Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » It's more akin to having your chip turned off like in an episode of Black Mirror. If every major social media company works together to silence you without any due process in a court, then they are essentially shutting that person off from all forms of social internet.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » A bit like all the energy companies agreeing together to not provide you with electricity into your own home. You are technically free to look for alternative ways like putting a solar panel on your roof, or buying oil or wood wholesale, but it's not very feasible. These issues should be decided by laws that are there in a court by a judge/jury. Not faceless people in boardrooms.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Why do they have to take somebody to court to ban them??? They're not the police. It is absolutely nothing like that.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » A bit like all the energy companies agreeing together to not provide you with electricity into your own home. You are technically free to look for alternative ways like putting a solar panel on your roof, or buying oil or wood wholesale, but it's not very feasible.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » And if they did it because you consistently broke the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed up would that not be ok? What is the point of having terms and conditions if you dont enforce them?
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.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » It's not really done though is it? A person using lots of electricity to grow weed isn't banned from using every energy company forever are they?
Ipso wrote: » People get banned from platforms for various reasons, below is a random example of a corporation giving it's reasons.https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/#nineteen
ohnonotgmail wrote: » your example is inappropriate. websites are not public utulities. Jones can still get his message out there.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » My example is perfectly appropriate. Social media, like electricity, mobile phones, water and food are things that 99% of the population use or need in one way or another. Am fairly sure Alex Jones stopped talking about Sandy Hook when the families sued him. These things have ways to sort themselves by mechanisms that already in place as part of society. I don't understand why people would want these decisions to be made by unaccountable faceless people in giant worldwide corporations?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » nobody needs social media. And the decision is made by those who created the rules. who else would make the decision?
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » Nobody needs phones or electricity either. That doesn't make it right to ban someone forever from using them.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » I don't understand why people would want these decisions to be made by unaccountable faceless people in giant worldwide corporations?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you do realise he is not banned from the entire internet, right?
super_furry wrote: » So will you be protesting Infowars attempts to stifle dissent on their social media platform?
greencap wrote: » you dont have freedom of speech on twitter. they never promised freedom of speech. in fact you had to sign up to terms which expressly restricted freedom of speech. and they didnt censor you. they denied you use of their service. youre free to express your opinion elsewhere. incidentally, you dont have free speech here on boards either. maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and lead the charge by refusing to use platforms which demand you sign up to restrictions of expression. boycott boards, twitter and all these other suppressors of your free speech if youre such a freeman of the land.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » Nope.
nullzero wrote: » It seems that Alex Jones was to be made an example of but somewhat predictably he's now more relevant and visible than ever before.
KikiLaRue wrote: » The idea that a court should decide what Content Facebook should host is mental.
super_furry wrote: » But muh free speech!
super_furry wrote: » Except he isn't and he's losing his audience hand over fist......https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/technology/alex-jones-infowars-bans-traffic.html
suicide_circus wrote: » i find the "its a private company, their platform their rules" argument from leftists hilarious. How far does that logic extend? To other service monopolies? and the obvious pitfall of that argument...what happens when your politics or beliefs become wrongthink, as they inevitably will..."oh well, got deplatformed due to my ideology, c'est la vie"....such short term thinking.
batgoat wrote: » Pretty sure I'll never be doing anything equivalent to calling victims of a spree killer 'crisis actors'. First they came for the anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, then they came for the Nazis then they came for the racists... Such losses for public discourse.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » My example is perfectly appropriate. Social media, like electricity, mobile phones, water and food are things that 99% of the population use or need in one way or another.
