It feels oppressive when Facebook, Twitter and Youtube start banning content based on political bias

[Lakhota]

It feels oppressive when Facebook, Twitter and Youtube start banning content based on political bias

Conspiracy theories and hate are "oppressive". NaziCons like Alex Jones should be eradicated.

 

[eagle7_31]

It feels oppressive when Facebook, Twitter and Youtube start banning content based on political bias

Conspiracy theories and hate are "oppressive". NaziCons like Alex Jones should be eradicated.

Senate Democrats Are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet: Reason Roundup

Go screw yourself comrade, you and rest of the Demrat KGB.

 

[Confounding]

Criticize them all you like, but at the end of the day, it's their choice. It's not censorship. It's business.

cen·sorship
[ˈsensərSHip]
NOUN

1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Legal censorship by social media companies is still censorship.

Call it whatever you like. What's your preferred alternative? Big government swoops in and demands that Alex Jones be put back on Youtube? Come on ...

I just want you to admit it's not fair.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Criticize them all you like, but at the end of the day, it's their choice. It's not censorship. It's business.

cen·sorship
[ˈsensərSHip]
NOUN

1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Legal censorship by social media companies is still censorship.

Call it whatever you like. What's your preferred alternative? Big government swoops in and demands that Alex Jones be put back on Youtube? Come on ...

I just want you to admit it's not fair.

G'luck with that.

 

[sakinago]

Maybe it would have been better to say he is a popular personality among conservatives. I really haven't seen a lot of his content. Are you actually going to fight on this hill? The decision to remove him from these platforms is very obviously political at least in part.

How do you figure?

Whatever.

For the record, I would like to see you type this statement "I believe the decision to ban Alex Jones from Youtube, Twitter and Facebook had nothing to do with politics."

Would you do that for me?

Where is the evidence that it was politically motivated? The guy said a lot of pretty heinous shit over the years. Frankly, I'm surprised it took them this long to get rid of his dumb ass.

You can still find the dumbass on the InfoWars site, right? What difference does it make? Others don't want him around. Would you want a delirious crackpot swindler proudly featured on your platform? I wouldn't.

Um heinous shit gets said all the time by all sorts of people agains all different types of people, that’s free speech. The evidence that this is political is the fact that they aren’t making announcements to take down folks on the left making equally heinous comments.

Different but similar platform but a beautiful example of what I mean. As an asian, this stuff I saw that The NY Times editor tweeted about white people was henious, racist, and should clearly fall under the definition of hate speech by the lefts own terms. Why do I say that? because Candace Owens, black lady, posted the same things Jeong twitted, verbatim, except she just replaced the word white, with the word black. She got blocked on Twitter within 20 mins. Joeng never got blocked. Old school Asians can be super racist against other Asians.

I do not defend Alex jones or the crazy shit he says. But I do value free speech. This means I think what Facebook did, a platform that claims to give people a voice, is wrong in the same way I think a company that would not hire or discriminate against black people is wrong. I would boycott the latter company because I think “all men are created equal” is an important American value, just like I think the freedom of speech is also an important value.

It is up to the company to decide what is appropriate for their platform. End of story.

Criticize them all you like, but at the end of the day, it's their choice. It's not censorship. It's business.

If the government started telling Google to only allow pro-Trump videos on Youtube, that would be censorship.

Private ompanies can still censor. The only difference is it isn’t prohibited for private companies to do by the first amendment. First amendment, like all the BOR, is a negative right placed upon the government. Just because it isn’t prohibited by the constitution doesn’t mean I have to say, “oh it’s not prohibited, therefore Facebook, what you did was ok.”

We now live in a weird time where private companies are now becoming a bigger threat to threat speech than government. I don’t know what to do about it, because I do not want to grant the government power to tell this companies what to do. I think the best thing we can do is have people start boycotting and deleting accounts for these types of shenanigans, but people have to have the balls and resolve to do so. I don’t know if they do at this point over Alex Jones. But he’s just the top of the ice-berg with these very vague rules. With these rules they could go after anyone they want.

Also, I’m not sure where censorship came from. Your question was about whether or not this is political...and with that I don’t know how many more arrows pointing that way you need. It’s not like they’d ever come flat out and say it’s political, of course they’re not. Many on the left have been calling for Facebook to do this to jones as well as many others on the right who are way less crazy. Apple opened the door and Facebook quickly followed.

 

[John Shaw]

Criticize them all you like, but at the end of the day, it's their choice. It's not censorship. It's business.

cen·sorship
[ˈsensərSHip]
NOUN

1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Legal censorship by social media companies is still censorship.

Call it whatever you like. What's your preferred alternative? Big government swoops in and demands that Alex Jones be put back on Youtube? Come on ...

I just want you to admit it's not fair.

What's not fair? That a business runs itself as it chooses? Totally unfair. They should be forced to bow to the whims of a maniac like Alex Jones.

Life's not fair. At least, my life never has been. I don't expect it ever will be. Maybe you're luckier and were born with a silver spoon. Life always does seem "fair" when you're on the winning end of things. For the rest of us, we already understand that the decks are stacked, the dice are loaded. Why does one hate monger get shitcanned while another does not? Because someone somewhere said so. Fair never came into it.

 

[Confounding]

What's not fair? That a business runs itself as it chooses? Totally unfair. They should be forced to bow to the whims of a maniac like Alex Jones.

Who's next?

 

[John Shaw]

What's not fair? That a business runs itself as it chooses? Totally unfair. They should be forced to bow to the whims of a maniac like Alex Jones.

Who's next?

Whoever they want.

Don't like it? Start your own monster media company that accepts ALL content within the scope of the law, no matter how ridiculous and offensive it may be. Then you can take the market they're giving up. There ya go....

 

[eagle7_31]

What's not fair? That a business runs itself as it chooses? Totally unfair. They should be forced to bow to the whims of a maniac like Alex Jones.

Who's next?

Whoever they want.

Don't like it? Start your own monster media company that accepts ALL content within the scope of the law, no matter how ridiculous and offensive it may be. Then you can take the market they're giving up. There ya go....

Senate Democrats Are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet: Reason Roundup

Senate Demrats have other ideas, trying to ban conservatives from the internet.

 

[Thinker101]

What's not fair? That a business runs itself as it chooses? Totally unfair. They should be forced to bow to the whims of a maniac like Alex Jones.

Who's next?

Whoever they want.

Don't like it? Start your own monster media company that accepts ALL content within the scope of the law, no matter how ridiculous and offensive it may be. Then you can take the market they're giving up. There ya go....

Senate Democrats Are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet: Reason Roundup

Senate Demrats have other ideas, trying to ban conservatives from the internet.

Yup, they'll probably turn it over to the inventor....Al Gore.

 

[konradv]

Criticize them all you like, but at the end of the day, it's their choice. It's not censorship. It's business.

cen·sorship
[ˈsensərSHip]
NOUN

1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Legal censorship by social media companies is still censorship.

Call it whatever you like. What's your preferred alternative? Big government swoops in and demands that Alex Jones be put back on Youtube? Come on ...

I just want you to admit it's not fair.

If it's not fair, why does InfoWars threaten the exact same thing in their TOS? If Jones is complaining, he's just being a crybaby.

"Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe."

Terms of service

 

[Tilly]

Maybe it would have been better to say he is a popular personality among conservatives. I really haven't seen a lot of his content. Are you actually going to fight on this hill? The decision to remove him from these platforms is very obviously political at least in part.

How do you figure?

Whatever.

For the record, I would like to see you type this statement "I believe the decision to ban Alex Jones from Youtube, Twitter and Facebook had nothing to do with politics."

Would you do that for me?

Where is the evidence that it was politically motivated? The guy said a lot of pretty heinous shit over the years. Frankly, I'm surprised it took them this long to get rid of his dumb ass.

You can still find the dumbass on the InfoWars site, right? What difference does it make? Others don't want him around. Would you want a delirious crackpot swindler proudly featured on your platform? I wouldn't.

Um heinous shit gets said all the time by all sorts of people agains all different types of people, that’s free speech. The evidence that this is political is the fact that they aren’t making announcements to take down folks on the left making equally heinous comments.

Different but similar platform but a beautiful example of what I mean. As an asian, this stuff I saw that The NY Times editor tweeted about white people was henious, racist, and should clearly fall under the definition of hate speech by the lefts own terms. Why do I say that? because Candace Owens, black lady, posted the same things Jeong twitted, verbatim, except she just replaced the word white, with the word black. She got blocked on Twitter within 20 mins. Joeng never got blocked. Old school Asians can be super racist against other Asians.

I do not defend Alex jones or the crazy shit he says. But I do value free speech. This means I think what Facebook did, a platform that claims to give people a voice, is wrong in the same way I think a company that would not hire or discriminate against black people is wrong. I would boycott the latter company because I think “all men are created equal” is an important American value, just like I think the freedom of speech is also an important value.

It is up to the company to decide what is appropriate for their platform. End of story.

Criticize them all you like, but at the end of the day, it's their choice. It's not censorship. It's business.

If the government started telling Google to only allow pro-Trump videos on Youtube, that would be censorship.

It’s their choice and why they made it that is being discussed. And yes, it is clearly censorship. There is little point in repeating they are legally entitled to censor people, I don’t think anyone is arguing against that obvious point.

 

[Tilly]

What's not fair? That a business runs itself as it chooses?

So you’d be happy with businesses - say a bakery - refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings?

 

[Confounding]

Alex Jones should be eradicated.

You sound crazy right now.

 

[Confounding]

What's not fair? That a business runs itself as it chooses? Totally unfair. They should be forced to bow to the whims of a maniac like Alex Jones.

Who's next?

Whoever they want.

Don't like it? Start your own monster media company that accepts ALL content within the scope of the law, no matter how ridiculous and offensive it may be. Then you can take the market they're giving up. There ya go....

You don't seem interested in having an honest conversation about morality. Saying "Too bad, just make your own website or something." doesn't cut it I'm afraid. These websites are huge and a vital part of politics right now. They're not going to be replaced for a while.

 

[Confounding]

How do you figure?

Whatever.

For the record, I would like to see you type this statement "I believe the decision to ban Alex Jones from Youtube, Twitter and Facebook had nothing to do with politics."

Would you do that for me?

Where is the evidence that it was politically motivated? The guy said a lot of pretty heinous shit over the years. Frankly, I'm surprised it took them this long to get rid of his dumb ass.

You can still find the dumbass on the InfoWars site, right? What difference does it make? Others don't want him around. Would you want a delirious crackpot swindler proudly featured on your platform? I wouldn't.

Um heinous shit gets said all the time by all sorts of people agains all different types of people, that’s free speech. The evidence that this is political is the fact that they aren’t making announcements to take down folks on the left making equally heinous comments.

Different but similar platform but a beautiful example of what I mean. As an asian, this stuff I saw that The NY Times editor tweeted about white people was henious, racist, and should clearly fall under the definition of hate speech by the lefts own terms. Why do I say that? because Candace Owens, black lady, posted the same things Jeong twitted, verbatim, except she just replaced the word white, with the word black. She got blocked on Twitter within 20 mins. Joeng never got blocked. Old school Asians can be super racist against other Asians.

I do not defend Alex jones or the crazy shit he says. But I do value free speech. This means I think what Facebook did, a platform that claims to give people a voice, is wrong in the same way I think a company that would not hire or discriminate against black people is wrong. I would boycott the latter company because I think “all men are created equal” is an important American value, just like I think the freedom of speech is also an important value.

It is up to the company to decide what is appropriate for their platform. End of story.

Criticize them all you like, but at the end of the day, it's their choice. It's not censorship. It's business.

If the government started telling Google to only allow pro-Trump videos on Youtube, that would be censorship.

It’s their choice and why they made it that is being discussed. And yes, it is clearly censorship. There is little point in repeating they are legally entitled to censor people, I don’t think anyone is arguing against that obvious point.

They're trying to avoid the moral argument even though it was the point of the thread.

Them saying "Go make your own website." kinda just proves my point I think.

It's times like these when people show their true colors. "Oppression and censorship is fine in my mind when it's for the cause! Don't like it? Go make your own Facebook and Youtube."

 

[iceberg]

It feels oppressive when Facebook, Twitter and Youtube start banning content based on political bias

Conspiracy theories and hate are "oppressive". NaziCons like Alex Jones should be eradicated.

and if people determine what YOU say to be oppressive, you need to drink a big cup of SHUT THE **** UP and take it.

 

[iceberg]

Alex Jones should be eradicated.

You sound crazy right now.

right now?

you've read a lot of his posts, haven't you?

 

[Tilly]

NaziCons like Alex Jones should be eradicated.

How do you propose people are ‘eradicated’?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Criticize them all you like, but at the end of the day, it's their choice. It's not censorship. It's business.

cen·sorship
[ˈsensərSHip]
NOUN

1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Legal censorship by social media companies is still censorship.

Call it whatever you like. What's your preferred alternative? Big government swoops in and demands that Alex Jones be put back on Youtube? Come on ...

I just want you to admit it's not fair.

If it's not fair, why does InfoWars threaten the exact same thing in their TOS? If Jones is complaining, he's just being a crybaby.

"Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe."

Terms of service

Hey, if Jones' site says that he can ban anyone for any reason, then why is it such a crime when Facebook does it to him?