Twitter permanently bans Alex Jones and website Infowars

[pedro01]

44 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Didn't say that.

 

From what I've read about some of those, their banning was entirely justified.

 

You use a forum, then keep to it's rules.

 

PS: Shadow banning...I do not subscribe to that particular delusion  conspiracy .

 

So none of them are hateful or extremist but yet they still deserved a ban in your opinion.

 

Liberal dogma at it's finest.

 

Can't say anything they did wrong, probably never saw a post or video they provided, read on line they were left of center - CENSOR THEM!

[pedro01]

17 minutes ago, connda said:

Time to take the monopolies Twitter and Facebook, declare them as public utilities, and regulate them as such. 

 

As liberal entities, we know their knowledge of history is poor.

 

So they will no doubt be shocked when that actually occurs.

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

So none of them are hateful or extremist but yet they still deserved a ban in your opinion.

 

Liberal dogma at it's finest.

 

Can't say anything they did wrong, probably never saw a post or video they provided, read on line they were left of center - CENSOR THEM!

I said those who violate a forums rules deserve to be removed from them.

 

All they had to do was follow the rules.

 

I also did not say their views were not extremist, I made no comment on them at all in fact.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Bluespunk

[SABloke]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He can speak his mind.

 

He just can’t do so via the privately owned Twitter platform.

 

Soapboxes on street corners are still an option if he wishes.

 

This is not a ‘freedom of speech’ issue. 

True. But then I was confused by the recent Trump/blocked users thing: If twitter is a privately owned commercial platform, what right did the courts have to force Trump to unblock followers? Didn't they use the argument that twitter was a defacto PUBLIC space?

[DM07]

3 minutes ago, SABloke said:

True. But then I was confused by the recent Trump/blocked users thing: If twitter is a privately owned commercial platform, what right did the courts have to force Trump to unblock followers? Didn't they use the argument that twitter was a defacto PUBLIC space?

Oooooh...I can answer that: if you are dumb enough to announce, that you are using twitter to announce and explain your policies and you are the President of the United States...how can you exclude American citizens -who's prsident you are- from having access to your wisdom!?

That makes no sense and so you are rightfully prohibited from blocking people off your account!

That is just logic!

[DM07]

15 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

As liberal entities, we know their knowledge of history is poor.

 

So they will no doubt be shocked when that actually occurs.

Not that I want to interfere with your rant about how liberals are ruining the world, but...wasn't Milo the guy who defended pedophilia?

Just asking for a friend...

[SABloke]

10 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Oooooh...I can answer that: if you are dumb enough to announce, that you are using twitter to announce and explain your policies and you are the President of the United States...how can you exclude American citizens -who's prsident you are- from having access to your wisdom!?

That makes no sense and so you are rightfully prohibited from blocking people off your account!

That is just logic!

Trump's dumbness isn't really a legal argument though. If twitter was the only avenue he was announcing policies then the courts should have also ruled that all citizens must be give a smart device and a personal twitter account - similar logic.

[stevenl]

29 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

So none of them are hateful or extremist but yet they still deserved a ban in your opinion.

 

Liberal dogma at it's finest.

 

Can't say anything they did wrong, probably never saw a post or video they provided, read on line they were left of center - CENSOR THEM!

Why are you making up opinions of others? He didn't say that, didn't imply that, and didn't come close to that.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Yes of course Youtube has the right to ban whomever. The point is that they are censoring political discussion because they don't agree with the opinions. Is it legal? Probably, but it is a dick move just the same. And with a virtual monopoly of the vlog format platform, perhaps we will decide at some point it is not legal. It is not as if they post openly that conservative views are not welcome. They are being subversive by demonetizing or shadow banning but still profiting from the traffic.

 

That link was a perfect illustration of what I was trying to explain. It was on the site Brietbart for the obvious reason that the left wouldn't go anywhere near a story like that. That being said the article is true and illustrative of slippery slope of the financial institutions punishing clients for thought crimes.

 

I think we are describing different parts of the elephant when we are describing system bias.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But since your presumption 'they are censoring political discussion because they don't agree with the opinion' is simply not true, there really is no argument.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, connda said:

Time to take the monopolies Twitter and Facebook, declare them as public utilities, and regulate them as such. 

Regulate by which country / government / ideology? If USA does it for their people, then other countries could and should do it for their people. 

 

Ministry of Social media to be formed by governments.

[sentogawa]

56 minutes ago, connda said:

Time to take the monopolies Twitter and Facebook, declare them as public utilities, and regulate them as such. 

So you're advocating socializing them. Quite a pivot to the left there, that.

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Time to take the monopolies Twitter and Facebook, declare them as public utilities, and regulate them as such. 

 

 

Yeah! Bigger government, more regulation!   Are you sure about that?

 

Anyway, there's always Google Plus and My Space.  Facebook and Twitter aren't monopolies.

[AlexRich]

10 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Basically you said: I'm for free speech but I'm not for free speech.

But hey, their web site, their rules.

May I suggest you look up repulsive actions before declaring Jones' silly Sandy Hook theory so high on the list? There's Ted Bundy, the killing of 50 people at a night club in Florida and thousands if not millions more examples of far more repulsive actions.

 

Free speech comes along with responsibility. We don't have the right to say whatever we think, not even your constitution extends you that right. If I set up a website accusing someone of kidnapping and raping children ... and it is untrue ... that would be libel, something that I can be sued for. Alex Jones is not offering an opinion, he is repeatedly saying things that are untrue ... so a good move by Twitter.

 

 

[MajarTheLion]

9 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Big mistake. Death of free speech. 

It's leftists that are the most like Nazis. They assault people, harass them in public, try to silence people, ban books, want to ban guns, support the racist Planned Parenthood, etc.

 

Eventually, the market will dictate a price to these totalitarian thugs like Facebook, Twitter and one particular web site that is about Thailand (of course I couldn't possibly mean this one). Harassing a significant part of one's business is just plain STUPID.

 

[MajarTheLion]

22 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Free speech comes along with responsibility. We don't have the right to say whatever we think, not even your constitution extends you that right. If I set up a website accusing someone of kidnapping and raping children ... and it is untrue ... that would be libel, something that I can be sued for. Alex Jones is not offering an opinion, he is repeatedly saying things that are untrue ... so a good move by Twitter.

 

 

I see. So you would like Twitter to ban people who repeatedly say things that aren't true. How about people that repeatedly make racist posts? Should they also be banned?

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

So none of them are hateful or extremist but yet they still deserved a ban in your opinion.

 

Liberal dogma at it's finest.

 

Can't say anything they did wrong, probably never saw a post or video they provided, read on line they were left of center - CENSOR THEM!

Yep. Liberal dogma is to silence anyone they disagree with. Well, that's not even true. Sarah Jeong got to tweet all the racist stuff she wanted to. But since she's a liberal, she gets a pass.

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

But since your presumption 'they are censoring political discussion because they don't agree with the opinion' is simply not true, there really is no argument.

Oh, I see you have already made the decision about what is true and how they feel. Very good, you have saved us some trouble. All's well in progressive rainbowland

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

I see. So you would like Twitter to ban people who repeatedly say things that aren't true. How about people that repeatedly make racist posts? Should they also be banned?

Why would a commercial social media platform not ban people who make racist posts? Unless it’s run by the KKK it’s unlikely to attract an audience, apart from other racists. 

[DM07]

2 hours ago, SABloke said:

Trump's dumbness isn't really a legal argument though. If twitter was the only avenue he was announcing policies then the courts should have also ruled that all citizens must be give a smart device and a personal twitter account - similar logic.

How is that "same logic"?

Trump is not FORCED to do politics on twitter, but he says, he will!

So if he does, he can not ban anyone!

[mikebike]

6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I'll respond to a few items

Being banned fom youtube is basically death for a vlogger. lots of people make their income from youtube. You can't get that kind of exposure anywhere else. It's like being moved from the New York Times, to a breakfast bulletin at country cafe.

 

It is the left that is crying for censorship, so it is the right that is getting censored predominantly It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense to censor both sides. Ideologues do not deal in sense or logic, they believe in eliminating dissenting voices.

 

Patreon is how vloggers get paid. Apparently it is run by Mastercard. Here is a link to an article about Mastercard forcing the closure of an account that wasn't violating any rules 

 

If you bother to look you will see the system bias is predominantly left wing. As a libertarian I am in favor of free speech. I believe it is a main pillar of the enlightenment which transformed our world to the freedom loving technological marvel we achieved in the 20th century. Banning speech only ever helps the powerful. Living in Thailand you know this is true.

 

 

Dude, give it up. For every right wing blogger demonetized I can show you a left wing blogger as well. You are trapped in your echo chamber.

[candide]

I have particular sympathy for Alex Jones, but there is true issue behind it (I don't mean Trump's claim that conservative elements are banned by Internet companies).

 

The problem is that Facebook, Twitter or even Google Search have become quasi-public goods. There are alternatives but practically, there aren't because of network effects. 

 

So we have private companies regulating quasi-public goods. They probably do it mainly to avoid being charged for not respecting laws. Note that the cited bitchute has carefully adopted a P2P model so that they cannot easily be held responsible for the content they show. They also do it to avoid being subject to opinion campaigns (I.e. YouTube banning nude pictures in order to avoid problems with conservative or religious opinions), or any criteria they may find fair or commercially effective.

 

The key issue remains: what should be the respective role of private and public regulation for quasi-public goods?

 

Well, just my two cents....

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Oh, I see you have already made the decision about what is true and how they feel. Very good, you have saved us some trouble. All's well in progressive rainbowland

No, I haven't made the decision how they feel and what is true.

I am only stating your claim it is being censored because they don't like certain opinions is not true. But claims like ' Sandy Hook is a hoax' and '9/11 was a government setup' are not true. And with lots of gullible people believing that crap those claims should be banned. 

 

With Jones making these and similar nonsense claims time and time again, I think any platform that is being used to spread this should say 'enough is enough', and finally totally ban the source.

[pedro01]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I said those who violate a forums rules deserve to be removed from them.

 

All they had to do was follow the rules.

 

I also did not say their views were not extremist, I made no comment on them at all in fact.

 

Yeah - you used the words yourself.

 

All that is happening here is that when someone points out the massive holes in your statements - you pretend you didn't say them.

 

So lame. 

 

You now have a free shot - because the chances of me reading one of your responses every again is very close to your apparent IQ.

[attrayant]

31 minutes ago, candide said:

The problem is that Facebook, Twitter or even Google Search have become quasi-public goods.

 

These companies provide private services that take advantage of public access ways.  I don't see it as any different from a private restaurant that you have to use a public road to get to.  In any event, considering the subject of the discussion, how is this "the problem"?

 

31 minutes ago, candide said:

There are alternatives but practically, there aren't because of network effects.

 

What "network effects" are these?  I use Bing and Google Plus once in a while and never noticed any such issues.  With fewer people using them, they should be more available.

 

31 minutes ago, candide said:

So we have private companies regulating quasi-public goods. They probably do it mainly to avoid being charged for not respecting laws.

 

What laws are these that apply to private companies?

 

[pedro01]

3 hours ago, DM07 said:

Not that I want to interfere with your rant about how liberals are ruining the world, but...wasn't Milo the guy who defended pedophilia?

Just asking for a friend...

 

Taking things our of context is very cute.

 

But basically, no - he never did what you imply. He said dumb stuff indeed but defending pedo's wasn't one of them.

 

But great attempt at character assassination - so much easier than rational debate isn't it?

[candide]

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

These companies provide private services that take advantage of public access ways.  I don't see it as any different from a private restaurant that you have to use a public road to get to.  In any event, considering the subject of the discussion, how is this "the problem"?

 

 

What "network effects" are these?  I use Bing and Google Plus once in a while and never noticed any such issues.  With fewer people using them, they should be more available.

 

 

What laws are these that apply to private companies?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

 

The value for a user of a network (In a broad sense), platform or whatever you call it, is dependent mainly on the number of users. It leads naturally to quasi-monopolies such as Facebook, Twitter, etc... Theoretically you can choose any network you want, practically if you want to be in contact with many people you have no other choice than using Facebook or Twitter. 

 

It is somehow the similar to some extent for Google search, if one want to diffuse information or advertising. As an individual user, you can use Bing rather than another one tonsearch for information. But if you have a business or similar, and it does not show on Google search, you miss most of the market/audience.

 

I don't really understand your non-understanding of laws that apply to private firms. In every country there are laws about content, I.e paedophilia, racial hate, promoting criminal behaviour, etc... If they don't forbid them they may be held responsible.

[Bluespunk]

48 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Yeah - you used the words yourself.

 

All that is happening here is that when someone points out the massive holes in your statements - you pretend you didn't say them.

 

So lame. 

 

You now have a free shot - because the chances of me reading one of your responses every again is very close to your apparent IQ.

Please number the post where I said any of the people you mention are extremists. 

 

A non response will indicate you can’t. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Bluespunk

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

No, I haven't made the decision how they feel and what is true.

I am only stating your claim it is being censored because they don't like certain opinions is not true. But claims like ' Sandy Hook is a hoax' and '9/11 was a government setup' are not true. And with lots of gullible people believing that crap those claims should be banned. 

 

With Jones making these and similar nonsense claims time and time again, I think any platform that is being used to spread this should say 'enough is enough', and finally totally ban the source.

Lol you say you haven't decided what is true and then give two examples of things you have decided aren't true.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, SABloke said:

True. But then I was confused by the recent Trump/blocked users thing: If twitter is a privately owned commercial platform, what right did the courts have to force Trump to unblock followers? Didn't they use the argument that twitter was a defacto PUBLIC space?

No they used the argument that Trump’s statements over Twitter were public and necessarily subject to comment because he was communicating via Twitter in his role as President.

 

Heholds public office, his statements were public,blocking people from seeing and commenting on his public comments was unconstitutional.

[attrayant]

36 minutes ago, candide said:

The value for a user of a network (In a broad sense), platform or whatever you call it, is dependent mainly on the number of users. It leads naturally to quasi-monopolies such as Facebook, Twitter, etc... Theoretically you can choose any network you want, practically if you want to be in contact with many people you have no other choice than using Facebook or Twitter.

 

I see - you're using "network" as a short form of "social network".  I was reading it as the actual, physical network that carries your data.  Not that this helps clarify matters much.  You can't blame a company - or call it a monopoly - for being popular.  You can call it a monopoly if it abuses its popularity or take steps to prevent competitors from entering the marketplace.

 

Saying that Twitter is a monopoly is laughable, seeing as how it's barely keeping its head above the financial waters.  Has it ever been profitable?

 

Quote

It is somehow the similar to some extent for Google search, if one want to diffuse information or advertising. As an individual user, you can use Bing rather than another one tonsearch for information. But if you have a business or similar, and it does not show on Google search, you miss most of the market/audience.

 

Is that Google's fault?  If so, how do you "correct" it?  Artificially limit the number of web searches it can perform per hour?

 

Quote

I don't really understand your non-understanding of laws that apply to private firms. In every country there are laws about content, I.e paedophilia, racial hate, promoting criminal behaviour, etc... If they don't forbid them they may be held responsible.

 

I didn't understand it because you predicated this action on your loosely applied term "quasi-public good"; a term which I reject.  Whether private or public (or "quasi-public", if you insist), a company has to follow laws.  What you seem to be saying is that they regulate themselves (i.e. they have rules and policies) because they don't want to be accused of breaking laws or being an accessory to lawbreaking.  Well okay... I don't rob banks because I don't want to be charged with not respecting bank robbery laws.  Isn't this obvious?

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by attrayant