De-platforming fascists works

Outlaw Pete

batgoat wrote: »

It takes a lot to get banned from Twitter so I suspect you're misrepresenting what you said.

lol. You know nothing about Twitter to say that it takes a lot to get banned there. I've been posting on there for years and had multiple accounts temp suspended which is where they suspend your account and ask you to click a button to delete a tweet for breaking their TOS. When you ask them what aspect of the TOS the tweet breaks they won't tell you. Each and every time that has happened to me I had been been responding to a tweet from a prominent liberal account and my tweet was as innocuous as it got.

My opinion on why this happens is that it is automated in some way and that when a certain amount of leftists have reported you (for daring to disagree with a famous liberal) the suspensions are automatic. I simply don't think they have the personal to check the amount of tweets that get flagged and which result in an automated suspension.

Melanchthon

Deleted User wrote: »

How?

Because if you think people shouldn't be offended by words or opinions it doesn't make sense to then drop somebody who's whole schtick was that like a hot coal when they finally have an opinion your disagree with, rather than just ones your side of the culture wars can agree with.

hill16bhoy

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Modern facism is coming from the left.

'Tis mad how right-wingers call everything on the left "fascist", yet throw their toys out of the pram the second actual fascism is called such.

Mad, Ted, I tells ya.

Melanchthon

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Free speech has consequences. You can't advocate hate or be a pedophile apologist like Milo. Well you can, just tough to find any reasonable media platform I'd imagine.

Thats a separate debate, my point is that Milo is a terrible example of deplatforming working because as you know yourself deplatforming didn't kill his popularity his supporters abandoning him did.

Donnielighto

super_furry wrote: »

It's using accurate terms to describe people and their actions.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a fascist and a grifter - I'd be surprised if you disagreed with that to be honest. You could also add pedophile apologist in there if you liked.

Not related to Milo but generally speaking

This is an issue though just tossing out insults. You aren't trying to convince him of anything, it's his follows and insulting them will entrench them. This is the issue with left at the moment and the backslapping. There are plenty of points raised which should be dealt with but they aren't engaging and just insulting people. Backslapping and posturing without dealing with the points with respect, ie saying something is wrong without saying the reason, it will just get people entrenched.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

People, specifically the people who own the private platforms.

We are. If you want to cause harm or feed those who want to cause harm, you need to go.

There is I agree. That's how we know who are the racist and hateful then we can silence them.

I edited my post above as you were responding.

Muslims who are anti-gay? Do they "need to go"?
People who don't agree with trans people's self identification? Do they "need to go"?
TERFS? Do they need to go?

Where is the line?

Your outlook is worrying at best. You feel like you have the right to silence people based on your interpretation of what is right, as if you deem yourself to be some sort of moral arbiter with a right to impose your opinions onto others while silencing any dissenting voices...

You'll be growing a little moustache soon.

Assetbacked

super_furry wrote: »

Terms of service have no political alignment.

Break up big tech. The concentration of online discourse and influence between a tiny minority of companies, and I mean absolutely miniscule number, is cancerous. People need to start deleting their social media accounts with the big players and seeking out new apps. Otherwise, it just becomes a great big echo chamber.

Danzy

No Platforming made Milo famous.

Go to Ivy League College, talk non controversial for 90% and throw in some doozies, then share them and make sure there was lots of activist outrage.

Both sides benefited from it.

James Brown

Melanchthon wrote: »

Thats a separate debate, my point is that Milo is a terrible example of deplatforming working because as you know yourself deplatforming didn't kill his popularity his supporters abandoning him did.

I'd agree in his case.

drunkmonkey

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This is the problem with the left today. They want everyone with non-liberal views silenced. Antifa have to smash up buildings to get their way, Twitter just press a few buttons.

Back in the day Hans used a Flammenwerfer, I'm not seeing much difference between the left and him.

Donnielighto

super_furry wrote: »

Oh dear.

I actually looked this up and was surprised as I thought they the same. Does pederastry apply if the guy 18 or 19 years old too.

An age of consent is absolutely needed legally but tbh I think it will rise to 20 or 21 eventually.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

I edited my post above as you were responding.

Muslims who are anti-gay? Do they "need to go"?
People who don't agree with trans people's self identification? Do they "need to go"?
TERFS? Do they need to go?

Where is the line?

Your outlook is worrying at best. You feel like you have the right to silence people based on your interpretation of what is right, as if you deem yourself to be some sort of moral arbiter with a right to impose your opinions onto others while silencing any dissenting voices...

You'll be growing a little moustache soon.

Are you very young? You are using tired old arguments. Might seem new to you.
Muslims, like any group who don't like gays, abortions or ham are more than welcome. If they start preaching hatred and stirring up violence, no.
Same with any topic. It's not the opinion it's the inciting hatred and condoning hatred. You can believe being gay is a bad thing but not wish any ill will on gay people. You can be anti abortion but vote to give women choice. Is your mind blown?

Melanchthon

Melanchthon wrote: »

Because if you think people shouldn't be offended by words or opinions it doesn't make sense to then drop somebody who's whole schtick was that like a hot coal when they finally have an opinion your disagree with, rather than just ones your side of the culture wars can agree with.

I don't think anyone has said that people shouldn't be offended by words or opinions!?

Agreeing with someone having the ability to say what they want is not the same as blindly agreeing with everything they say.

I don't think anyone has ever defined free speech as "hey, never be offended by what this guy is saying". Its more "let him say what he wants, if you don't like it, don't listen".

dingledosser

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I've been posting on there for years and had multiple accounts temp suspended

Why did you have multiple accounts?

super_furry

Assetbacked wrote: »

Break up big tech. The concentration of online discourse and influence between a tiny minority of companies, and I mean absolutely miniscule number, is cancerous. People need to start deleting their social media accounts with the big players and seeking out new apps. Otherwise, it just becomes a great big echo chamber.

Cool, so the state shall own the means of meme production?

Nice idea, wonder if it's ever been tried before....

Donnielighto

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you very young? You are using tired old arguments. Might seem new to you.
Muslims, like any group who don't like gays, abortions or ham are more than welcome. If they start preaching hatred and stirring up violence, no.
Same with any topic. It's not the opinion it's the inciting hatred and condoning hatred. You can believe being gay is a bad thing but not wish any ill will on gay people. You can be anti abortion but vote to give women choice. Is your mind blown?

What about people who voted no in the abortion referendum on moral grounds? I argued that was correct the demonisation of the broader no side by a large swathe of the yes support wasn't right imo.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you very young? You are using tired old arguments. Might seem new to you.
Muslims, like any group who don't like gays, abortions or ham are more than welcome. If they start preaching hatred and stirring up violence, no.
Same with any topic. It's not the opinion it's the inciting hatred and condoning hatred. You can believe being gay is a bad thing but not wish any ill will on gay people. You can be anti abortion but vote to give women choice. Is your mind blown?

There is absolutely no need to be a condescending arse.

hill16bhoy

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This is the problem with the left today. They want everyone with non-liberal views silenced. Antifa have to smash up buildings to get their way, Twitter just press a few buttons.

Imagine writing this and thinking you're not reciting the most toe-curlingly stupid, yawn inducing cliche ever written

Racism is the new tolerance, yeah!!!!!!!!!!

James Brown

Danzy wrote: »

No Platforming made Milo famous.

Go to Ivy League College, talk non controversial for 90% and throw in some doozies, then share them and make sure there was lots of activist outrage.

Both sides benefited from it.

The trouble with Milo is he's on the make. People's quality of life likely suffered due to what he spouted. These issues are regarding peoples daily lives. He fed the hate.

Donnielighto

super_furry wrote: »

Cool, so the state shall own the means of meme production?

Nice idea, wonder if it's ever been tried before....

I read that as it being spread amongst a bigger number of providers, tbh that just means more specialised echo chambers though.

hill16bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

There is absolutely no need to be a condescending arse.

Why do right wingers always have to resort to ad hominems?

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

There is absolutely no need to be a condescending arse.

I was responding in kind.

Outlaw Pete

super_furry wrote: »

Forgive me if I doubt videos from a Donald Trump youtube channel that also has Alex Jones videos up there.

Nope, I won't forgive you that nonsense. 'That's a Trump channel' is lazy. This is a common tactic by liberals on Boards to whinge about who has uploaded a video or reported on a story. Meanwhile the same people will post CNN clips and link to the NY Times as if these sources are not similarly biased.

Here's an article on the guy and the video is there:

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/08/14/google-machine-learning-fairness-whistleblower-goes-public-says-burden-lifted-off-of-my-soul/

Which research is that now?

Well, there has been quite a bit of exposure about how the big tech platforms have misused their positions but Dr. Robert Epstein is good for a start, as he has exposed some of Google's nefarious actions and indeed spoke before US congress on his findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMU2Vo6_CEQ

Veritas Libertas

end of the road wrote: »

tbh on this issue i don't think it is soft/moderate/regular people giving in to the hard left, but rather those who agree with them who are in a position of power. in fact i think that may be the case generally, unless there is genuinely something they look for which actually may have legitimacy, for which we would support it.

The moderates are not giving into the hard-left, but are being silenced by them for fear of the mob turning on them. As Biko alluded to, this is how the far-left have so much power.

This mob is wielding a credible threat; you need to be willing to humiliate yourself by surrendering to the absurd portrayal that these people are creating and then get out of their way so they can go attack somebody else.

I have become increasing frustrated with my left brethren who initially I understood their fears, but watching their fears drive them to externalize this harm onto other people who don't deserve it; its hard to respect how self-serving this position is.

A race to the bottom of who can virtue-signal the loudest.

super_furry

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nope, I won't forgive you that nonsense. 'That's a Trump channel' is lazy. This is a common tactic by liberals on Boards to whinge about who has uploaded a video or reported on a story. Meanwhile the same people will post CNN clips and link to the NY Times as if these sources are not similarly biased.

Here's an article on the guy and the video is there:

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/08/14/google-machine-learning-fairness-whistleblower-goes-public-says-burden-lifted-off-of-my-soul/



Well, there has been quite a bit of exposure about how the big tech platforms have misused their positions but Dr. Robert Epstein is good for a start, as he has exposed some of Google's nefarious actions and indeed spoke before US congress on his findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMU2Vo6_CEQ

Cool, cool, well how about the fact the Project Veritas is a thoroughly discredited hoax?

pjohnson

super_furry wrote: »

Cool, cool, well how about the fact the Project Veritas is a thoroughly discredited hoax?

Was it discredited by Alex Jones/Infowars?

Sonics2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nope, I won't forgive you that nonsense. 'That's a Trump channel' is lazy. This is a common tactic by liberals on Boards to whinge about who has uploaded a video or reported on a story. Meanwhile the same people will post CNN clips and link to the NY Times as if these sources are not similarly biased.

Here's an article on the guy and the video is there:

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/08/14/google-machine-learning-fairness-whistleblower-goes-public-says-burden-lifted-off-of-my-soul/



Well, there has been quite a bit of exposure about how the big tech platforms have misused their positions but Dr. Robert Epstein is good for a start, as he has exposed some of Google's nefarious actions and indeed spoke before US congress on his findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMU2Vo6_CEQ

Isn't James O'Keefe the guy that released the sting "interview" with a Google Exec which turned out to be -massively- edited, altered and taken out of context to match a total lie Project Veritas were trying to spread. They were also caught in a dozen other lies about other people.

Now, I'm not saying liberal media is great, but for someone who goes on about the fake news and dishonest media, you do seem to enjoy posting links to other liars.

greencap

Don't think it will work, but I do agree with the rights of media companies to simply not do business with someone if they don't want.

if a social media app says 'no xyz' then thats it, accept the terms. dont cry if you break the terms.
likewise if they reserve the right to boot you off.

dont like it, dont sign the terms.

and dont start with the shyte about being censored. the average person today has more communication means at their disposal than an 80's US presidential candidate. go to a different site. there are many.

pjohnson

Sonics2k wrote: »

Isn't James O'Keefe the guy that released the sting "interview" with a Google Exec which turned out to be -massively- edited, altered and taken out of context to match a total lie Project Veritas were trying to spread. They were also caught in a dozen other lies about other people.

Now, I'm not saying liberal media is great, but for someone who goes on about the fake news and dishonest media, you do seem to enjoy posting links to other liars.

Ah cmon surely you know by now mainstream = fake news
Demented fringe = 100% true

Thats conspiracy 101

mcmoustache

pjohnson wrote: »

Ah cmon surely you know by now mainstream = fake news
Demented fringe = 100% true

Thats conspiracy 101

That's basically it.

"Mainstream media is fake news so I only get news from creationist nutjobs with a history of fabrication and some fat guy with a dildo up his árse on youtube."

A little self reflection wouldn't go amiss.