El_Bee wrote: » they should have thought about that before having illegal opinions.
Patty Hearst wrote: » Where did I defend Milo? I happen to think he's a degenerate actually. But I do not think he should be banned for his political opinions
20Cent wrote: » Screaming lolhttps://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1124153500068405248?s=19
OMM 0000 wrote: » I disagree it's a non-issue. Why? Because these platforms are utterly dominant. They're monopolies, so if you're banned from them, you disappear. I think they need to be regulated so they have a consistent banning policy, a consistent appeals policy, transparency, etc. You'll notice their bans are heavily skewed towards the right. This is because the people working in these places (San Francisco) are very left leaning.
20Cent wrote: » Government regulation of speech? Are you a Socialist or something?
greencap wrote: » So once a business hits a certain success level the law changes for it? This is bending the law and saying 'yeah but...' solely on the basis that you've been inconvenienced. And inconvenienced online at that. I mean theres not even a drive to a different supplier involved, its a matter of typing a different URL. These are the snowflakes. People outraged and offended by social media not treating them ..... fair ..... waaah .... fair. thats not fair, i want change at the corporate legislative level waaah.
OMM 0000 wrote: » Yes, there are laws against monopolies.
greencap wrote: » Does Twitter fit the definition?
OMM 0000 wrote: » It's illegal for companies to work together to use their advantage to refuse "business" with a person or individual. It's against antitrust laws. Twitter, Facebook, etc., banning the same people is (probably) in violation of antitrust laws. Again my issue here is either allow free speech, or be fair. They are consistently proving they are unfair.
OMM 0000 wrote: » I disagree it's a non-issue. Why? Because these platforms are utterly dominant. They're monopolies, so if you're banned from them, you disappear. I think they need to be regulated so they have a consistent banning policy, a consistent appeals policy, transparency, etc.
You'll notice their bans are heavily skewed towards the right. This is because the people working in these places (San Francisco) are very left leaning.
greencap wrote: » OMM 0000 wrote: » Yes, there are laws against monopolies. Does Twitter fit the definition?
20Cent wrote: » To prove that how about you tell us some left wing twitter or facebook accounts that are doing the same thing but haven't been banned?
Billy86 wrote: » Small problem here - they are not monopolies, and there are literally hundreds of other social media outlets out there for people to use. You are saying they are too big, not that they are monopolies, but then at what point does a company become 'too big' to be allowed have their own policies and conduct themselves as a business? Like honestly, what metric do you want to use - traffic, userbase, posts per day, something else - and if so, how much do they need to hit to 'too big" quota? Are they though, it is it that those in the right get extremely loud about this - but inky when it applies to them? Note the utter silence on Farrakan, or on Saoradh being banned off twitter a week back. Not a peep from any of them on it, and very few on the left/centre doing so either because they don't feel a cult like devotion to blindly defend enyything in "their team". The difference is when Alex Jones gets banned his sycophants create threads hundreds of posts long across the internet, but when someone like Jake Passi does... well can you find the on after hours for me, from when that happened?
OMM 0000 wrote: » Have you been to twitter lately? It's absolutely full of anti-white racism, anti-male sexism, and conspiracy theory peddlers about Trump being a Russian spy. Surely you remember the Covington High School nonsense? Lots of people threatening violence and doxing against the kids, but none of them banned.
greencap wrote: » So dont go to that site. And why confound one issue (twitter) with a separate issue. What do twitters management have that connects them to some random kids in some other story? are they in on it together? did whoever was at that incident get together with twitters management and come up with a plan?
Billy86 wrote: » https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections More left wing accounts banned on Twitter. Where was the 1,200 post thread for this? Where is the 1,200 post thread for Saoradh Twitter being suspended? Where is the 1,200 post thread for that Jake Passi guys page being deleted? Where is your, and the rest of the supposed free speech advocates on AHs collective outrage about all of this?
OMM 0000 wrote: » Billy86 wrote: » Small problem here - they are not monopolies, and there are literally hundreds of other social media outlets out there for people to use. You are saying they are too big, not that they are monopolies, but then at what point does a company become 'too big' to be allowed have their own policies and conduct themselves as a business? Like honestly, what metric do you want to use - traffic, userbase, posts per day, something else - and if so, how much do they need to hit to 'too big" quota? Are they though, it is it that those in the right get extremely loud about this - but inky when it applies to them? Note the utter silence on Farrakan, or on Saoradh being banned off twitter a week back. Not a peep from any of them on it, and very few on the left/centre doing so either because they don't feel a cult like devotion to blindly defend enyything in "their team". The difference is when Alex Jones gets banned his sycophants create threads hundreds of posts long across the internet, but when someone like Jake Passi does... well can you find the on after hours for me, from when that happened? You're not being fair if you claim twitter, Facebook, etc., aren't monopolies. Hardly anyone knows or uses their competitors. The reason no one cares Farrakan or Saoradh were banned is because they are genuine extremists peddling hate. They're impossible to defend.
Billy86 wrote: » Fair? No I am being literal. They literally are it monopolies, and simply saying they are is not going to change that. Christ, you are claiming MULTIPLE companies hold a monopoly over ONE thing, your argument makes no sense on this front. Your second paragraph explains Alex Jones and co. to a tee. But thanks for letti g us know your "free speech" mantra over the last while has nothing at all to do with free speech at all.
