Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

1…3940424445…59

Comments

  • #1232
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    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.


  • #1233
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


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


  • #1234
    greencap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    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.

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • #1235
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    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?


  • #1236
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    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.


  • #1238
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    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.


  • #1239
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    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.


  • #1240
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,927 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #1241
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    So its about money then not freedom of speech?

    What?


  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    greencap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    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?

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • #1243
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    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.


  • #1244
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    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.


  • #1245
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    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.


  • #1246
    greencap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    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.

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • #1247
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    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.


  • #1248
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1249
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #1250
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    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.


  • #1251
    greencap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    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.


    lol. seriously?

    yes the bannings are not consistent. and they're running rampant with the modding and bias.

    and thats perfectly legal. its a big internet, off you go.

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • Advertisement
  • #1252
    ogsjw
    Site Banned Posts: 328 ✭✭ogsjw


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


    "Felt cute, might have my twitter deleted later."
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    McInnes is not a white nationalist, so the ban doesn't make sense anyway.

    "Gavin McInnes is not Gaving McInnes but someone else, in fact."


  • #1253
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, so checking out now.
    Your real problem is confusing what goes on on social media with free speech, private networks, free to use, but with their own set of rules.


  • #1254
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,927 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    What?

    like you say they constitute 90% of the market. Thats all that the likes of jones care about. Its all about money for them. Their social media presence is a business, nothing more.


  • #1255
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    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.

    Thing is, it's a fact that Facebook has given space to the likes of Jones in terms of what they can get away with stuff because of their popularity.


  • #1256
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Anyone else find it gloriously ironic that a bunch of Republicans are suddenly calling for Government intervention on private businesses?


  • #1257
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Anyone else find it gloriously ironic that a bunch of Republicans are suddenly calling for Government intervention on private businesses?

    Yeah it's funny alright. Health care is not a right but tweets are lol. Big Gov is good when the money goes to them.


  • #1258
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,556 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    20Cent wrote: »
    Yeah it's funny alright. Health care is not a right but tweets are lol. Big Gov is good when the money goes to them.

    Vulture funds are also coming from private companies, do you also think its funny when the government try to interven with them?


  • #1259
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Vulture funds are also coming from private companies, do you also think its funny when the government try to interven with them?

    Have the Republicans suddenly legislated against them in the US?


  • #1260
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,556 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    batgoat wrote: »
    Have the Republicans suddenly legislated against them in the US?

    That doesn't answer the question I asked.


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    That doesn't answer the question I asked.
    The US constitution has never applied to private businesses in relation to freedom of speech so what law is being violated? You want laws invented to cater for a handful of conspiracy theorists. I favour net neutrality, what you're proposing is the antithesis of it. The US government or any other governments is not to suddenly start disputing terms of service and what violates it.

    Alex and co are free to relocate to Gabb where they'll find plenty of like minded souls.


Advertisement