nope, you're wrong.
Alex Jones..
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
nope, you're wrong.
Allowing social media companies to police their platforms freely might be able to combat this sort of interference. Forcing platforms to host everything wont
Isn't it? Banging on about freedom of speech and 1984 but also thinks these private platforms should be forced by the government to host this politically toxic content
Let me get this straight you believe that the companies have enough power to sway an election with the content on their platform, but not enough to make 1984 a reality?
Thanks for adding so much to the discussion
Soldato
Hey Avenged. It depends on policing and how what is effectively a monopoly can silence dissenting voices.
Isn't it? Banging on about freedom of speech and 1984 but also thinks these private platforms should be forced by the government to host this politically toxic content
The question then becomes, is YouTube a public platform? The answer isn't a simple one. Even some mundane channels get reported/flagged for their content (its politically right leaning - and not even entirely but it may host a viewpoint considered "right").
Platforms like twitter are suspending accounts. That is the only thing we can say with 100% certainty. We can say with 99% certainty that "prominent" conservatives are having their accounts shadow-banned (as admitted by technical staff at Twitter under the PV videos).
Has the left now gone too far (and it is the political left we are now addressing). My guess is yes.
Soldato
Chuk_Chuk - so the last time I checked it was legal to swear in conversations out in the real world, but OcUK will suspend you (i.e. de-platform you) from here for swearing. Do you therefore think that OcUK should allow posters here to swear with impunity since it's not illegal to do so? Or should they continue to de-platform people who break the rules?
Believe me, there are plenty of dumb folk on the left (authoritarian left) as well that irritate in equal measure, i'm really ******* tired of people telling me what i can and can't do regardless of where they stand.
yes, yes it is. the answer is no. why is this so hard to grasp? oh wait, because you have an agenda and don't actually care about facts.
Isn't it? Banging on about freedom of speech and 1984 but also thinks these private platforms should be forced by the government to host this politically toxic content
It's just twaddle. The amount of people that quote that book at me every time a discussion like this comes up has given me a weird disdain for it.
National Socialism was a cruel and evil ideology, your attempts to label your fellow citizens as Nazi's simply for wanting to exist as an independent state with sensible border controls is ignorant and insulting and says more about you than it does them.
Oh please, your attempts to ignore it's rise is FAR worse. I sincerely hope you don't have any people close to you that are not born naturally "British" in the Christian-"patriot" view.
As they wont be welcome for much longer in your insular hatred filled future of an island.
Soldato
So no law then. Ok
I think taking away the ability to police their own content and forcing them to host anyone and everyone will bring us closer to that reality.
Also, banging on about 1984 and using it as a crutch to your argument is not making you very convincing. The book makes for an alright read but using it as a justification to your point is plenty flawed and boring. It really is no different to a priest banging on about something because the bible or a gun nut banging on about the second amendment. It's pretty numbing to discuss something with so little substance.
^
This guy gets it
I think if they're going to provide a platform for everybody, then yes - provided those videos don't break the law, then I don't see why Youtube should become the arbiter of what people can see or hear. If people use the platform - they should have the ability to make up their own minds. If it's nasty or offensive - turn it off.
It's a strange culture we're headed for, where we seem incapable of ignoring, or turning away from things we don't like - instead we have to go after them and shut them down and attempt to silence things we don't agree with, it seems over reactive.
Soldato
Isn't it? Banging on about freedom of speech and 1984 but also thinks these private platforms should be forced by the government to host this politically toxic content
So you are quite happy for a "private platforms" to have zero accountability to its users? That they can just cut you off without warning?
These social media platforms are in collusion with the governments. Even today we see Google sucking up to the Chinese government showing them how much control they have. You seem to think these big companies are separate from politics, even though we know how much influence they have on each other.
If you go along with the simplistic thought that private companies can discriminate against you (even when you haven't broken their terms of service), and you don't see the element of 1984 there then you don't see the bigger picture.
As I've said in another post, if BT (or any other phone provider) said, "we don't like what you've been posting on social media, we're going to withdraw service" then don't come moaning saying how unfair it is that you've been cut off as you support it.
Hes "used" to have some decent things to say and was relativly interesting to watch but he seems to have completly lost his mind... last time i caught a glimpse of him he was sitting with an actual tinfoil hat on his head ranting about something , swearing and then saying sorry and then swearing again lol
The principle difference being that social media platforms have struck Jones off because of the despicable things he's said and done over a sustained period of time, as apposed to writing a poem or expressing feelings for another person...
It's almost as though these things are hellishly complicated and subjective and almost impossible to enshrine in law or terms of service agreements. Who new human nature was so complicated...
It's almost as though these things are hellishly complicated and subjective and almost impossible to enshrine in law or terms of service agreements. Who new human nature was so complicated...
Soldato
It seems to be the era of the bigot who can't stand other peoples opinions. This mentality seems to have filled the social media ceo's who now can't be trusted to hold a neutral platform.
In the old days when newspapers were the only social media of that day, right wing media would employ some left wing journalists and vice versa. This was to express all views and keep both the left and right in check.
These days the intolerance of other peoples ideas is creating a very authoritarian atmosphere, which is encouraged by some elements of society. The backlash to this is electing or supporting anyone who takes this issue on, which sometimes means the extreme elements of politics get elected. This will keep happening until people become more tolerant.
They did warn him, in the T&C's, the T&C's are the platforms accountability. If you mean by messages and emails to inform him of his dastardly ways, i'm sure they did as well, but he wont show them to people.
Soldato
And if you're okay with OcUK's stance on swearing but not okay with YT's stance on posting utter trash that precious few advertisers¹ want to be within nine miles of, where d'you draw that particular line?
¹ - advertising being the thing that keeps the lights on at YT after all...
advertisers very much care where their ads are seen, they literally spend millions on data analysts and advertising managers to make sure their brand is seen in places they want it to be seen, Try putting up a billboard for the Sun in the Liverpool city centre or on the LFC website and see how long it lasts.
it must be nice to live in an imaginary world and just make up whatever crap you like that fits your pov