NO. You have issues. You are classicly brainwashed. You cannot seem to understand that the right to hurt other people's feelings, go hand in hand, with the right to free speech.
Your faux outrage and indignant does constitute an argument against the right to freedom of speech.
> "subsequently emboldening the people "
Alex Jones did not call for people to harrass the Sandy Hook victims. He cannot control other people.
As for your 'platform' argument, yes he does, once that platform reaches a certain size, it should be treated by a different set of rules. Moderation should be 100% transparent and enforced equally, only intervening to filter out spam and DIRECT threats to other people's PHYSICAL safety.
> "Using other people’s platforms to host your speech is a privilege, not a right. "
Yes, this is a classic monopolistic argument used throughout history. Twitter & YouTube gained their market dominance through combinations of fraud and 'free' services promising freedom of speech, only to then impose Kafkaesque extremist corporate social progressivism, behind the scenes, using shadow bans to hide their activities.
There is no court ruling yet. This is about ethics and principles. Something your legalist literal arguments have yet to grasp properly.
Now tell me about how censorship, only applies to the government, to complete your hackneyed rehashed drivel.
Blacks are a protected class on Twitter, not because of policy, but because of the stupid left wing indoctrination these dupes were taught in college.
Most of the 'moderation team' are young low wage college grads who are all group think nazi's taught that 'blacks can't be racist' etc etc etc
If you happen to be black, and don't want to be in the protected class, unfortunatly, outside of sticking pubic hair on a can of coke, there is no procedure to formally exclude yourself.
It also doesn't matter that Louis Farakhan is clown who nobody above a certain IQ takes seriously, because the same could be said of Alex Jones.
Yes. Everyone wants to seem smart, and have a 'mature' opinion on subjects being discussed.
The 'mature' anarcho-libertarian approved opinion, is that if someone misused the term "censorship" and applies it in a broader context which includes large corporations, because, there is no alternative terminology in our language, then the correct "educated, mature, approved" response to either:
A. Make a witty low-iq reddit-esque quip about the topic.
B. "Educate" the people about how censorship ONLY applies to governments, therefore, removing the terminology necessary to discuss the issue.
C. If all else fails, claim there is no issue, no evidence, and cite some obscure graduate students 'study' as proof.
The sad thing, is that you responded to this, now, childish immature one liner, about the indefensibility of Alex Jones.
Alex Jones did nothing wrong. He deserves the same right to express himself on that platform as anyone else. If he wants to talk about frogs being turned gay, and lizard people, that's his right, and he should not be stopped in the darkness, by corporate two faced crooks like Tim Cook.
Big Government AND Big Business, operate and have virtually the same access to abuse of power. Therefore Big Business should be regulated just like Big Government, by guaranteeing freedom of speech on their platforms.
If you don't like what someone is saying, you can just use the block feature.
Louis Farakhan compared Jews to insects, yet remains on Twitter, because Black people are allowed to be racist.
This is the latest and most well known example of corporate-leftist bias in social media moderation.
Twitter was a platform which sold itself on absolute freedom of speech. Now, like any monopoly, since there is no more competition left, it was all but a joke you see, they never said that.
ME: "Yes IT IS CENSORSHIP." MIKE: "Nah, dawg. Just spam filter being a bit aggressive." ME: "You are in effect, inventing and creating fake news." MIKE:" Get over yourself."
I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the "Social Media Giants" like Facebook, Twitter, & Google.
Because they are so large, and contain such a large of volume of the public discourse.
Their censorship of "certain ideas" and "certain ways of talking" is just as, if not more dangerous than the now outdated concept of government censorship.
of course, when you have the entire super-set of opinions from which to pull from, you can easily craft whatever narrative you want by simply creating an algorithm, which rewards those opinions you want to see.
They are still very in the burning books game. After all, what do you expect from a sociopath like Jeff Bezos? He has simply decided to take a slower approach to $hitting all over you stupid imbeciles and your rights.
They now just police books the 'left' says are misogynist.
SEP 11, 2018, 11:11 AM Virulent misogynist gets his books removed by Amazon (ThinkProgress)
Next we can expect Amazon to 'partner' with the Southern Poverty Law Center, in identifying books with "hate" speech.
This entire circus will of course include the usual "mistakes"
These will be a couple of books "accidentally" banned. People will become 'outraged' as usual. Amazon will 'apologize' and bring back the books which were accidentally banned, meanwhile the gullible rubes will forget all about the larger issue of a corporate sociopath deciding what books you can read.
This same tried and true method are being used right now to ban Alex Jones, and it's been very effective.
I'm sure some legal maggot will point out somewhere in the itunes terms of service a passage where it makes it legal to do this, and this is exactly the problem here.
This is due to a lack of regulation protecting consumers.
What you see on the surface, are bizarre incidents of police seizing money from 'innocent' people, but beneath the surface, the police clearly got a tip from our friends at the NSA.
Police are getting so lazy these days that they are forgetting to create a legitimate cover story.
Re:
Your faux outrage and indignant does constitute an argument against the right to freedom of speech.
> "subsequently emboldening the people "
Alex Jones did not call for people to harrass the Sandy Hook victims. He cannot control other people.
As for your 'platform' argument, yes he does, once that platform reaches a certain size, it should be treated by a different set of rules. Moderation should be 100% transparent and enforced equally, only intervening to filter out spam and DIRECT threats to other people's PHYSICAL safety.
> "Using other people’s platforms to host your speech is a privilege, not a right. "
Yes, this is a classic monopolistic argument used throughout history. Twitter & YouTube gained their market dominance through combinations of fraud and 'free' services promising freedom of speech, only to then impose Kafkaesque extremist corporate social progressivism, behind the scenes, using shadow bans to hide their activities.
There is no court ruling yet. This is about ethics and principles. Something your legalist literal arguments have yet to grasp properly.
Now tell me about how censorship, only applies to the government, to complete your hackneyed rehashed drivel.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of the 'moderation team' are young low wage college grads who are all group think nazi's taught that 'blacks can't be racist' etc etc etc
If you happen to be black, and don't want to be in the protected class, unfortunatly, outside of sticking pubic hair on a can of coke, there is no procedure to formally exclude yourself.
It also doesn't matter that Louis Farakhan is clown who nobody above a certain IQ takes seriously, because the same could be said of Alex Jones.
Re:
Yup it just happened coincidentally all at the same time.
What vile hypocrites you people are.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 'mature' anarcho-libertarian approved opinion, is that if someone misused the term "censorship" and applies it in a broader context which includes large corporations, because, there is no alternative terminology in our language, then the correct "educated, mature, approved" response to either:
A. Make a witty low-iq reddit-esque quip about the topic.
B. "Educate" the people about how censorship ONLY applies to governments, therefore, removing the terminology necessary to discuss the issue.
C. If all else fails, claim there is no issue, no evidence, and cite some obscure graduate students 'study' as proof.
Re: Re: Re:
Alex Jones did nothing wrong. He deserves the same right to express himself on that platform as anyone else. If he wants to talk about frogs being turned gay, and lizard people, that's his right, and he should not be stopped in the darkness, by corporate two faced crooks like Tim Cook.
....and their useful idiots, like you and Mike.
Re: Re:
If you don't like what someone is saying, you can just use the block feature.
Re: Re: Re:
This is the latest and most well known example of corporate-leftist bias in social media moderation.
Twitter was a platform which sold itself on absolute freedom of speech. Now, like any monopoly, since there is no more competition left, it was all but a joke you see, they never said that.
Re:
We get it, you want absolute freedom for your sociopath corporate friends, to continue shadow banning and censoring speech.
Don't bother responding with your irritatingly derivative "there is no evidence of bias" virtue signalling drivel.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ME: "Yes IT IS CENSORSHIP."
MIKE: "Nah, dawg. Just spam filter being a bit aggressive."
ME: "You are in effect, inventing and creating fake news."
MIKE:" Get over yourself."
I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the "Social Media Giants" like Facebook, Twitter, & Google.
Because they are so large, and contain such a large of volume of the public discourse.
Their censorship of "certain ideas" and "certain ways of talking" is just as, if not more dangerous than the now outdated concept of government censorship.
Re: Re:
Re:
وَلَا تُطِعْ كُلَّ حَلَّافٍ مَّهِينٍ - 68:10
And do not obey any vile swearer.
هَمَّازٍ مَّشَّاءٍ بِنَمِيمٍ - 68:11
Backbiter, spreader of slander.
The most recent slander made up by H-1B visa holders who work for these companies is that Trump murdered 3,000 Puerto Ricans.
However, there are countless ongoing narratives, such as the ever popular "Trump is Racist" narrative for which there is zero proof:
Omarosa says Trump is a racist who uses N-word – and claims there is tape to prove it | US news | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/10/omarosa-trump-book-the-apprentice-memoir
....naturall y, no such tape was ever produced.
It's about time...
Re: bias
Re: Re: Re: I Want to Know Which Movies Were Removed
I meant to say legal parasites.
Speaking of Amazon...
They now just police books the 'left' says are misogynist.
SEP 11, 2018, 11:11 AM
Virulent misogynist gets his books removed by Amazon (ThinkProgress)
https://thinkprogress.org/amazon-removes-books-by-self-published-misogynist-and-rape- apologist-e896078a41ab/
Next we can expect Amazon to 'partner' with the Southern Poverty Law Center, in identifying books with "hate" speech.
This entire circus will of course include the usual "mistakes"
These will be a couple of books "accidentally" banned. People will become 'outraged' as usual. Amazon will 'apologize' and bring back the books which were accidentally banned, meanwhile the gullible rubes will forget all about the larger issue of a corporate sociopath deciding what books you can read.
This same tried and true method are being used right now to ban Alex Jones, and it's been very effective.
Re: I Want to Know Which Movies Were Removed
This is due to a lack of regulation protecting consumers.
Parallel Construction for Lazy People.
Police are getting so lazy these days that they are forgetting to create a legitimate cover story.
The gravy train continues.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost
Re: When Windows XP first required activation...
More comments from Sayonara Felicia-San >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Sayonara Felicia-San.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt