The Legend Of Kira wrote: » If facebook are taking down pages at the request or pressure from political parties or Government leaders, in my view it would be a similar equivalence to Trump shutting down media outlets.https://uk.news.yahoo.com/front-congress-facebook-defends-decision-002206231.htmlhttps://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html
batgoat wrote: » Coveniently ignore that he has actively ruined lives via such mediums. The ban is very much so deserved and Infowars is not a news site, horrible man loses access to platform that is owned by a private business. They are entitled to remove him from the platforms. You've endlessly made this into a free speech issue. No violation is occurring though...
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » They didn't remove him for Sandy Hook. That's the problem. If they were truthful and said they were covering themselves legally against libel and defamation I'd have no problem. They instead decide to use hate speech while citing no examples and many are satisfied with that in this instance. They won't be so satisfied in future instances when it's someone they themselves support. Hate speech was also used to criminalise a joke in Scotland. If you know the details of that case where the judge ruled 'intent and context are irrelevant' surely anyone can see why we have a major problem on our hands.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » Christy42 wrote: » It is not censorship anymore than Netflix refusing to show my home videos is censorship. Facebook do not have an obligation to show anyone who wants to talk. They have been removing IS videos and Russian Trolls (with mixed levels of success at best) for ages now. Few complained (and people did not complain for good reason). So should Netflix be forced to host my home videos? What is the difference between them and Facebook not hosting Alex Jones? Alex Jones has freedom of speech still. No one has shut down his website. Similarly I am free to host my own home movies on my own site. No one has kept him quiet or censored him. They have simply not given him the megaphone. The fact that he still talking is proof of that. Finally Trump shutting down the press for disagreeing with him would be a complete violation of freedom of speech in the xkcd sense. It would literally be the government shutting down dissenting opinion and not the same as Facebook not providing a platform for Alex Jones. That is a false equivalence. The quotes are also nonsensical in this scenario. Jones has not lost the ability to offend. He has that still. He has his website. The fact that not everyone is helping him broadcast his insults is not censorship. Finally Trump shutting down the press for disagreeing with him would be a complete violation of freedom of speech in the xkcd sense. It would literally be the government shutting down dissenting opinion and not the same as Facebook not providing a platform for Alex Jones. That is a false equivalence. If facebook are taking down pages at the request or pressure from political parties or Government leaders, in my view it would be a similar equivalence to Trump shutting down media outlets. For the second time in less than a week, Facebook is facing uncomfortable questions about why it continues to allow InfoWars and other conspiracy theory-slinging groups to have a presence on its platform. During a House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Facebook's policy chief Monika Bickert fielded questions from Democrats who demanded to know why InfoWars has not been banned by Facebook. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/front-congress-facebook-defends-decision-002206231.html German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over incendiary posts on the social network, Bloomberg reported on Sunday, amid complaints from her government about anti-immigrant posts in the midst of Europe's refugee crisis. On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.htmlbeheadingYou can't see the difference between CNN's site being taken down by Trump and effectively put out of business vs someone losing their Facebook page (but being allowed keep their main website)??? One would be shut down completely by the government the other is having less people host them (but still not shut down as they have their own site). Venom: if you keep complaining about vague definitions you need a stronger one yourself. I get no beheading. We can agree with no (real) deaths. What about bomb making lessons or ISIS recruitment. The line will be drawn somewhere by everyone. They disagree on the where buy I doubt too many want complete freedom of speech.
Christy42 wrote: » It is not censorship anymore than Netflix refusing to show my home videos is censorship. Facebook do not have an obligation to show anyone who wants to talk. They have been removing IS videos and Russian Trolls (with mixed levels of success at best) for ages now. Few complained (and people did not complain for good reason). So should Netflix be forced to host my home videos? What is the difference between them and Facebook not hosting Alex Jones? Alex Jones has freedom of speech still. No one has shut down his website. Similarly I am free to host my own home movies on my own site. No one has kept him quiet or censored him. They have simply not given him the megaphone. The fact that he still talking is proof of that. Finally Trump shutting down the press for disagreeing with him would be a complete violation of freedom of speech in the xkcd sense. It would literally be the government shutting down dissenting opinion and not the same as Facebook not providing a platform for Alex Jones. That is a false equivalence. The quotes are also nonsensical in this scenario. Jones has not lost the ability to offend. He has that still. He has his website. The fact that not everyone is helping him broadcast his insults is not censorship.
Finally Trump shutting down the press for disagreeing with him would be a complete violation of freedom of speech in the xkcd sense. It would literally be the government shutting down dissenting opinion and not the same as Facebook not providing a platform for Alex Jones. That is a false equivalence.
For the second time in less than a week, Facebook is facing uncomfortable questions about why it continues to allow InfoWars and other conspiracy theory-slinging groups to have a presence on its platform. During a House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Facebook's policy chief Monika Bickert fielded questions from Democrats who demanded to know why InfoWars has not been banned by Facebook.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over incendiary posts on the social network, Bloomberg reported on Sunday, amid complaints from her government about anti-immigrant posts in the midst of Europe's refugee crisis. On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.
batgoat wrote: » There's absolutely no indication that a government told him to remove Infowars... You've cited articles from 2015, since then it's become apparent that Facebook has likely flouted privacy laws for years. I've not seen any actual indication that Facebook take any criticism from the EU seriously with the exception of when it causes bad pr. Businesses don't like bad pr. Eg a channel 4 documentary a month ago revealed that Facebook actively protect accounts of prominent racists and give far more leeway to them. So the picture your painting does not match up with the reality.
These companies must do more than take down one website.
Christy42 wrote: » The Legend Of Kira wrote: » If facebook are taking down pages at the request or pressure from political parties or Government leaders, in my view it would be a similar equivalence to Trump shutting down media outlets.https://uk.news.yahoo.com/front-congress-facebook-defends-decision-002206231.htmlhttps://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.htmlbeheadingYou can't see the difference between CNN's site being taken down by Trump and effectively put out of business vs someone losing their Facebook page (but being allowed keep their main website)??? One would be shut down completely by the government the other is having less people host them (but still not shut down as they have their own site). Venom: if you keep complaining about vague definitions you need a stronger one yourself. I get no beheading. We can agree with no (real) deaths. What about bomb making lessons or ISIS recruitment. The line will be drawn somewhere by everyone. They disagree on the where buy I doubt too many want complete freedom of speech. You can't see the difference between CNN's site being taken down by Trump and effectively put out of business vs someone losing their Facebook page (but being allowed keep their main website)??? One would be shut down completely by the government the other is having less people host them (but still not shut down as they have their own site). The only difference is if Trump were to shut down media outlets that would be direct censorship vs tech companies removing pages after being politically lobbied to do so would indirect censorship. These companies must do more than take down one website. https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1026580187784404994
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » If facebook are taking down pages at the request or pressure from political parties or Government leaders, in my view it would be a similar equivalence to Trump shutting down media outlets.https://uk.news.yahoo.com/front-congress-facebook-defends-decision-002206231.htmlhttps://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.htmlbeheadingYou can't see the difference between CNN's site being taken down by Trump and effectively put out of business vs someone losing their Facebook page (but being allowed keep their main website)??? One would be shut down completely by the government the other is having less people host them (but still not shut down as they have their own site). Venom: if you keep complaining about vague definitions you need a stronger one yourself. I get no beheading. We can agree with no (real) deaths. What about bomb making lessons or ISIS recruitment. The line will be drawn somewhere by everyone. They disagree on the where buy I doubt too many want complete freedom of speech.
You can't see the difference between CNN's site being taken down by Trump and effectively put out of business vs someone losing their Facebook page (but being allowed keep their main website)??? One would be shut down completely by the government the other is having less people host them (but still not shut down as they have their own site).
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » During the congress hearings recently last month tech companies were lobbied & asked why infowars wasn,t banned, following Jones being banned from various sites, one democrat tweeted . This is indirect lobbying for online censorship by some politicians. Since that 2015 article a lot of facebook personal accounts have being taken down for being critical of Merkel,s Immigration policy including this noted post reported.https://www.theissue.com/politics/facebook-censorship-reaches-orwellian-levels Since facebook have deleted posts & accounts since being lobbied by Merkel to so, that is indirect censorship .
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » Christy42 wrote: » The only difference is if Trump were to shut down media outlets that would be direct censorship vs tech companies removing pages after being politically lobbied to do so would indirect censorship.https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1026580187784404994 Banning sites should be done case by case. Alex Jones was inciting violence on his podcast and I understood why he was taken down. If Chris Murphy is proposing taking down sites where they just discuss an alternative view on political, economic and foreign issues then that's very different, they are looking to censor opposing voices.
Christy42 wrote: » The only difference is if Trump were to shut down media outlets that would be direct censorship vs tech companies removing pages after being politically lobbied to do so would indirect censorship.https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1026580187784404994
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » I don,t think this has being posted about on here yet, a Venezuelan News Site has being taken off facebook for the moment, social media censorship if accepted, leads to other things that will get taken down from social media pages like this news site about Venezuela.https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13989
Venom wrote: » Youtube nuked the H3H3 livestream for discussing the Alex Jones banning.https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/1028047008144080896
super_furry wrote: » Looks like they messed up there.....https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1028074212311760897
Outlaw Pete wrote: » https://twitter.com/MikeTokes/status/1028065777713213440
Mike Hoch wrote: » I distinctly remember watching a programme featuring him pre 9/11, so I'm guessing 1999 to 2001. I could have sworn it was on Channel 4. I then all but forgot about him until that Piers Morgan interview. I'd love to find the old show. Who'd have thought 16 years later a loud fat lunatic ranting in his shed might just have swung a US election. Ironically I think it was that interview that made him a household name and, in turn, made people listen to him during the Trump campaign.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » Some people were saying last week he,s free to host his own website etc, reports are in that his website has being taken down via cyber attack, even though the guy is a conspiracy nut its censorship to take down someones website like that.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I have put the important part in bold
splashuum wrote: » I think it’s time people realize these sort of actions will come with devastating effects if censorship continues at this pace.
Malayalam wrote: » TeleSUR who are left wing independent media have had their Facebook page removed. Abby Martin's show the Empire Files generally is shown there. I don't agree with all her stuff but she has the right to express it. People who say these platforms are private should consider that phone companies are now also generally private. Most travel companies too. Should people who make content that is irritating, nasty, etc be deprived of the right to use phones or planes because perhaps they are using the device to relay or travel to promote their opinions? If Donald Trump (meh) cannot block people on Twitter because it is now the public square then these companies cannot exercise censorship of free speech in what they admit is the new public square at all. It is impossible for them to monitor all content, therefore they cannot equibly censor only some content. I can understand moderation of specific items that contravene hate speech, but this is not what is happening. ''Raising flags'' which these platforms encourage people to do is really a new form of citizens spying on each other. Digital Stasi.
Dohnjoe wrote: » It's a propaganda site that regularly pushes disinformation and false reporting. Facebook was heavily criticised last year for allowing sites that spread disinformation to use it's platform (especially in the run up to the 2016 election) They've probably decided to take action.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Look forward to you justifying your own banning some day. You seem to have no problem with this worrying trend. This was hateful. That was disinformation. What happens when there are two opposing narratives in your view? One has got to go! Was watching an ex intelligence official on Jimmy Dore today saying that the deep state is responsible for Meuller indictments which use the fraudulent Goosifer files as a large part of the case. Mainstream media says something very different. Who do we ban? In Facebook we trust.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I think you need to read better media.
