Ipso wrote: » And they rely on attracting other customers, who may not want to be linked to someone who is insane/a con man. So instead if it being censorship it could just be a business decision.
Ipso wrote: » See number 19 for infowars views on censorship.https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/#nineteen
Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.
Venom wrote: » So if a couple of people from boards got onto your electrical provider and claimed they didn't want to use the same service as you, you would be fine getting the boot as it's only business decision?
Venom wrote: » The likes of Twitter, Facebook and Google have so much money behind them now, that they just buy up any competition before it has a chance to grow. Then there are the few platforms like Gab and Minds that don't sell out but start getting screwed over by payment processors.
batgoat wrote: » Gab, the same site that hosted the hateful ramblings of the synagogue killer from last year? If I recall correctly, that was why most companies steered clear of them. Seems reasonable, if you give a platform to hate speech that can negatively impact your platform. Gab was literally set up because some of the more ****ed up rhetoric of its users wasn't allowed on twitter and Co..
Venom wrote: » Many mass shooters have had their rantings hosted by Facebook, sexual assaults have been broadcast live on Facebook multiple times over the years and Twitter has been used time and time again to organise violence or to disrupt speaking events in the US but I don't see any payment processors dropping them.
jam_mac_jam wrote: » Yes nothing wrong with private companies telling us what we should think? I wonder how far this will go, how far we accept being told what is acceptable, what’s next. Very sinister indeed and what is more sinister is everyone defending and cheering it on. People actually using Orwellian language of “hate speech” to defend it. Sickening and frightening.
Venom wrote: » The issue is that these platforms are huge monopolies used for world wide communication, so it's a tad more complicated than them to be considered "just" private companies.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Is Alex Jones not doing the same on his own website? Is he right and twitter/Facebook etc wrong because their platforms are bigger than his? They have no obligation to let dickheads like him use their platforms .
nullzero wrote: » The issue is more about freedom of speech than the policies of private platforms. Humans are generally quite good at deciding for themselves whether or not somebody's opinions are valid or not. We don't require the aid of others to make those decisions and to be honest the more out there opinions need to be aired publicly for all to see, hear and understand. Censorship isn't the answer, and those acting as apologists for it need to examine their own motivations. Freedom of speech should never be some a la carte style system where only certain individuals or groups get to voice their opinions, it just doesn't work.
nullzero wrote: » The issue is more about freedom of speech than the policies of private platforms.Humans are generally quite good at deciding for themselves whether or not somebody's opinions are valid or not. We don't require the aid of others to make those decisions and to be honest the more out there opinions need to be aired publicly for all to see, hear and understand. Censorship isn't the answer, and those acting as apologists for it need to examine their own motivations. Freedom of speech should never be some a la carte style system where only certain individuals or groups get to voice their opinions, it just doesn't work.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » How are they monopolies if theres more than 1. Is it their fault they're bigger than Jones' platform?
Venom wrote: » Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are monopolies due to having no real competitors in each of their various market spaces unlike a business model such as iTunes, who faces real competition from the likes of Spotify and Google Play Music.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Spotify has him banned
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » Somebody dig out that Voltaire quote. But seriously this is getting a little creepy. Who will they come for next? It's weird how humans make the same mistakes over and over again. Censorship in a free society can never be justified.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » After all these months, this is the best Twitter can come up to justify their removal of Jones from their platform:
mzungu wrote: » I haven't followed any of this but to my understanding Jones can still waffle all he likes, but Facebook, YouTube, Apple and others don't want to host it. It's not censorship because Jones is not being silenced.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » Censorship in a free society can never be justified.
Grayson wrote: » You mean the quote he never said?
Venom wrote: » Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are monopolies due to having no real competitors in each of their various market spaces unlike a business model such as iTunes, who faces real competition from the likes of Spotify and Google Play Music. It's not a case of them being bigger than Jones website or Reddit or Boards, its the case they are now vital communication tools on a world wide scale and as such need to be regulated as utilities.
Ipso wrote: » I find the selective outrage and people taking Jones seriously worrying.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Racism, slander, defamation, anti-semitism, hate speech, doxxing, etc Like everything, it's about common sense limitations
