Twitter has finally banned Alex Jones & Infowars

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

I guess at this point the discussion turns from censorship to where do we draw the line.

I agree, there should be a line but there are lines. The problems is social status, race and gender change where that line is drawn for every instance. Hence why I say it should be all or nothing. 

[Master Disaster]

What many of you are ignoring is Twitter did give him a warning. When everyone else banned him Twitter released a statement saying they hadn't banned him because he hadn't broken their rules yet but if he ever did he would be banned.

 

One month later here we are.

[Trik'Stari]

4 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

the TL;DR version of this thread is:

Free speech vs the rights of a private (or even publicly traded) corporation to do what they want

 

Unfortunately your opinion on free speech does not apply to youtube or facebook or even LTT forums where we can't discuss politics for example. They have absolute right to decide what happens on their platform, not youtube's problem if there's no competing platform (which there is technically)

Again, Facebook and Twitter are publicly traded companies, they are not, by legal definition, privately held companies.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

 

a privately held company, by legal definition, does NOT offer shares to the general public for purchase, Facebook and Twitter do, which means any one of us can potentially own a part of the company.

[S w a t s o n]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

What many of you are ignoring is Twitter did give him a warning. When everyone else banned him Twitter released a statement saying they hadn't banned him because he hadn't broken their rules yet but if he ever did he would be banned.

 

One month later here we are.

He did receive a 1 week posting suspension before this didn't he? Twitter also is not under obligation to give warnings

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

It's the fact that they're publicly traded, literally anyone can own a stake in their company. A private company can have shares as well, but only through invitation. They are not, by definition, a private company. The linguistics here are very important.

 

Also, they're receiving tax subsidies (meaning they don't pay a certain amount of taxes, which in accounting is basically them receiving money from the government. Money not spent, is money gained.) to build a datacenter in the capital city of my state.

 

The hilarious thing here is that I'm usually the anti-government intervention kind of person. I hate the idea of giving government more power than it already has (which is too much in certain ways), but I'm one of the few pointing out how bad this will be for our society.

Ummm, a publicly traded company doesn't mean they've ceased being a private company.

 

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

He was banned from those platforms with in the period of what 12 to 24 hours?

Go on?

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Again, Facebook and Twitter are publicly traded companies, they are not, by legal definition, privately held companies.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

It literally doesn't matter. And tax subsidies do not mean the public gets an interest or stake in the company.

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

Unfortunately your opinion on free speech does not apply to youtube or facebook or even LTT forums where we can't discuss politics for example. They have absolute right to decide what happens on their platform, not youtube's problem if there's no competing platform (which there is technically)

Yes, every company can do what they want for their own business. Its theirs. People are against this when it comes to social media because of the power they have over the world right now. 

[ivan134]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

Yes, every company can do what they want for their own business. Its theirs. People are against this when it comes to social media because of the power they have over the world right now. 

What power exactly is that? I have a Twitter account, but I don't even check it. Exactly what power does Twitter have over me?

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Ummm, a publicly traded company doesn't mean they've ceased being a private company.

 

It quite literally does. The ownership of the company is dispersed to the general public. Literally anyone can be called an owner. It is not owned by a private individual or group.

 

1 minute ago, S w a t s o n said:

It literally doesn't matter. And tax subsidies do not mean the public gets an interest or stake in the company.

Again, read the differences.

 

And tax subsidies mean that, essentially, my taxes are in some way benefiting that company in return for them building a datacenter in my state/city.

[ivan134]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

It quite literally does. The ownership of the company is dispersed to the general public. Literally anyone can be called an owner. It is not owned by a private individual or group.

 

Again, read the differences.

 

And tax subsidies mean that, essentially, my taxes are in some way benefiting that company in return for them building a datacenter in my state/city.

This is pointless

[S w a t s o n]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

It quite literally does. The ownership of the company is dispersed to the general public. Literally anyone can be called an owner. It is not owned by a private individual or group.

 

Again, read the differences.

 

And tax subsidies mean that, essentially, my taxes are in some way benefiting that company in return for them building a datacenter in my state/city.

Anyone CAN own a portion of the corporation but you do not by default. The tax benefit your city gives them does not confer the residents of that city of having any say over how the company governs itself.

[Teddy07]

I love alex jonex doomguy video on youtube

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, ivan134 said:

What power exactly is that? I have a Twitter account, but I don't even check it. Exactly what power does Twitter have over me?

The power to silence you if you express something they disagree with politically. The power to let you see and be informed about only certain things that they like.

 

Again, that's only if you use it. While you may not, many, many others do. That's the problem here.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

It quite literally does. The ownership of the company is dispersed to the general public. Literally anyone can be called an owner. It is not owned by a private individual or group.

 

Again, read the differences.

 

And tax subsidies mean that, essentially, my taxes are in some way benefiting that company in return for them building a datacenter in my state/city.

 

I don't think that's true. So your saying anyone who floats a company on the stock market gives up ownership?

 

[ivan134]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

The power to silence you if you express something they disagree with politically. The power to let you see and be informed about only certain things that they like.

 

Again, that's only if you use it. While you may not, many, many others do. That's the problem here.

Okay, and? They're a private company. They can choose to let their users see only what they choose. When I go to BreirtBart or National Review, are they infringing on my rights by not posting factual news?

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

What power exactly is that? I have a Twitter account, but I don't even check it. Exactly what power does Twitter have over me?

Its not over an individual. Look at the definition of propaganda and censorship in China and then look how important social media is for news then come back and tell me how it doesn't affect the world. 

[ivan134]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

Its not over an individual. Look at the definition of propaganda and censorship in China and then look how important social media is for news then come back and tell me how it doesn't affect the world. 

Are you saying that China wasn't abusing human rights before the advent of social media?

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, S w a t s o n said:

Anyone CAN own a portion of the corporation you do not by default. The tax benefit your city gives them does not confer the residents of that city of have any say over how the company governs itself.

I know that, I'm trying to correct you and Ivan's incorrect statement that they are a private company, because they are not legally defined as such.

 

And as a tax payer, I damned well do have a say in whether or not they receive tax subsidies from my local government, which I am 100% against.

 

I believe that because of the power they stand to gain, and the fact that they offer a broad medium for the general population to converse with itself and will have an extreme ability to determine how the public sees itself, without oversight, they should be required to abide free speech. The privately traded thing and government funding are only tangents.

[Guest]

I'm all for free speech but this is social media, not a protest. You agree to abide by their guidelines when you sign up, so it's pretty fair by them to enforce their rules. This isn't the first time someone with radical views has been removed from twitter. 

[Trik'Stari]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

 

I don't think that's true. So your saying anyone who floats a company on the stock market gives up ownership?

 

By legal definition, yes. When you take a private company to publicly traded, you actually lose ownership of said company. You might remain CEO, but the shareholders can force you out if they determine that your continued "leadership" would be a detriment to the company, because they now legally, collectively, own the company and its assets.

 

This is a tangent, I'm trying to correct linguistic inaccuracies.

[ivan134]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

I know that, I'm trying to correct you and Ivan's incorrect statement that they are a private company, because they are not legally defined as such.

 

And as a tax payer, I damned well do have a say in whether or not they receive tax subsidies from my local government, which I am 100% against.

 

I believe that because of the power they stand to gain, and the fact that they offer a broad medium for the general population to converse with itself and will have an extreme ability to determine how the public sees itself, without oversight, they should be required to abide free speech. The privately traded thing and government funding are only tangents.

You're talking about trading, and I'm talking about ownership. A company is either privately or publicly owned. Publicly owned means it's run by the government. Private is the opposite of that. You're correcting a straw man.

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

I know that, I'm trying to correct you and Ivan's incorrect statement that they are a private company, because they are not legally defined as such.

 

And as a tax payer, I damned well do have a say in whether or not they receive tax subsidies from my local government, which I am 100% against.

 

I believe that because of the power they stand to gain, and the fact that they offer a broad medium for the general population to converse with itself and will have an extreme ability to determine how the public sees itself, without oversight, they should be required to abide free speech. The privately traded thing and government funding are only tangents.

Yes you can lobby your local government to not give them the subsidy but that has nothing at all to do with this thread. Nothing about them being publicly traded or in receipt of tax breaks changes the fact that they have complete control. Even the shareholders dont really get a say in that type of shit unless it was becoming a business interest that the shareholders would then vote on but i'm pretty sure alex jones is getting a shareholder vote.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

By legal definition, yes. When you take a private company to publicly traded, you actually lose ownership of said company. You might remain CEO, but the shareholders can force you out.

Interesting, now you've explained it that way it makes sense I suppose.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

Interesting, now you've explained it that way it makes sense I suppose.

From wikipedia:

 

"A public company, publicly traded company, publicly held company, publicly listed company, or public corporation is a corporation whose ownership is dispersed among the general public in many shares of stock which are freely traded on a stock exchange or in over the counter markets."

 

If you buy stock, you own a percentage of that company, however big or small. The more stock, the more power you have over it.