2002 7,557 +8.2%
2006 8,836 +16.9%
2011 9,601 +8.7%
2016 10,008 +4.2%
It doesn't show any catastrophic drop in population. Fairly healthy growth, as far as I can see. Planning for such growth is probably lagging, but what would you expect from a right wing/conservative government?

Hardly destruction, though. How many buildings have been destroyed recently?

ah but that is not what they are referring to as well you know.

Grayson

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Yes provided there are no legal consequences for the poster or company.

The hate Gemma gets from people here is equally as bad as the hate she might direct at others.

last week she complained that a town was making itself autistic friendly. She promoted someone who used bleach to "cure" autism. She said that gay people were trying to convert children. That Ireland was a caliphate. She also said it was a communist dictatorship. She posted photos of school children without their permission.

It's not equally bad to promote a false cure for autism and to be against the false cure. It's not equally right to promote homophobia and be against homophobia.

You're setting up false equivalencies.

jaxxx

The #1 problem with the whole idea of 'Freedom of Speech' - people are so obsessed with the idea of being able to say (almost) whatever they want, that they never stop to think about whether or not they should!