fleet_admiral wrote: » Strange when feminists say 'kill all men' is not considered hate speech
Mutant z wrote: » This is just the start freedom of speech is being attacked worldwide for those who don't have leftist views, Antifa can be just as violent as they want and nothing is done to them but someone says something you don't like suddenly they get banned from the airwaves its not good for freedom of speech and democracy.
Bob24 wrote: » Ageee and I think as a society we should think about this. When a handful of companies control most self-published online content distribution, have a final say of what gets in or not, and tend to all make the same decisions, in my view there is a democratic issue. I don’t blame companies individually but that is a systemic failure which I think needs to be addressed. Either we force all of them to accept any content which is not illegal, or we break their oligopoly and force the introduction of other large scale distributors can host legal content which is currently refused by all current major players. Having the standards of what is acceptable on large scale online platforms globally defined by a few company execs in California who prettt much all have the same ideological views is a serious issue IMO. And not just on this case, if you simply want to publish an illustrated art critique of a classical painting which shows certain body parts you will likely get shot down by most of them. Or of you try to express certain ideas they done like and become to popular. The collective power they have is huge and people would be wrong to assume they are safe and it only applies to others.
FunLover18 wrote: » You either allow these companies to control their content or you say they have to put up everything that comes their way. There's no middle ground where you say certain companies can control content or only a certain amount can ban the same content.
suicide_circus wrote: » I'm pretty sure the shooter made their lives a misery. in any case I don't consume Alex Jones' content and I also don't believe for one second that YouTube give two fcuks about the parents of Sandy Hook victims.
Bob24 wrote: » FunLover18 wrote: » Freedom of speech ≠ the right to a platform True ... the problem however is that we are not talking about *a* platform being removed here. We are talking about most major online platforms being removed. The problem is not a company individual decision, but their collective massive influence and the fact that they make identical decisions. That concentration of power and similar thinking is a genuine threat to free speach and democracy IMO.
FunLover18 wrote: » Freedom of speech ≠ the right to a platform
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The lunatic has been removed from the asylum.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Remember that he may lose the midterms and win. Clinton did.
Billy86 wrote: » Looks like his defense of "I'm a fraud and all my followers are unreasonable idiots" (and not for the first time) didn't spare him here. That literally has been his defense: He knows he's a fraud and that he's making all of this sh** up for clickbait, and he knows it is radicalising people into acts of terrorism but yet he continues to peddle those stories about child sex dungeons in pizza shops, school shootings that left toddlers dead being a 'false flag' (parents whose kids were killed continue to get death threats from Jones' followers, the government is controlling the weather, child slave colonies on Mars (no no, really), and on and on it goes. And the gullible idiots lap it right up in a cult like Jonestown fashion, where the truth is simply what Alex Jones tells them. Good f***ing riddance, from these platforms at least.
Bob24 wrote: » This. Anyone who genuinely thinks he has no chance of reelection is still living in the same social/media bubble they were living in 2 years ago and needs more exposure to the outside world.
“There can simply be no statement of fact when Mr. Jones views a video of Anderson Cooper and provides his commentary and opinion with regard to possibilities as to why Mr. Cooper’s nose disappeared on the video, all the while directing the viewers’ attention to the very video about which he opined,” a motion to dismiss the suit filed by Jones’s attorney argues. “No reasonable reader or listener would interpret Mr. Jones’ statements regarding the possibility of a ‘blue-screen’ being used as a verifiably false statement of fact, and even if it is verifiable as false, the entire context in which it was made discloses that the statements are mere opinions ‘masquerading as a fact.”
topper75 wrote: » Well - then this raises that big question: not what they like, but what you like? what who likes? Who sets this bar? I don't think Alex Jones or his views need discussion in this thread. The banning of them - now that is 'interesting'. If you think Trump isn't winning 2020 - here's an old Democrat gem for you "It's the economy stupid". People vote with their pocket, not on isms.
topper75 wrote: » Would it be so crazy if they ALL had their say and I got to use my own brain to decide? Or maybe my brain can't be trusted - is that it?
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » Do you believe that the Left Wing Momentum organisation should be silenced online? After all, their members have harrassed Jewish Labour MPs and issued death threats and vile abuse to Labour MPs that do not support Corbyn wholeheartedly. My question is, where do you stop?
listermint wrote: » I disagree with your contorting of the freedom of speech to mean people should be allowed to say what they like on all means of media.
P_1 wrote: » Have to say I'm not a fan of no platforming. Irrespective of how abhorrent you may find someone's opinions its better to leave them in the open and open to public scrutiny and ridicule. As was mentioned in another thread its shlike this that will get the Orange Buffoon reelected in 2020.
Wanderer78 wrote: » Is this a good thing for freedom of speech?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Its good to know that you are happy to give a platform to a man who has made the lives of the victims of sandy hook a misery.
