Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Ipso · 03-05-2019 05:09PM

El_Bee wrote: »

they should have thought about that before having illegal opinions.

So Facebook and twatter make laws now

Billy86 · 03-05-2019 05:12PM

El_Bee wrote: »

they should have thought about that before having illegal opinions.

If I am of the opinion that you are a pedophile, should I be allowed use boards.ie as a tool to endlessly push that narrative, including doxxing you, notifying your employers, friends, family etc that you're a pedophile, encouraging others to take action against you for fiddling with children, for years and years and years on end as you are forced to move home time and again with your life in tatters?

Or should boards ban me for doing so? I mean given that it would be against many, many rules in the boards.ie terms of service.

Sonics2k · 03-05-2019 05:18PM

El_Bee wrote: »

they should have thought about that before having illegal opinions.

Ugh, are we doing this again?

Research people, research! Just a little bit goes a long way.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/06/05/infowars-paul-joseph-watson-can-t-get-anything-right/215506#photoshop

ogsjw · 03-05-2019 05:41PM

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

And yet he was. Too bad, really, because he's millions in debt and now can't even whine and beg people online to save him from it anymore. Womp womp.

Cienciano · 03-05-2019 06:40PM

20Cent wrote: »

Screaming lol

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1124153500068405248?s=19

Perfect, he can play the victim. It's all worth it for the alt right idiot when he can indulge in his wet dream of being a victim. It's what they live for

ogsjw · 03-05-2019 06:43PM

HOWLING

That c-c-c-combo of the pic and the top comment!!!

Today is a good day.

OMM 0000 · 03-05-2019 06:58PM

Alex Jones was banned because he associates with Gavin McInnes.

But so does Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, and many others.

I wish they'd either be consistent with their bannings, or just have a free speech policy.

McInnes is not a white nationalist, so the ban doesn't make sense anyway.

greencap · 03-05-2019 07:07PM

Non issue.

Shareholders may find certain views of twitter users objectionable, and being that they are the owners they are free to disassociate their business from those views.

So for example if there was some ultra popular app owned by Virgin and you went on it and started dissing Branson, what could you really expect.

Or some platform owned by the saudis and you went on it and started dissing various sultans, again, what can be expected.

Is it fair, is it biased, doesn't matter.
Like boards, maybe one of the mods disagrees me, they're free to ban me.

Its inconvenient, its not very nice, it may even be out of unfair political bias, but boards still owes me nothing.

Also for all we know twitter shares could be owned by a corporate entity which also sells to demographics which find Watson/Jones' material distasteful.

What that would mean is at a later point it may emerge that company X was a shareholder in Twitter, and did nothing to stop material which its customers find offensive, damaging Company X's reputation.

Customers then might react by changing supplier.

Hundreds of social media apps out there. If twitter bans you I suggest you ask for a full refund. Tough shyte.

(and I'll state this exact same argument for any conceivable political outlook)

OMM 0000 · 03-05-2019 07:13PM

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 · 03-05-2019 07:16PM

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.

Government regulation of speech? Are you a Socialist or something?

OMM 0000 · 03-05-2019 07:18PM

20Cent wrote: »

Government regulation of speech? Are you a Socialist or something?

I am a free speech person.

Let people be offended.

But if they're not going to allow free speech, then make them have consistent policies with a chance of forgiveness.

greencap · 03-05-2019 07:21PM

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.

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 · 03-05-2019 07:22PM

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.

Yes, there are laws against monopolies.

greencap · 03-05-2019 07:23PM

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes, there are laws against monopolies.

Does Twitter fit the definition?

OMM 0000 · 03-05-2019 07:26PM

greencap wrote: »

Does Twitter fit the definition?

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 · 03-05-2019 07:29PM

^-- company or individual

batgoat · 03-05-2019 07:33PM

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.

That's a pretty big leap. It's more that they're violating individual terms of service. In Europe, it's likely they're hitting incitement to hatred law. In the US, there's no grounds to enforce freedom of speech on a business.

20Cent · 03-05-2019 07:33PM

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.

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 · 03-05-2019 07:34PM

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.

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?

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.

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?

Billy86 · 03-05-2019 07:40PM

greencap wrote: »

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes, there are laws against monopolies.

Does Twitter fit the definition?

Not even close.

mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
"his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"
a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
"areas where cable companies operate as monopolies"
a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.
"electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies"
the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something.
"men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love"

Twitter do not have exclusive control of social media, or even close to it. There are literally hundreds of social media outlets out there. The fact that some are trying to claim that MULTIPLE companies (fb, twitter, etc) have a monopoly over ONE specific industry pretty much kills the argument before it even gets going.

greencap · 03-05-2019 07:41PM

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.

I think various US prosecutors would be on it by now if twitter was breaking the law.

This is not a free speech issue, free speech does not include private social media companies.

Your free speech concerns your freedoms, not the freedoms of other people.

The standard of free speech in the 70's, 80's, 90's was considered widely healthy and acceptable.

If you leave twitter you revert back to that perfectly good level.

You can have billboards, books, phone calls, megaphones, radio, tv, newspapers, public gatherings, letters, street corners, all for your message.

And indeed all of the internet too, bar a few sites of the endless thousands available.

All of those means are available for free speech. More means than were available for reagan, bush snr, bush jnr, clinton.

And those men, who ran successful public campaigns never once considered themselves to not have free speech.

OMM 0000 · 03-05-2019 07:42PM

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?

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.

OMM 0000 · 03-05-2019 07:44PM

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.

greencap · 03-05-2019 07:48PM

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.

So dont go to that site.

And why confound one issue (twitter) with a separate issue (covington). 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?

OMM 0000 · 03-05-2019 07:50PM

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?

But if you're a media personality, you need twitter.

Banning a media personality because you don't like their political views really damages their career.

The problem is companies like twitter are mostly staffed with left leaning people, so their bannings mostly target the right.

They allow anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-right.

I'm just asking for fairness. Do you think that's unreasonable?

Billy86 · 03-05-2019 07:51PM

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 · 03-05-2019 07:54PM

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?

As I've said multiple times, I think they should allow speech, even if it's offensive.

You're forcing me to keep repeating myself.

Either have a free speech policy or be fair.

No one can say they're currently fair.

Billy86 · 03-05-2019 07:55PM

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.

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 (as well as farrakan and Saoradh, I support their bans too). It's would appear at this point that you have no interest in the "free speech" you are talking about.

MrFresh · 03-05-2019 07:59PM

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.

I don't think there's any evidence their bans are skewed towards a particular ideology. The right certainly make a louder stink about theirs and they have had higher profiles people banned. But I don't think it's simply a case of tach companies leaning left, it's more that the loudest voices on the right these days are pushing fake news and going hard into ideologies of hate.

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.

Don't those laws require collusion?

OMM 0000 · 03-05-2019 07:59PM

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.

You're being unreasonable.

If you are banned from twitter, facebook, instagram and youtube, you're basically gone from 99%+ of normal people's browsing habits.

You disappear.

Sure you can put your videos on Vimeo or have your own website, but you've lost almost the entire audience because twitter, facebook, instagram and youtube have a monopoly on traffic.

Your final paragraph makes no sense. Just because most people don't care about Farrakan or Saoradh being banned, how does that mean I don't really support free speech?

As I've repeatedly said here, I believe in free speech. Allow it all. Let people be offended. Just don't allow incitement of violence.

Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Comments