Deleted User wrote: » Twitter etc. are beyond a private company at this stage.
They are a global public utility
and should be held to standards as if run by a government.
Tunes would certainly change if rich right-wingers took over the main sites.
Why do I feel this way?
It's not prison, but the effect is the same.
greencap wrote: » As is the applying of great sounding quotes to situations.
DS86DS wrote: » A nice sentence is not going to disestablish this fact......that Conservative voices are under increasing attack and. facing censorship from all angles.
The Age of Enlightenment gave us documents like the American Constitution and the Rights of Man in France.
Companies like Twitter are not above this tried and tested method
greencap wrote: » ok. right. But, if theres something in your constitution about the right to private property then I think they just might be. Or is the state going to tell people to allow content on their privately owned servers? Bit of a conundrum you have there.
DS86DS wrote: » Oh...you're such an Edgelord. Look at how you dismiss half of a post with one word put-downs...then with surgical precision, obliterate anything else that had to be said while making everything else seem like the ramblings of a mad man. You're such an edgy Edgelord... you should be on QI with Stephen Fry.....you're so witty and intelligent, you'll fit right in. What an idiot I was thinking I could debate you.
DS86DS wrote: » Even arch-leftist Jimmy Dore has been defending Alex Jones against all of these bans bordering on political censorship. I may not agree with Jimmy Dore, but his words are true to the point here. I disdain many of his opinions, but I do not want him censored. To quote Voltaire "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it'
[Deleted User] wrote: » Arguing about ideas > Arguing about events > Arguing about people I hold complete and utter distain for people who defend the removal of the universal idea of free speech. I know the actual law and way it works around the world, so that's why I said "idea". Twitter etc. are beyond a private company at this stage. They are a global public utility and should be held to standards as if run by a government. To argue that they can do what they want, specifically because of a person like Alex Jones, is really just a sign of a small and insignificant mind. Tunes would certainly change if rich right-wingers took over the main sites. Why do I feel this way? Because it's obvious, and because I live in a country where free speech doesn't exist and people are put in prison for what they write online. Demonitising people, or completely removing them, disincentives others from creating similar content. It's not prison, but the effect is the same.
KikiLaRue wrote: » That’s the point. People should be disincentivised from writing the kind of content he got banned for. Hate speech is not protected. Example: Do you think it is okay to target the parents of the Sandy Hook children? If not, what should a platform do when a high profile user repeatedly breaks the rules?
Ipso wrote: » As far as Infowars, see rule 19 in their terms of service.
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.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Arguing about ideas > Arguing about events > Arguing about people I've bolded your level of argument, and don't throw strawmen at me like I'm a stupid teenager.
KikiLaRue wrote: » How is that a straw man? I’m asking you a very sincere question. What do you think the appropriate consequences are for someone who repeatedly targets the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre? It’s a total cop out to say you’re not going to respond to my point because you think your arguments are at a loftier level than mine.
Deleted User wrote: » A cop out? I think it's despicable what he did. It's a stupid question that shouldn't even need to be answered.
[Deleted User] wrote: » A cop out? I think it's despicable what he did. It's a stupid question that shouldn't even need to be answered.
suicide_circus wrote: » why is Hamas allowed on twitter and Alex Jones is not? to my knowledge AJ has not literally killed hundreds if not thousands of people? strange.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » so what do you think should be the appropriate consequences for what he did?
KikiLaRue wrote: » You still didn’t answer it. If you’re against him being deplatformed, what consequences do you think he should have faced? What other options were open to Twitter after they had exhausted warnings and temporary bans?
KikiLaRue wrote: » Presumably because they haven’t broken the terms of service. Side point: Republicans and Democrats in the US as well as the ruling parties in the UK and France are also responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Deleted User wrote: » Not really sure. More temp bans, forced removal of the Sandyhook materials etc. A retraction? I just know I don't think a systematic removal from the main sites all at once pretty much is the right way to go about it. The cynic in me believes this was an easy target to drum up easy support for internet-wide removal of "right" content. Youtube is already removing conspiracy theories from suggested videos. Twitter has been removing loads of people. It's a slippery slope in my opinion, and my belief that these services are too big and central to modern society to be merely called private companies anymore means I don't think they should solely decide who and what gets seen by the world, especially since it's content that is usually legal. It's a lot of power to hand over. If the victims' families had seeked, and been granted his removal from sites as part of their case against him, I'd fully support it, since it would be a judge's ie. a government's decision. Or perhaps a part of some incitement charge. I don't like him or watch him, so while I'm happy he's gone, I don't agree with how it was done in the slightest.
Deleted User wrote: » Not really sure. More temp bans, forced removal of the Sandyhook materials etc. A retraction?
Deleted User wrote: » I just know I don't think a systematic removal from the main sites all at once pretty much is the right way to go about it.
Deleted User wrote: » The cynic in me believes this was an easy target to drum up easy support for internet-wide removal of "right" content.
Deleted User wrote: » these services are too big and central to modern society to be merely called private companies anymore means I don't think they should solely decide who and what gets seen by the world, especially since it's content that is usually legal. It's a lot of power to hand over.
Deleted User wrote: » If the victims' families had seeked, and been granted his removal from sites as part of their case against him, I'd fully support it, since it would be a judge's ie. a government's decision. Or perhaps a part of some incitement charge. I don't like him or watch him, so while I'm happy he's gone, I don't agree with how it was done in the slightest.
Deleted User wrote: » Youtube is already removing conspiracy theories from suggested videos. Twitter has been removing loads of people. It's a slippery slope in my opinion,
suicide_circus wrote: » i dont really care about the AJ case if im honest, he is a great entertainer but i can see how the sandy hook thing would be a career ending mistake, particularity in a world where redemption is impossible. im more concerned with twitter's inconsistency with applying their rules given their monopoly status.
Dohnjoe wrote: » That's great entertainment?
suicide_circus wrote: » entertainment is subjective obviously but unless you're rigorously po-faced and sanctimonious, yes his shtick is funny. Did you see him on Rogan lately? That was entertaining.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
