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

I misspoke. Twitter suspended him for it.

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2018/07/31/pro-gun-missouri-senate-candidate-suspended-from-twitter-for-gulag-joke

Also, I don't know much about the Riverfront Times, but if they're attempting to be a legitimate news site they are failing spectacularly. That article is pure slant.

posted by SportsAndLady

Can I get a few examples?

-PragerU has several videos currently or formerly banned from youtube.  Also numerous, if not all videos have been demonetized.  If you aren't familiar with PragerU here are the videos currently banned https://www.prageru.com/playlists/restricted-youtube.  You can be the judge and determine if these are harmful.

-Dave Rubin has had several videos banned or demonitized from youtube.  Dave Rubin isn't even close to being a conservative nor controversial.  He just happens to call "progressives" out for going full retard and abandoning classical liberalism.

-Steven Crowder has received suspensions from youtube and twitter.  His videos have been demonetized.  His content is pretty mild compared to the shit you see form the left posting. 

-Candace Owens recently just got suspended from twitter for taking Joeng's racist tweets and subbing out the word "white" for black."  It was only after a bunch of people called twitter out she was reinstated. 

-Several libertarian pages and personalities I follow have received facebook suspensions for pretty much mild shit.

posted by SportsAndLady

Oh yeah? Who are the other right wingers banned? 

I don't know exactly what you mean to dumb spock, but twitter routinely bans conservatives for nothing while letting people tell Dana Loesch to get raped and die.  Candace Owens got suspended for a day by putting the word Black in for White in the Sarah Leong tweets (new york times new hire). None of these media networks are consistent and it is pretty well known that the right gets demonitized on youtube way more often than the crazy leftists, and it isn't even crazy people like the infowars guy, it is like Ben Shapiro and Crowder.

Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern, Charles Murray, Mark Dice, Tim Pool, Sargon of Akkad, Douglas Murray, Sam Harris, Paul Joseph Watson just to name a few. Not all of these people are "right wingers", some are lefties. Basically, anybody to the right of Bernie Sanders is now labelled as being on the right and must be censored or restricted or demonetized or banned. There are even people who have received community guideline strikes on youtube for having a Sam Harris/Charles Murray (both scientists) video on their playlist. 

*edit*

Didn't mean to answer for like_that, just replied to a question on my own.

posted by SportsAndLady

Can I get a few examples?

It more the fact that someone like Jones is plastered for his "so called hate" speech and the example that the left haters can spew all day long and the media doesnt hold their feet to the fire.  Go get on the social media of antifa or the New york times racist and tell me why they arent banned from their free speech platforms

Thanks for names, I’ll look into them...notice a lot of them have been suspended not straight up banned likes jones. 

posted by SportsAndLady

Thanks for names, I’ll look into them...notice a lot of them have been suspended not straight up banned likes jones. 

The ones I mentioned their content has been banned.  That is just as bad. 

Youtube has shut down H3H3's livestream that they were doing and gave them a community strike because they were just talking about Alex Jones. 

Gavin McInnes/Proud Boys was banned from Twitter with no reason given. 

I have to wonder who will be next.

Why can’t any of these banned guys start up their own video site?  Who cares if some private companies chose not to have them. 

An article on the topic that I enjoyed

People on both the liberal left and the libertarian right argue that what has been done to Jones is acceptable because this is simply a case of businesses deciding freely who they should associate with or provide platforms to. This is disingenuous. This was not a clean, independent business decision – it was a rash act of silencing carried out under pressure from a moralised mob that insisted Jones’ words are too wicked for public life. This isn’t the free market in action – it’s the bending of capitalist power to the end of enforcing moral controls on speech. There is one very interesting thing that will spring from this incident: we will witness the severe limitations of right-wing libertarianism. Libertarians’ obsession with the state, their belief that things are only bad if the state does them, means they are incapable of arguing against capitalist authoritarianism, and in fact even support it on the basis that this is the free market being the free market (even though it isn’t). Libertarianism is devastatingly ill-prepared for the new authoritarianism, for tackling the rise of outsourced censorship and informal intolerance.

For good or ill, the social-media sphere is the new public sphere. The expulsion of people from these platforms is to 2018 what a state ban on the publication or sale of certain books was to 1618. How can we convince the owners of social media to permit the freest speech possible and to trust their users to negotiate the world of ideas for themselves? This is the question we should be asking ourselves, rather than concocting more ways to encourage these corporate overlords to censor and blacklist.

posted by BoatShoes

An article on the topic that I enjoyed

 

I have seen and heard this argument, but that is trying to turn this into a black/white issue. There is a difference between believing in a private businesses rights to do what they want vs what you believe is acceptable behavior.  You can believe Facebook has every right to ban any one they want, and also believe it's terrible at the same time.  I think most of us who have the "businesses can do what they want" take also acknowledge these social media platforms are going down a slippery slope.  I already stated it concerns me. 

This is no different than the baker case.  You can support the businesses right to deny service to anyone for any reason, but also believe their behavior is unacceptable.  I don't understand why this is difficult for people to comprehend (I am not referring to you specifically). 

posted by like_that

I have seen and heard this argument, but that is trying to turn this into a black/white issue. There is a difference between believing in a private businesses rights to do what they want vs what you believe is acceptable behavior.  You can believe Facebook has every right to ban any one they want, and also believe it's terrible at the same time.  I think most of us who have the "businesses can do what they want" take also acknowledge these social media platforms are going down a slippery slope.  I already stated it concerns me. 

This is no different than the baker case.  You can support the businesses right to deny service to anyone for any reason, but also believe their behavior is unacceptable.  I don't understand why this is difficult for people to comprehend (I am not referring to you specifically). 

Bakers case is weak at best.  The cake making is not "free speech".  The baker is providing a paid service.  These social media sites are free and are only about speech.  No services are rendered.   

I would guess the supreme court would rule on the side of Jones......... social media sites offer a platform to "speech" and then selectively decide what is acceptable?  Nope....lose every time.  Nobosy has paid to be on Twitter, nobody has anything invested in it.  You cant offend others when they can selectively leave or they can choose to block your content.  

The baker didnt interfere with the ability for someone to just go somewhere else for their cake.  

posted by Spock

Bakers case is weak at best.  The cake making is not "free speech".  The baker is providing a paid service.  These social media sites are free and are only about speech.  No services are rendered.   

I would guess the supreme court would rule on the side of Jones......... social media sites offer a platform to "speech" and then selectively decide what is acceptable?  Nope....lose every time.  Nobosy has paid to be on Twitter, nobody has anything invested in it.  You cant offend others when they can selectively leave or they can choose to block your content.  

The baker didnt interfere with the ability for someone to just go somewhere else for their cake.  

ITT, CC continues to show he doesn't understand the difference between private and public owned entities.   Also, you fail to see how your logic contradicts your beliefs.

1. I would bet the SCOTUS would not vote in favor of Jones.  In fact it wouldn't even get to jones.  The pragerU case is a perfect example http://thehill.com/policy/technology/380455-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-alleging-google-censorship-of-conservative-youtube  

In her decision, Koh dismissed the PragerU’s free speech claims, arguing that Google is not subject to the First Amendment because it’s a private company and not a public institution.

“Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website,” Koh wrote"

2. Even if in the rare case the SCOTUS did rule in favor for Jones, it's incredible you don't see how concerning that could be.  You're giving the Government more power to make decisions for private businesses.  The GOP won't have full control of the Government forever (it will probably end in November).  I am willing to bet your tune would change if the roles were reversed (high traffic conservative site bans left leaning user and the Dems have full control).

Edit: I just realized you said nobody has invested in Twitter.  LOL, please just stop. 

posted by BoatShoes

An article on the topic that I enjoyed

I've seen a few wide right acolytes try to adopt that position on this.  Of course, they offer less than zero support to the notion that it was orchestrated collusion.

Also, its assertion that libertarians believe that something is bad only if the state does it is foundationless.  Libertarianism rails against the state because it is a self-claimed authority imposed by force.  Were a "government" of sorts to be replaced by large corporations or organizations that would, in turn, exert their authority by force, libertarianism would beat that drum the same way.  But that's not what's happening at present, which is why you don't hear many libertarians or AnCaps freaking out over the ills of a corporatist state.

There's no basis for saying the "social-media sphere is the new public sphere" other than the fact that it's where a lot of people choose to go for their information.  "Choose" is a key word there, and it's why there is still no basis for treating a private company as though it's public property.

His comparison to a state ban of books is ludicrous.  One was instigated and upheld with the threat of force by authorities who defended their position with that same force.  The social media companies are just refusing to let him play in their sandboxes, and thus far, there's no evidence that it was even a collusion in which they all decided it collectively (particularly since there are those who still haven't done so).

Finally, the comparison to "overlords," censorship, and blacklisting is blatant hyperbole.  All of those are acts of force, subjected on a subordinate, no matter where they venture.
 

posted by Spock

Bakers case is weak at best.  The cake making is not "free speech". 

Partaking of a cake made by a baker isn't free speech, either.  Your point?
 

posted by Spock

The baker is providing a paid service.  These social media sites are free and are only about speech.  No services are rendered. 

Wait ...

You're complaining that they're denying him their services, but then arguing that they don't offer a service ...

Are we being punk'd?  Where's Ashton?
 

posted by Spock

I would guess the supreme court would rule on the side of Jones......... social media sites offer a platform to "speech" and then selectively decide what is acceptable?  Nope....lose every time. 

LOL!  I can't say what the Supreme Court would do, since the Supreme Court is a composition of people, but that "platform" is still their property, which means it is privately owned by those who own the company.  Do you know what that means?  It means it's not "public" property.

I love how you say right here that they offer a platform ... something you even admit has utility ... and then you denied that they provide a service above.
 

posted by Spock

Nobosy has paid to be on Twitter, nobody has anything invested in it.  You cant offend others when they can selectively leave or they can choose to block your content.

First, as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Twitter actually hasn't ousted him yet.

Ironically, if someone DID pay to be on Twitter, they'd actually have more of a case to have a right to be on there, as it would indicate that they and Twitter entered into a contractual agreement.  But as you said ... that isn't happening here.

Of course you can still offend others when they can selectively leave or they can choose to block your content.  If someone's post about the virtues of large orgies came up, complete with graphic images as examples of course, it's naturally possible to be offended.
 

posted by Spock

The baker didnt interfere with the ability for someone to just go somewhere else for their cake.  

Facebook isn't interfering with your ability to go to YouTube.  YouTube isn't interfering with your ability to go to Facebook.  Neither are interfering with your ability to go to Twitter.  Twitter's not fucking with anybody yet (and is actually going out of the way to ignore ways in which Alex Jones has indeed violated their terms, which they effectively admitted in the last day or two).  Snapchat hasn't even weighed in on this as far as I know.

Facebook isn't preventing him from using social media.  They're preventing him from using their platform to do it.

Their platform.

Their servers.  Their site files.  Their design.  They own it every bit as much as you own your house, and they have every bit as much right to curate the content on their property as you do on yours.

This isn't hard, man.  Not unless you keep trying to force the round peg into the square hole.

posted by O-Trap

There's no basis for saying the "social-media sphere is the new public sphere" other than the fact that it's where a lot of people choose to go for their information.  "Choose" is a key word there, and it's why there is still no basis for treating a private company as though it's public property.

This is pretty much the argument for NN in a nutshell as well. 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/j5naby/microsoft-demands-that-gab-delete-post-calling-for-eradication-of-all-jews

Two things about this article.

1.) It clearly doesn't know what or who the "alt right" is. Apparently, anybody right of antifa is now alt right.

2.) Seems that it isn't always the company itself that is making these types of decisions. It can be the the owner/s of the server services, cloud or otherwise. In this case, it was 

“After an initial review, we have concluded that this content incites violence, is not protected by the First Amendment, and violates Microsoft Azure’s acceptable use policy,” a Microsoft spokesperson told Motherboard. 

Also, since the Alex Jones event, I see much talk of people asking that social media become public utilities. They claim it will stop political censorship. 

Will we ever see a bill introduced to make this move? If so, will it get signed (not necessarily by Trump or the next President)?

posted by CenterBHSFan

I see much talk of people asking that social media become public utilities. They claim it will stop political censorship. 

The irony of people trying to fix censorship by handing something over to the only entity legally able to use force ... which would make enforcing censorship much easier.

something like 45% of people get some or all of their news from some combination of these sites. They need to be governed as a utility. As asinine as what this man says is, he needs the right to say it and put it out there. 

I mean, if Elton John got kicked off of these platforms for soliciting donations to fund a wedding for the newly gay frogs that Alex Jones is always talking about, we'd be hearing a different rhetoric about this decision.