Poll: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media platforms shit can InfoWars

posted by justincredible

I find The Cosby show funny. I don't find rape funny.

The Cosby show wasn't about rape. 
His batshit show is about doxing victims. Bad analogy. 

posted by Spock

Companies listed in thread title arent private are they?  Arent they publicly traded stock?

You do know that "publicly traded" companies are still "privately owned," right?  Please say yes.
 

posted by SportsAndLady

Too many poll options, so didn’t vote. Hope this helps. 

Thoughts and prayers.

posted by kizer permanente

The Cosby show wasn't about rape. 
His batshit show is about doxing victims. Bad analogy. 

Fair enough. Like I said, I don't watch or listen to his show so I don't know the extent of the doxxing stuff (I do know his show is not just about doxxing victims), but the clips I've seen of him freaking out at his desk about something ridiculous are funny. Just because I find something (unintentionally) funny doesn't mean I endorse the person or all of their actions. Which is what Fab was attempting to imply with her response.

posted by Rotinaj

I’m not a fan of the private company can do whatever they want argument in this scenario. These companies have a monopoly on social media.

I've seen this sentiment elsewhere, and I get it.  However, I would disagree.

These companies may indeed be the chief source of news and information for many.  However, in form they don't have anything close to a monopoly.  Televisions news, actual news websites, radio news, newspapers and other forms of print news, etc. all exist.  Now, whether people are too apathetic or lazy to use anything but what shows up in their social media feeds may be a problem, but the responsibility to fix it rests with those same people, and not the respective companies.

posted by O-Trap

You do know that "publicly traded" companies are still "privately owned," right?  Please say yes.
 

Considering who you're talking to, I'm about 99.99999999% sure the answer is no.

posted by Heretic

Considering who you're talking to, I'm about 99.99999999% sure the answer is no.

I imagine he shares Michael Scott's view that there are five types of businesses:

1. Tourism
2. Food Service
3. Railroads
4. Sales
5. Hospitals / Manufacturing

posted by justincredible

Fair enough. Like I said, I don't watch or listen to his show so I don't know the extent of the doxxing stuff (I do know his show is not just about doxxing victims), but the clips I've seen of him freaking out at his desk about something ridiculous are funny. Just because I find something (unintentionally) funny doesn't mean I endorse the person or all of their actions. Which is what Fab was attempting to imply with her response.

I'm not implying that, or at least I wasn't trying to. It's just really hard for me to find any of his antics funny when I know what an awful, batshit lunatic he is coupled with the consequences thereof.

posted by O-Trap

I've seen this sentiment elsewhere, and I get it.  However, I would disagree.

These companies may indeed be the chief source of news and information for many.  However, in form they don't have anything close to a monopoly.  Televisions news, actual news websites, radio news, newspapers and other forms of print news, etc. all exist.  Now, whether people are too apathetic or lazy to use anything but what shows up in their social media feeds may be a problem, but the responsibility to fix it rests with those same people, and not the respective companies.

I’m not talking about news in general. I’m talking about social media. Let’s say I have 250k twitter and YouTube followers and they decide to ban me for something that doesn’t violate their ToS. I just lost the ability to get my content out to people who may be interested because Twitter/YouTube didnt like what I was saying and I don’t think that’s right. Like I said, I know this isn’t the case with Jones. The moron earned his ban. I just don’t think this is a take your business to a different bakery if they won’t make your cake scenario. Plenty of bakeries. Nobody will be competing with twitter/YouTube/Facebook when it comes to social media for many years to come. 

posted by Rotinaj

I’m not talking about news in general. I’m talking about social media. Let’s say I have 250k twitter and YouTube followers and they decide to ban me for something that doesn’t violate their ToS. I just lost the ability to get my content out to people who may be interested because Twitter/YouTube didnt like what I was saying and I don’t think that’s right. Like I said, I know this isn’t the case with Jones. The moron earned his ban. I just don’t think this is a take your business to a different bakery if they won’t make your cake scenario. Plenty of bakeries. Nobody will be competing with twitter/YouTube/Facebook when it comes to social media for many years to come. 

There is way worse out there on social media that can also be banned.  They are going after him becAuse of his political backing

posted by Rotinaj

I’m not talking about news in general. I’m talking about social media. Let’s say I have 250k twitter and YouTube followers and they decide to ban me for something that doesn’t violate their ToS. I just lost the ability to get my content out to people who may be interested because Twitter/YouTube didnt like what I was saying and I don’t think that’s right. Like I said, I know this isn’t the case with Jones. The moron earned his ban. I just don’t think this is a take your business to a different bakery if they won’t make your cake scenario. Plenty of bakeries. Nobody will be competing with twitter/YouTube/Facebook when it comes to social media for many years to come. 

Instagram and Snapchat already are.

I had something similar happen a number of years ago.  I had over 300K subscribers on an email newsletter platform.  I didn't violate the TOU/TOS.  They closed my account because of its size and the fact that, in their words, I had too much influence over the reputation of a shared server IP.

Now, I was certainly pissed.  They were the absolute best at what they did at the time, and they were effectively preventing me from getting my message to hundreds of thousands of people who signed up for it -- on their platform.

That last part is the point.  Whether or not their platform is big or small, it's still their property.  Verizon Wireless owns an absolute ass-ton of property nationwide, but they're not going to let me stand on the roof of one of their stores and yell epithets at passersby, and I'm even outdoors in that case.

Whether or not it's the right thing to do is something to be discussed, but whether or not it's right and whether or not it should be prohibited aren't necessarily the same discussion.

Also, I stand corrected on Twitter.  It appears they actually opted not to ban him.  I could have sworn I read that they were among those who did, but apparently not.

posted by Spock

There is way worse out there on social media that can also be banned.  They are going after him becAuse of his political backing

Oh yeah? Who are the other right wingers banned? 

posted by justincredible

I find The Cosby show funny. I don't find rape funny.

posted by Spock

Companies listed in thread title arent private are they?  Arent they publicly traded stock?

 

Can this ^^^ post please get more attention?

posted by ernest_t_bass

Can this ^^^ post please get more attention?

Pointing out the forum idiot being a forum idiot loses its luster. 

Numerous youtube people with substantial followers are also publishing their videos on sites like bitchute (instagram and snapchat as already mentioned). 

Minds and Gab are also media sites but they are not as large as Twitter/Facebook - you can also post your vids - , yet. But they are gaining in traffic as other sites are steadily showing that they do not uphold the same standards of TOS to everybody. Youtube is especially bad at upholding standards to everyone. For example: CNN can report a particular story without a problem, but smaller independent journalists cannot report on the same story without being demonetized, having a community strike and/or banned outright. 

There is talk about how to fix this problem, from several different groups. However, I absolutely do not approve of the progressive idea of having social media become a government controlled utility. 

As far as Alex Jones goes, the prevalent thought with the deplatforming him is as follows:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1026939569177075718

Glenn Greenwald‏Verified account @ggreenwald

FollowFollow @ggreenwald

Replying to @mtracey

That's been the tactic of censors for centuries: they start with someone who is so utterly hated and marginalized that everyone is blinded by their hatred for the first censorship target that they cheer, and forget that they're endorsing a principle & power that will then expand.

posted by SportsAndLady

Oh yeah? Who are the other right wingers banned? 

I hate to defend cc, but there are quite a few examples of the aforementioned platforms setting and enforcing different rules depending on where the page/person leans.

posted by like_that

I hate to defend cc, but there are quite a few examples of the aforementioned platforms setting and enforcing different rules depending on where the page/person leans.

Can I get a few examples?

I know Austin Peterson was kicked off facebook for a week or so for posting a (facebook provided) "Off to the gulag" Stalin gif when someone accused him of working for the Russians.