Twitter has finally banned Alex Jones & Infowars

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

I assumed there was a hell of a lot of nuance to this, but I was simply trying to correct the statement "they are privately owned companies", which they are not, by legal definition.

 

They are not government owned companies, like Virginia ABC, as an example. That would be a more correct statement, to which my counter is:

 

Because of the extreme level of power they stand to gain over the national discourse, the ability to effect what the population sees and hears, they should be limited to some extent by the government. They should be required, by law, to abide free speech. They should not be allowed in any way shape or form, to ban people simply because the people who run the company don't like that persons politics.

 

While they may have had a good excuse here, in that he did violate their terms of service, it is blatant that they are also doing it because they don't like his politics. My example is that they have not banned the college professor who called for "white genocide" several times. Nor have they really taken any action against things like Antifa, which is now accurately considered a domestic terror group.

 

It's the bias we take issue with. If a social media company is going to claim to have rules, they must be applied objectively and without bias.

 

That is not the law as it currently stands, but we are arguing that it should be. I would make a distinction between them and the likes of the LTT forums, because these forums have a clearly stated purpose, that being Technology. Whereas the likes of Facebook and Twitter, are more generalized to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

In twitter's case it was not due to politics as we know dorsey himself intervened to avoid a permaban for alex jones back when he got the 1 week suspension. In the other cases probably yes but not in a direct way. Like I'm 100% sure facebook and youtube knew alex jonses politics years ago, but after apple pulled his shit the SJW cirlejerk started up and thats what caused it. All I see are articles shtting on twitter for not banning alex jones, or at least i saw those before this happened. So I would really avoid the idea that this is big tech trying to shit on alex jones of their own volition, they could have done that years ago.

I mean you're effectively calling for the regulation of social media, I am not ok with that idea.

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Different people in each camp. Bascally no overlap, or extremely minimal.

Uhh... literally all of Fox's news network is in both camps. Along with almost all the US CTR. Had to listen to this crap on the way back from work. (Well not HAD... but still) 

 

But we dont exactly have a free-speech president.

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Which they have the right to do as they are not part of the government, and what you're asking for is the government to censor them.  So, basically what you want is to have the government violate the constitution over your own fears.

A corporation should not be considered a person, they should not be allowed to have political influence via donations, lobbying, or speech. The individuals within said corporation already have those rights.

 

Corporate personhood was a mistake.

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

I absolutely think those things should be regulated to some extent.

 

Freedom of the press, should have some limitations, as does freedom of speech.

They already do have well defined limitations. The problem is, freedom of speech doesn't apply to social media.

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

They already do have well defined limitations. The problem is, freedom of speech doesn't apply to social media.

Thank you for saying exactly what I have been saying. IT SHOULD APPLY.

 

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

In twitter's case it was not due to politics as we know dorsey himself intervened to avoid a permaban for alex jones back when he got the 1 week suspension. In the other cases probably yes but not in a direct way. Like I'm 100% sure facebook and youtube knew alex jonses politics years ago, but after apple pulled his shit the SJW cirlejerk started up and thats what caused it. All I see are articles shtting on twitter for not banning alex jones, or at least i saw those before this happened. So I would really avoid the idea that this is big tech trying to shit on alex jones of their own volition, they could have done that years ago.

I mean you're effectively calling for the regulation of social media, I am not ok with that idea.

Regulation of the people administrating social media, not the people on social media. Don't misconstrue my arguments.

 

I could argue they waited until they had a good reason to ban him that would give them some grounds for defense.

 

And that would be backed up by them not banning people who are doing the same kinds of shit on the opposite side of the spectrum, which they are in fact doing.

[ivan134]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Thank you for saying exactly what I have been saying. IT SHOULD APPLY.

 

Regulation of the people administrating social media, not the people on social media. Don't misconstrue my arguments.

No, it shouldn't, and it never will. Your tax dollars don't fund them.

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

No, it shouldn't, and it never will. Your tax dollars don't fund them.

Yeah that's not a good argument. My tax dollars don't fund any other private companies, but they still have to abide the laws we decide on as a nation. At least if you don't consider tax subsidies funding. The point still stands, they have to abide the regulations we set, if they want to do business in our country.

 

I'm not saying "don't ban alex jones" I'm saying "don't ban alex jones then not ban Antifa or that college professor who called for white genocide"

[AlwaysFSX]

4 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

They are in the US. In conservative talk radio for starts.

Uh, no, not really. Those asking for control of fake news and those saying there should be freedom of speech everywhere are not in the same camp.

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

Yeah that's not a good argument. My tax dollars don't fund any other private companies, but they still have to abide the laws we decide on as a nation. At least if you don't consider tax subsidies funding.

LOL. I don't even know how to respond to this.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, AlwaysFSX said:

Uh, no, not really. Those asking for control of fake news and those saying there should be freedom of speech everywhere are not in the same camp.

I'm just repeating the stupidity that's being put out. Obviously I know its illogical, but hey... Fox doesn't have to use logic when they have "entertainment shows" instead of "news shows". (Actual quote from Hannity)

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Thank you for saying exactly what I have been saying. IT SHOULD APPLY.

 

Regulation of the people administrating social media, not the people on social media. Don't misconstrue my arguments.

What? You dont get to regulate the employees of one industry. We dont regulate the customer support agents at telecoms, we regulate telecoms. You are absolutely calling for the regulation of social media, straight out.

 

Quote

They should not be allowed in any way shape or form, to ban people simply because the people who run the company don't like that persons politics.

They arent banning him because of his politics they are banning him because the SJW wagon rallied and they bent over. Again, I kept reading articles SHAMING twitter for not banning him. The tech companies know that millennials are their target demo in general and tend to basically be their puppets.

[AlwaysFSX]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I'm just repeating the stupidity that's being put out. Obviously I know its illogical, but hey... Fox doesn't have to use logic when they have "entertainment shows" instead of "news shows". (Actual quote from Hannity)

I don't see how this is any relevant to your original statement but have fun with that in this thread.

 

Not like anyone is finding anything useful out of here anyways.

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I'm just repeating the stupidity that's being put out. Obviously I know its illogical, but hey... Fox doesn't have to use logic when they have "entertainment shows" instead of "news shows". (Actual quote from Hannity)

Fox News is registered as an entertainment company and not a news one, so even their "news" shows don't have to abide by that.

[S w a t s o n]

7 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I could argue they waited until they had a good reason to ban him that would give them some grounds for defense.

This isn't court they dont need a defense, except from people crying "oh but this person also violated ToS and you weren't psychic enough to ban him and the 1 million other that also violate ToS"

If they had banned him years ago the backlash wouldn't have been so high. Alex jones has been around for A LONG time, way before trump even tried to run for president. You think they didnt realize who he was back then and didnt know his politics?

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I'm just repeating the stupidity that's being put out. Obviously I know its illogical, but hey... Fox doesn't have to use logic when they have "entertainment shows" instead of "news shows". (Actual quote from Hannity)

Again, I've said repeatedly that those organization should be regulated to some extent. Resorting to insulting the argument only makes you look desperate and incapable of intelligently refuting the points being made.

 

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

LOL. I don't even know how to respond to this.

Maybe because you know you're wrong and can't admit it? Saying "that's not the law" is not a good argument in a discussion of what the law should be. It's a pointless statement of currently standing fact.

 

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

What? You dont get to regulate the employees of one industry. We dont regulate the customer support agents at telecoms, we regulate telecoms. You are absolutely calling for the regulation of social media, straight out.

 

They arent banning him because of his politics they are banning him because the SJW wagon rallied and they bent over. Again, I kept reading articles SHAMING twitter for not banning him. The tech companies know that millennials are their target demo in general and tend to basically be their puppets.

You blatantly just said they didn't ban him for his politics, they banned him for his politics on the behalf of others. Thanks for making my point.

[Suika]

Lots of people here don't seem to understand the difference between freedom of speech and being free from prosecution. The dude said stupid, hateful shit but was punished for violating terms of service he agreed to, he's not actively being censored.

[Blademaster91]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Fox News is registered as an entertainment company and not a news one, so even their "news" shows don't have to abide by that.

Most news outlets in the US are owned by entertainment companies though.

[Curufinwe_wins]

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

What? You dont get to regulate the employees of one industry. We dont regulate the customer support agents at telecoms, we regulate telecoms. You are absolutely calling for the regulation of social media, straight out.

 

They arent banning him because of his politics they are banning him because the SJW wagon rallied and they bent over. Again, I kept reading articles SHAMING twitter for not banning him. The tech companies know that millennials are their target demo in general and tend to basically be their puppets.

Sure...

 

 

Damn millennials screwing up the world.

 

(Yes I understand this isnt an exact equivalence, but like common... special snowflake behavior right here.)

[ivan134]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Again, I've said repeatedly that those organization should be regulated to some extent. Resorting to insulting the argument only makes you look desperate and incapable of intelligently refuting the points being made.

 

Maybe because you know you're wrong and can't admit it? Saying "that's not the law" is not a good argument in a discussion of what the law should be. It's a pointless statement of currently standing fact.

 

You blatantly just said they didn't ban him for his politics, they banned him for his politics on the behalf of others. Thanks for making my point.

Yup. That's definitely it. You got me. You win 

[Trik'Stari]

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

This isn't court they dont need a defense, except from people crying "oh but this person also violated ToS and you weren't psychic enough to ban him and the 1 million other that also violate ToS"

If they had banned him years ago the backlash wouldn't have been so high. Alex jones has been around for A LONG time, way before trump even tried to run for president. You think they didnt realize who he was back and then and didnt know his politics?

Do you not see how you are making my argument for me? You are literally pointing out the accuracy in what I said.

 

That person who called for white genocide made headlines, they did nothing. Alex Jones makes headlines, they did something.

 

Can you not see how the two are related?

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Yup. That's definitely it. You got me. You win 

If you have to resort to mockery and comedy in an attempt appear correct, you've already "lost".

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Again, I've said repeatedly that those organization should be regulated to some extent. Resorting to insulting the argument only makes you look desperate and incapable of intelligently refuting the points being made.

 

Maybe because you know you're wrong and can't admit it? Saying "that's not the law" is not a good argument in a discussion of what the law should be. It's a pointless statement of currently standing fact.

 

You blatantly just said they didn't ban him for his politics, they banned him for his politics on the behalf of others. Thanks for making my point.

No they banned him because the blowback from ignoring his obvious ToS violations was simply not worth it to them any more. You think alex jones wasnt getting reported back then too? This is why you think they need a defense, because you are attacking them. The bottom lines is he violated ToS many times, they ignored it for years and eventually decided to stop ignoring it. They could have banned without even if they didnt have a ToS, you dont get to regulate a company listening to their userbase

[SolarNova]

Lol the guys going through court for having a theory ...land of the free indeed ..hahaha..

 

I don't have issue with a company like twitter choosing what poeple say and who says it. Its there bloody platform, their rules.

however,

When they try to paint it as some righteous decision for the good of everyone, thats where it rubs me the wrong way. 'hate speach' ..thats a matter of opinion,,, not fact ..opinion. tell it like it is or dont at all, throwing around opinion like its fact does nobody anygood.

 

I dont agree with the guy, think he's nuts, but i hate the arrogance of the 'average joe' who seems to think their thoughts on right and wrong, regardless of how many others agree or not, are 'fact' rather than opinion.  Right and wrong, good and evil ,, points of view, opinion not fact.

 

If som1 comes up to me and says " i think murder is perfectly fine, its not evil" .ill take that as that persons opinion, and disagree saying .."my opinion is its wrong". i wont say " your crazy its wrong, it just is, fact, end of discussion" ..thats arrogance at its finest.

 

 

This .. is my opinion.

 

 

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Because it wasn't about politics!  It wasn't about his views!  It was because he physically and verbally harassed a senator.  You read the OP, right?

And that has what to do with Twitter's TOS? I know some of you just eat up what the Propaganda Press feeds you, but that's a pretty damn stupid take.

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Again, I've said repeatedly that those organization should be regulated to some extent. Resorting to insulting the argument only makes you look desperate and incapable of intelligently refuting the points being made.

 

Maybe because you know you're wrong and can't admit it? Saying "that's not the law" is not a good argument in a discussion of what the law should be. It's a pointless statement of currently standing fact.

 

You blatantly just said they didn't ban him for his politics, they banned him for his politics on the behalf of others. Thanks for making my point.

I dont think I was pointing to you at any point in this thread. More frustrated with the "counter media" or whatever the hell it would be called that knee jerk claims all this stuff is SJW and all that while at the same time wanting things like tough stances on propagation of fake news and terrorist information 

 

I am perfectly fine with your stances and posts expressed here so far. Well the metrics at least. I dont think I agree on interpretation. But still