Rightist are once again doing that thing where they believe freedom to speech/expression also means they get a platform to do it; that isn't so.
eg Alex Jones and Louis Farrakan both have the freedom to say what they wish (barring some things like inciting violence), but that doesn't mean Facebook, a school or a donut shop has to give them a platform to do it.
They are both certainly free to go back to ranting in public parks though.
Originally posted by Robtard
Rightist seem to be once again doing that thing where they believe freedom to speech/expression also means they get a platform; that isn't so.eg Alex Jones and Louis Farrakan both have the freedom to say what they wish (barring some things like inciting violence), but that doesn't mean Facebook, a school or a donut shop has to give them a platform to do it.
They are both certainly free to go back to ranting in public parks though.
^You just love making the people who vouch for you look bad lol.
Originally posted by Robtard
I see, so you're just shit posting and whining as usual. Cool.What I said stands, freedom of speech doesn't mean someone has to give you a platform to do it. Deal with it already.
Rob, you're not fooling anyone anymore.
Is there a piece of shit willing to admit to being fooled by this guy? Now is the time.
Originally posted by Robtard
Rightist are once again doing that thing where they believe freedom to speech/expression also means they get a platform to do it; that isn't so.
I think social media should genuinely commit themselves to free speech, I don't think they should be legally forced to.
I think it's healthier for society if companies aren't pressured by outrage mobs into censoring people who disagree with them. I think it's preferable that online political discourse not be controlled by the bubble silicon valley lives in. I think the political dialogue is healthier if people just talk instead of trying get one over on each other by desperately trying to dig up anything anyone said in the past to demand advertisers to pull out in order to remove people from the political discourse. It's just gross. I'd rather people be able to determine for themselves if they want to listen what someone has to say rather than it being determined for them by the overlords at silicon valley.
Additionally, I don't think it's healthy to remove extremists from the mainstream platforms where there are actually dissenting voices to disagree with them and actual standards around incitement to violence. Unless... you'd rather them be on a platform with no dissenting opinions and no standards around incitement to violence?
Tell me, is it better that Alex Jones is on a platform where people can debunk his conspiracy theories and try and dissuade people who think him seriously? Maybe have the moral high ground to say, "nobody is out to get you, you're just paranoid," as opposed to... I don't know... validate his conspiracy theories in the eyes of a lot of people by trying to silence him?
Is it better that even the most hateful voices or people tempted by them are on public platforms where they can be debunked and challenged on their points and have to not call for acts of violence? Or would you rather them congregate on 8chan in an echo chamber that just drives them to be more and more radical until you have an insulated hidden group of people encouraging each other to shoot up mosques and synagogues?
At the end of the day though, I think it's their right as a private company to determine who gets to use their platform, but something being a right is not the same as it being the right thing to do.
Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't have a problem when FB and Youtube let these morons do their thing on those platforms and I don't have a problem with these companies banning them as that's their right to do so.So we seem to be in overall agreement and thanks for the calm measured reply.
Still I respect that you are not one of the people demanding that people be deplatformed.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
We're in overall agreement on legal policy and what constitutes a right, but somewhat different on purely nonlegal moral judgment, you come from a position of neutrality, whereas I come from a position of not wanting people banned.Still I respect that you are not one of the people demanding that people be deplatformed.
There's a limit, these platforms generally have rules of conduct and one typically clicks "yes" on whatever EULA when signing up. If you break these rules and then cry because you got removed, it's really your own fault.
eg I have FB but never post, I used it as a birthday reminder only. But I understand that if I started writing "Kill all Jews!" over and over, FB might ban me since it breaks their rules of conduct.. I get that and would accept the banning.
lol Rob is not neutral in the matter. I guarantee you he was celebrating, if only quietly, when Jones was practically "unpersoned" by being banned all across the internet and only had his own website left as he does now. I'm sure he also celebrated Laura Loomer being banned across twitter and FB as well.
And when PJW is banned eventually from You Tube, he'll be celebrating that as well.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
lol Rob is not neutral in the matter. I guarantee you he was celebrating, if only quietly, when Jones was practically "unpersoned" by being banned all across the internet and only had his own website left as he does now. I'm sure he also celebrated Laura Loomer being banned across twitter and FB as well.And when PJW is banned eventually from You Tube, he'll be celebrationg that as well.
Afterall I'm sure we both find it annoying when people like Putinbot and AdamPOE read into our intentions and declare us far right nutjobs. Or when the media does it with virtually everyone on the right. Let's not be hypocrites and actually try and live to our own standards.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'll give Robtard the benefit of the doubt, I think that's a fair good faith way to conduct things.Afterall I'm sure we both find it annoying when people like Putinbot and AdamPOE read into our intentions and declare us far right nutjobs. Or when the media does it with virtually everyone on the right. Let's not be hypocrites and actually try and live to our own standards.
I laughed when Alex Jones got banned.
But again, I had no problem with him being on those platforms to begin with. If Youtube allows him back on, cool; don't care.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'll give Robtard the benefit of the doubt, I think that's a fair good faith way to conduct things.Afterall I'm sure we both find it annoying when people like Putinbot and AdamPOE read into our intentions and declare us far right nutjobs. Or when the media does it with virtually everyone on the right. Let's not be hypocrites and actually try and live to our own standards.
The thing is though they will call us "nutjobs" regardless for simply supporting strong borders, wanting a wall built, thinking that you should be required to have an id to vote, being pro-gun rights, or being against abortion.
Or even just believing in God, of course.
Originally posted by Robtard
There's a limit, these platforms generally have rules of conduct and one typically clicks "yes" on whatever EULA when signing up. If you break these rules and then cry because you got removed, it's really your own fault.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well one of the most egregious things to me was Patreon banning Sargon when he didn't actually violate their terms of service, taking action that contradicts their terms of service as well as numerous statements from their CEO on the matter. And when asked by another Patreon user to clarify their terms of service so that they could... I don't know... know what types of actions would put their ability to make a living at risk... the head of the Trust and Safety team refused to actually explain it.
I know very little of Patreon aside from the basics, so I can't really comment, but if it's described as you say, it seems like they just wanted Sargon off and found any excuse to do it.
But Patreon is a private company(?), so they can do that.