Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

MrFresh wrote: »

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.

Don't those laws require collusion?

You don't think it's strange how Apple, Facebook, etc. all banned Alex Jones on the same day? Seems like collusion to me...

The tech companies definitely have a bias. It's really easy to prove.

Go say something anti-muslim or anti-black, and you will be banned.

Go say something anti-Christian or anti-white... no bother.

Btw I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I think he talks nonsense.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

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?

No you don't. Use a different social media site, or set up your own site.
Or just don't use social media at all.
You don't need it .... you want it.

So what if they have a left leaning staff culture. Go to fox or the telegraph, tell them you're a lefty see if you get a job.

I think its probably pushing it with the law to hire on the basis of political outlook, but thats the reality of the workplace. Good luck proving it.

If they're spreading some kind of anti-white male shyte online, or being biased in their bannings I couldn't give a hoot, (as a white male), let them circle jerk away. Not my world.

Twitter is no different to bebo or myspace except in popularity.
The whinge fest here is that people perceive themselves to be unable to vote with their feet. (when in fact they can)

Had there been a few equally large rival companies there would be no talk of a threat to free speech, no posturing as a suppressed political radical, no martyr act.

But now faced with slightly inferior platforms and the inconvenience of coordinating future communication its evidently an issue of constitutional level importance.

When it's far left scumbags:

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The reason no one cares Farrakan or Saoradh were banned is because they are genuine extremists peddling hate. They're impossible to defend.

When it's far right scumbags:

OMM 0000 wrote: »

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

And only posted minutes apart, which is frankly pretty amazing even by AH standards.

Now, can you please stop pretending your objection has anything to do with free speech or fairness, and be more consistent as to your reasoning why you get so offended by the far right being banned, but not the far left?

Billy86 wrote: »

When it's far left scumbags:

When it's far right scumbags:

And only posted minutes apart, which is frankly pretty amazing even by AH standards.

Now, can you please stop pretending your objection has anything to do with free speech or fairness, and be more consistent as to your reasoning why you get so offended by the far right being banned, but not the far left?

I wasn't talking about me.

You asked me why aren't people complaining about Farrakan or Saoradh being banned, and I replied saying no one cares about those people being banned because they're seen at hate merchants.

It seems you've decided who I am and what my opinions are, and you keep trying to prove it.

For the final time:

I believe in free speech, and think people should not be getting banned. I don't care if some people get offended. It is worth it to have free speech.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

.Go say something anti-Christian or anti-white... no bother.

Given the number of times it has been pointed out to you that racist Farrakan was banned the other day two, it's beginning to look like you might be intentionally trolling.

greencap wrote: »

No you don't. Use a different social media site, or set up your own site.
Or just don't use social media at all.
You don't need it .... you want it.

You're not being reasonable.

Being banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram means you've lost 99%+ of the market.

Look at Milo. He was banned and now he's disappeared.

Billy86 wrote: »

Given the number of times it has been pointed out to you that racist Farrakan was banned the other day two, it's beginning to look like you might be intentionally trolling.

He's anti-Jew.

Look, you're not thinking through any of your responses, so I'm not going to reply to you anymore.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're not being reasonable.

Being banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram means you've lost 99%+ of the market.

Look at Milo. He was banned and now he's disappeared.

So its about money then not freedom of speech?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So its about money then not freedom of speech?

What?

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't think it's strange how Apple, Facebook, etc. all banned Alex Jones on the same day? Seems like collusion to me...

The tech companies definitely have a bias. It's really easy to prove.

Go say something anti-muslim or anti-black, and you will be banned.

Go say something anti-Christian or anti-white... no bother.

You're not getting it.

That may all be 100% true .... but it doesn't matter.

There is no teacher to tell.

This is how businesses function. You might be selling product A, and the owner of your rival company selling product B.

If your rival owns enough of the shares of the local newspaper, guess what, your ad is not going in his paper. Or his mates paper.

There is no fair or unfair. There's just legal and illegal.

Some edge lords said some stuff on a platform thats probably largely owned by shareholders who are either minority background themselves, or are white and happen to be lefties.

And they said 'ok well fck you, you're not using our company then'.

And some people are shocked?

I think you're a cnt, oh btw can you give me a lift home?

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

When it's far left scumbags:

When it's far right scumbags:

And only posted minutes apart, which is frankly pretty amazing even by AH standards.

Now, can you please stop pretending your objection has anything to do with free speech or fairness, and be more consistent as to your reasoning why you get so offended by the far right being banned, but not the far left?

I wasn't talking about me.

You asked me why aren't people complaining about Farrakan or Saoradh being banned, and I replied saying no one cares about those people being banned because they're seen at hate merchants.

It seems you've decided who I am and what my opinions are, and you keep trying to prove it.

For the final time:

I believe in free speech, and think people should not be getting banned. I don't care if some people get offended. It is worth it to have free speech.

I was asking about you. Why don't you care about them being banned, despite you claiming to be all for free speech? Why are you in other posts (like claiming you can't be banned for saying racist stuff in the other direction, re Farrakan) trying to ignore that they were banned?

The far left are apparently indefensible, even while you're busy leaping overland over to the defense of the far right. You're peddling an agenda, and it's very clear. Otherwise you would be equally offended about all of them being banned, and would have been when Saoradh were also. Instead, you are eagerly minimizing and dismissing those at each and every opportunity.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Look, you're not thinking through any of your responses, so I'm not going to reply to you anymore.

The reason you do t want to respond any further is because I am pointing out the many, many inconsistencies in your argument and the clear agenda you are peddling.

It's a shame too, if you had at least pretended to be consistent on the issue of free speech for the likes of Farrakan or Saoradh you could have done a much more effective job driving a wedge in here.

greencap wrote: »

You're not getting it.

That may all be 100% true .... but it doesn't matter.

There is no teacher to tell.

This is how businesses function. You might be selling product A, and the owner of your rival company selling product B.

If your rival owns enough of the shares of the local newspaper, guess what, your ad is not going in his paper. Or his mates paper.

There is no fair or unfair. There's just legal and illegal.

Some edge lords said some stuff on a platform thats probably largely owned by shareholders who are either minority background themselves, or are white and happen to be lefties.

And they said 'ok well fck you, you're not using our company then'.

And some people are shocked?

I think you're a cnt, oh btw can you give me a lift home?

You're not getting what I'm saying either.

These companies are where most people get their information. They are able to shape what speech people see. They do this via their algorithms and by banning opinions they don't like.

It's not good for society.

I understand they are private businesses and currently they can do whatever they want. What I'm saying is deeper than that. Looking at things in a black and white way (it's legal, so no problem!) is not very insightful.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're not being reasonable.

Being banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram means you've lost 99%+ of the market.

Look at Milo. He was banned and now he's disappeared.

So don't get banned.

Live by the terms of the service. Don't insult the politics of the owners.

Or, if that doesn't suit you, go use a different service. its your problem.

Lets just say Youtube was 100% owned by a black guy, twitter by a muslim and instragram by a feminist.

Why why why on gods green earth would they do business with me if I was a skinhead nazi.

You and you, out of europe with yis, and you back in the kitchen.
Oh but before you go, can I use your site please.

greencap wrote: »

So don't get banned.

Live by the terms of the service. Don't insult the politics of the owners.

Or, if that doesn't suit you, go use a different service. its your problem.

Lets just say Youtube was 100% owned by a black guy, twitter by a muslim and instragram by a feminist.

Why why why on gods green earth would they do business with me if I was a skinhead nazi.

You and you, out of europe with yis, and you back in the kitchen.
Oh but before you go, can I use your site please.

The issue is the bannings are not consistent, there is very limited appeals process, there is no potential for forgiveness, and the people in charge have an ideology and political leaning (left) which is causing them to have bias.

I don't think you fully understand this. Your viewpoint is way too black and white, and (sorry) naive.

is_that_so

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're not being reasonable.

Being banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram means you've lost 99%+ of the market.

Look at Milo. He was banned and now he's disappeared.

He's just a troll and there seem to be major financial issues behind it as well. Self-inflicted is the real problem for him. Social media has its rules, flout them and you're out.

is_that_so

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The issue is the bannings are not consistent, there is very limited appeals process, there is no potential for forgiveness, and the people in charge have an ideology and political leaning (left) which is causing them to have bias.

I don't think you fully understand this. Your viewpoint is way too black and white, and (sorry) naive.

Commercial companies decide how people can use their platform. What's hard to understand?

is_that_so wrote: »

Social media has its rules, flout them and you're out.

It has been proven multiple times that people who break the same rules as him, or worse, don't get banned.

Look, I'm wasting my time here.

It seems many people here think the rules are transparently, fairly, and consistently applied to people. That is not true. And that's the problem.

So the solution is either fix the problem, or just allow all speech (except incitement of violence). I would like the latter.

Maybe a day will come when your own opinion will become wrong-think, you'll get banned, and then you'll realise what the problem is.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, so checking out now.