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

[Brain357]

Well, if USMB can ban or edit content of the people on here, then why can't Facebook? I mean, there have been people who were banned for saying hateful things and trolling, so if Facebook feels the same way about some of the content on their platform, shouldn't they be able to ban or edit people like USMB does?

Same way Hitler and the Nazis were free to ban content on their platform, I guess

Hitler and the Nazis were the controlling part of the government. Facebook and YouTube are private enterprises. You should be able to see the difference.

Yet they are working against one party of the government.

Do we need regulation so that private business can’t control what content is allowed? We need big gov to step in?

 

[bendog]

Well, if USMB can ban or edit content of the people on here, then why can't Facebook? I mean, there have been people who were banned for saying hateful things and trolling, so if Facebook feels the same way about some of the content on their platform, shouldn't they be able to ban or edit people like USMB does?

Same way Hitler and the Nazis were free to ban content on their platform, I guess

Hitler rose to power by eliminating free speech.

Hitler was also the leader of Germany's government. Facebook and YouTube are private enterprises. You should be able to see the difference.

umm, I was being sarcastic towards Frank. Mein Kampf was not banned prior to WWII. Hitler of course banned other books. I belive the german govt actually gave copies to newlyweds. Happy thought there.

But of course the irony of the whole issue, especially towards Dschrutte, whom I suspect of being earnest, is that America was founded FIRST on the free exchange of ideas without GOVERNMENT interference, and there's never been a time when its so easy to exchange ideas. Yet the ***** about Poor Alex and Facebook. Tragic, it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, if USMB can ban or edit content of the people on here, then why can't Facebook? I mean, there have been people who were banned for saying hateful things and trolling, so if Facebook feels the same way about some of the content on their platform, shouldn't they be able to ban or edit people like USMB does?

Same way Hitler and the Nazis were free to ban content on their platform, I guess

Hitler rose to power by eliminating free speech. It's true.

What's not true is that burning books is the same as private media sites editing their content.

 

[Norman]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Okay.

Can someone exain to me how claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax is "political"?

How about, insisting a pizza place is running a child trafficking ring? How is that, "political"?

What do conspiracy theories about 9/11 and incitements to violence have to do with one's beliefs on the size or role of government in legislation amd policy?

I just don't think this defense applies.

First of all, show the evidence that this actually happened.

But this being said, bunch of people were on the pizza gate. And it was a legitimate question that had every right to be explored. It turned out to be false. Alex Jones was not banned for that if you read the statements (which are of course completely made up anyway - or do you actually believe that four networks just happened to find Alex Jones bannable for completely different reasons on the same day?)

Obviously this guy is a hard leftist who wants the media companies to take down his political enemies.

 

[bendog]

Well, if USMB can ban or edit content of the people on here, then why can't Facebook? I mean, there have been people who were banned for saying hateful things and trolling, so if Facebook feels the same way about some of the content on their platform, shouldn't they be able to ban or edit people like USMB does?

Same way Hitler and the Nazis were free to ban content on their platform, I guess

Hitler and the Nazis were the controlling part of the government. Facebook and YouTube are private enterprises. You should be able to see the difference.

Yet they are working against one party of the government.

Do we need regulation so that private business can’t control what content is allowed? We need big gov to step in?

Oh no, Kalisee

 

[bendog]

Well, if USMB can ban or edit content of the people on here, then why can't Facebook? I mean, there have been people who were banned for saying hateful things and trolling, so if Facebook feels the same way about some of the content on their platform, shouldn't they be able to ban or edit people like USMB does?

Same way Hitler and the Nazis were free to ban content on their platform, I guess

Hitler rose to power by eliminating free speech. It's true.

What's not true is that burning books is the same as private media sites editing their content.

Well in Germany 1930s burning books was a govt activity.

But people burned the Beatles records in the US in the 60s. Imagine! the ebay value.

 

[bendog]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Okay.

Can someone exain to me how claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax is "political"?

How about, insisting a pizza place is running a child trafficking ring? How is that, "political"?

What do conspiracy theories about 9/11 and incitements to violence have to do with one's beliefs on the size or role of government in legislation amd policy?

I just don't think this defense applies.

First of all, show the evidence that this actually happened.

But this being said, bunch of people were on the pizza gate. And it was a legitimate question that had every right to be explored. It turned out to be false. Alex Jones was not banned for that if you read the statements (which are of course completely made up anyway - or do you actually believe that four networks just happened to find Alex Jones bannable for completely different reasons on the same day?)

Obviously this guy is a hard leftist who wants the media companies to take down his political enemies.

Sandy Hook didn't happen and there were real questions about Pizzagate. I demand free speech. LOL

 

[miketx]

Well, if USMB can ban or edit content of the people on here, then why can't Facebook? I mean, there have been people who were banned for saying hateful things and trolling, so if Facebook feels the same way about some of the content on their platform, shouldn't they be able to ban or edit people like USMB does?

Same way Hitler and the Nazis were free to ban content on their platform, I guess

Hitler and the Nazis were the controlling part of the government. Facebook and YouTube are private enterprises. You should be able to see the difference.

Yet they are working against one party of the government.

Do we need regulation so that private business can’t control what content is allowed? We need big gov to step in?

Liberals do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First of all, show the evidence that this actually happened.

Evidence that alex Jones publishes content on those topics? No, you can look it up, or don't.

And it was a legitimate question that had every right to be explored.

"Exploring" it is not the same as claiming it true and claiming public officials we're part of it.

 

[Norman]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Okay.

Can someone exain to me how claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax is "political"?

How about, insisting a pizza place is running a child trafficking ring? How is that, "political"?

What do conspiracy theories about 9/11 and incitements to violence have to do with one's beliefs on the size or role of government in legislation amd policy?

I just don't think this defense applies.

Alex Jones posts a lot more than just his most outrageous content. Just be real with me for a minute. You actually don't believe there was any political motivation behind what happened, at all?

Of course there wasn't a political motivation. The four companies just happened to find him in violation of the TOS on the exact same day, for entirely different reasons. What are you suggesting? A conspiracy?

 

[iceberg]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Lies, fantasy, made up nonsense designed fear-monger and race-bait are NOT Political Bias.

It's a cesspool of shit and those companies wanted to get the stench off of them.

and because you call it such does not make it true.

you sure do want to give yourself a lot of ability to be a global conscious for us all.

 

[there4eyeM]

It could be said that it is more a question of ideology than mere "bias".
America doesn't need an ideology. It has done quite well without one. It certainly doesn't 'need' "socialism". What America needs to do is what it's always done; pick and chose what we democratically decide in our republic is good for it. At a time, 'Trusts' were broken up for the good of the economy and of the country. Today; that would be called a radical left thing to do. But 'capitalism' was not under attack and continued to function in a modified fashion.
We, Americans, can think and act boldly and with foresight. The correct path need only be sincerely and honestly presented, and people are ready. We are not required to accept everything and anything. We have the power of discernment.
Blanket prohibitions and blind censorship are anti-republican and anti-democratic. Absolute permissiveness is not required. Apply intelligence and discernment, as detached as possible, and use what works. We don't care what ideological label has to be attached to an act. If it works, continue. If not, let's take another look at it and see if we can do better.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A conspiracy?

Of course. They conspired to share legal information and advice.

 

[Norman]

A conspiracy?

Of course. They conspired to share legal information and advice.

Fort Fun Indiana, surely you can't be this stupid? Do you honestly expect anyone with a brain buy this?

This was a coup, pure and simple. Don't act retarded.

 

[OldLady]

Not that I support content banning, but a lot of the reporting on this is overblown. Much of what is happening are algorithms taking down content unintentionally. A quick email to the company will get the content restored.

And other reporting, like the whining PragerU does, is nothing at all. YouTube has a content filter, turned off by default, that blocks a lot more than just conservative media.

Alex Jones was banned from all three of those platforms. Also Facebook is deleting content related to AGW denial. How far is it going to go?

Might go all the way to getting rid of real, honest to God FAKE news. The horror!

 

[OldLady]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Yes, they have a right to do it.

And no, let's not pretend they're truly in favor of freedom of expression, the most liberal of ideals.

None of the Regressive Left is, because the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Wellllllll, it's not like they're a monopoly or anything. It's not like the right lacks funds.

Freedom of expression is about something far more important than money.

Did I really have to say that?
.

But facebook and social media is not about freedom of expression. It's about "social" connections. Likes and friends.

Jones has no limit on seeking likes and friends ... he just needs a website.

Which he has.

 

[Norman]

Not that I support content banning, but a lot of the reporting on this is overblown. Much of what is happening are algorithms taking down content unintentionally. A quick email to the company will get the content restored.

And other reporting, like the whining PragerU does, is nothing at all. YouTube has a content filter, turned off by default, that blocks a lot more than just conservative media.

Alex Jones was banned from all three of those platforms. Also Facebook is deleting content related to AGW denial. How far is it going to go?

Might go all the way to getting rid of real, honest to God FAKE news. The horror!

When do you think CNN should be taken down?

What about young turks named after Armenian genocide?

 

[Dschrute3]

Tune in to CNN and NBC at any time, and you'll see some lunatic ranting & raving about Trump being a 'Nazi' and 'Racist.' How can Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and so on, deem that credible 'News?'

If any media entities should be deemed 'Fake News' or 'Inappropriate', it would have to be CNN and NBC. Yet they haven't been censored or banned. Tells you who's calling the shots on these bannings.

 

[Borillar]

Not that I support content banning, but a lot of the reporting on this is overblown. Much of what is happening are algorithms taking down content unintentionally. A quick email to the company will get the content restored.

And other reporting, like the whining PragerU does, is nothing at all. YouTube has a content filter, turned off by default, that blocks a lot more than just conservative media.

Alex Jones was banned from all three of those platforms. Also Facebook is deleting content related to AGW denial. How far is it going to go?

As far as they want it to go, unless you're in favor of the Government telling private companies what content they must show. Are you arguing for a return to the "Fairness act?"

 

[OldLady]

Not that I support content banning, but a lot of the reporting on this is overblown. Much of what is happening are algorithms taking down content unintentionally. A quick email to the company will get the content restored.

And other reporting, like the whining PragerU does, is nothing at all. YouTube has a content filter, turned off by default, that blocks a lot more than just conservative media.

Alex Jones was banned from all three of those platforms. Also Facebook is deleting content related to AGW denial. How far is it going to go?

So they every right to take down anything on their sites they so choose. Just like you walk into my office and start spewing things I don't like I can kick you out. Just like USMB takes down threads or posts or bans individual. 1st amendment doesn't apply everywhere only government.

There is no first amendment issue. The issue is large corporations colluding to shut down conservative voices. We even have a dem pol calling for more.

If you were smart, you wouldn't be associating Jones with conservatives. He's a lying piece of shit who is selling a gullible public a bill of goods that is completely worthless. Conservatives should want to be more than that.