Alex Jones..

[Jono8]

Why is it is difficult to admit that it's political motivations at a work. It's so obvious. It's well know that these and most tech companies are extremely left leaning. It's the most basic logic.

What is wrong with that? The motivation to be against and opposed to lies, bullying, racism, hate speech, white supremacy, fascism, sexism, antisemitism etc is not a bad thing.

Someone right leaning is more than welcome to set up a Youtube/Facebook/Twitter rival if they want.

 

[Screeeech]

Ah I see, so you have a preconceived and assumed conclusion that these protests and marches are just riots. That would open up an entirely different can of worms for Youtube/Facebook etc. They are the ones to decide if a protest will end up in violence or not?

I agree with you though, if those accounts break their terms of service, they should be banned too.

If a group are using a platform to organise "events" which frequently turn violent and end up with riots and violence, (regardless of how they're labelled on the platform) then it only takes an ounce or two of due diligence to conclude what's going on, use of the platforms to organise and create disturbances and unrest... Again, groups like Antifa and BLM frequently make front page news globally with their protests, riots and disturbances - it's not exactly unheard of, for these groups to be smashing things up on the streets, just as it is the right wing neo nazis, however it always seems to be the latter that gets banned.

Yes it is interesting that well educated professionals who work for successful technology companies are more left leaning. Very.

But that doesn't make the application of the rules fair on society - it means they're enforcing their worldview on people, by applying their own narrative and shutting down anybody with an opposing view,

because it supposedly breaks Ts & Cs, this is evident when other groups which could be argued are just as bad but have a similar world view,​

are allowed continue.

Maybe it's true that lots of clever people work for the big tech companies, but does that mean society should be happy to hand the rules of censorship to an untouchable West Coast based elite, with no real say on the application of those rules - just because they all have an IQ over 9000, we should just leave everything to them right?

You brought up hate speeches. He was banned for hate speeches, even after warnings etc.

I don't agree with you that the litmus test for being banned from a privately owned social media platform is breaking the law. That is ridiculous.

I'll agree there's probably no perfect system at this point, maybe I'd agree that having nothing other than 'the law' by itself wouldn't be completely ideal, but in my opinion it would be a decent starting point, because it is to a degree impartial - and the lawmakers themselves [the government] are accountable to the people, the tech companies can pretty much do as they please with their private infrastructure and are largely accountable to nobody, they can enforce any rules they like, at any time - to suit any narrative they please, maybe they even have political agendas? who knows.

You are disingenuously downplaying how bad Alex Jones actually is. Without a shadow of a doubt, I think he would be banned from here if he continually posted the same things that he has done in the past. Perhaps a mod could settle this for us?

I think Alex Jones is absolutely awful - I'm not downplaying him at all, I think he's one of the worst people I've ever seen in a video - however in the final analysis, I'd rather be left to make my own mind up on him, than San Jose make it up for me, or force me to go trawling through some hell-hole of maniac websites to find his content, because I want to have a good laugh.

I think, that if someone came in here (as they have done before) and started talking about conspiracy theories, or how Sandy Hook was fake or whatever, the thread would most likely just get locked because it would descend into utter chaos and toxicity on all sides. I could also understand it because OCUK is a small business that relies on customers buying computer stuff, I doubt they'd want their shop forum having threads full of utter chaos, because that could harm their business.

That would obviously be censorship, but it could perhaps be argued that it's more a method of protection for itself, to prevent things being said on it's web forum from hurting its sales, because it's primary reason for existence is to sell computer hardware, not provide a social media platform.

There's a gulf of difference between a company like OCUK who sells computer hardware with an internet forum of 130k members, to a global social media company, which exists to provide a platform, with 2-3 billion users that houses entire political campaigns, global news media, celebrity stuff, everything under the sun from all walks of life, to almost everybody - the difference is incomparable, which is why I think comparing OCUK to the large social media companies, as totally facile, and not really helpful in either side of the debate.​

 

[VincentHanna]

What is wrong with that? The motivation to be against and opposed to lies, bullying, racism, hate speech, white supremacy, fascism, sexism, antisemitism etc is not a bad thing.

Because what they call hate speech, racism etc, Jsmoke calls normal?

 

[jsmoke]

Because what they call hate speech, racism etc, Jsmoke calls normal?

Well not really actually, but I wouldn't say AJ was particularly hate speech. I call hate speech football fans of the 80's or 90's and probably still the same today, I wouldn't know. That hardcore angry bitter so-called working class type, bit Tommy Robinson sort.

It's the motivation behind the speech. Ideally AJ wouldn't need to talk the way he does I agree, calling people monsters, satanic, and smelling of sulphur etc.

I guess there are different types of hate as there are different types of jealousy, fear or anger.

 

[JRS]

I think Alex Jones is absolutely awful - I'm not downplaying him at all, I think he's one of the worst people I've ever seen in a video - however in the final analysis, I'd rather be left to make my own mind up on him, than San Jose make it up for me, or force me to go trawling through some hell-hole of maniac websites to find his content, because I want to have a good laugh.

So it's sheer laziness then. You can't be bothered to have to navigate to InfoWars.com when you're already on YT. Excellent, glad we cleared that one up.

 

[Jono8]

If a group are using a platform to organise "events" which frequently turn violent and end up with riots and violence, (regardless of how they're labelled on the platform) then it only takes an ounce or two of due diligence to conclude what's going on, use of the platforms to organise and create disturbances and unrest... Again, groups like Antifa and BLM frequently make front page news globally with their protests, riots and disturbances - it's not exactly unheard of, for these groups to be smashing things up on the streets, just as it is the right wing neo nazis, however it always seems to be the latter that gets banned.

That still opens up an even bigger can of worms though as then the companies themselves have to decide on whether a march or protest that is being organised will become violent or has definite violent intent. The difficulty also, is that the described intention is often ultimately noble. They are against racism, white supremacy, fascism, sexism, antisemitism etc. All of which are demonstrably bad things. I don't agree that anything should be solved with violence, but that leaves it up to the company themselves to work out whether there is true intent to cause and incite violence.

But that doesn't make the application of the rules fair on society - it means they're enforcing their worldview on people, by applying their own narrative and shutting down anybody with an opposing view, because it supposedly breaks Ts & Cs, this is evident when other groups which could be argued are just as bad but have a similar world view

are allowed continue.

What do you mean their own narrative? As it is their own company, they can apply their own "narrative" as much as they want to their own platform. You seem very confused. You seem to be genuinely advocating for there to be some government rule to force social media companies to host anything and everyone and not be allowed to ban people who violate their terms of service. That truly would be a violation of their own free speech and rights..

You also have to remember that the "narrative" is set against lies, bullying, racism, hate speech, white supremacy, fascism, sexism, antisemitism etc. This is a good thing.

Maybe it's true that lots of clever people work for the big tech companies, but does that mean society should be happy to hand the rules of censorship to an untouchable West Coast based elite, with no real say on the application of those rules - just because they all have an IQ over 9000, we should just leave everything to them right?

Given the choice, I would prefer for us to be governed by intelligent and well educated people, yes.

I'll agree there's probably no perfect system at this point, maybe I'd agree that having nothing other than 'the law' by itself wouldn't be completely ideal, but in my opinion it would be a decent starting point, because it is to a degree impartial - and the lawmakers themselves [the government] are accountable to the people, the tech companies can pretty much do as they please with their private infrastructure and are largely accountable to nobody, they can enforce any rules they like, at any time - to suit any narrative they please, maybe they even have political agendas? who knows.



I think Alex Jones is absolutely awful - I'm not downplaying him at all, I think he's one of the worst people I've ever seen in a video - however in the final analysis, I'd rather be left to make my own mind up on him, than San Jose make it up for me, or force me to go trawling through some hell-hole of maniac websites to find his content, because I want to have a good laugh.

I think, that if someone came in here (as they have done before) and started talking about conspiracy theories, or how Sandy Hook was fake or whatever, the thread would most likely just get locked because it would descend into utter chaos and toxicity on all sides. I could also understand it because OCUK is a small business that relies on customers buying computer stuff, I doubt they'd want their shop forum having threads full of utter chaos, because that could harm their business.

That would obviously be censorship, but there's a gulf of difference between a company like OCUK who sells computer hardware with an internet forum of 130k members, to a global social media platform with 2-3 billion users that houses entire political campaigns, global news media, celebrity stuff, everything under the sun from all walks of life, to almost everybody - the difference is incomparable, which is why I think comparing OCUK to the large social media companies, as totally facile, and not really helpful in either side of the debate.

Ultimately (and i point to Werewolf's insightful post about it again), they are comparable because a large part of the decisions are based on making money. Hate speech and racism etc are fortunately not popular and will potentially affect advertising revenue for them. The same way it would likely affect OCUK's sales if this forum was associated with that sort of thing.


What is your ultimate proposal to combat this? Do you think that by law, private companies or individuals with social media websites should be forced to host anything, as long as it is within the law? Other than being obviously discriminatory against someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc, surely a business should be free to operate how it pleases within the law?

 

[jsmoke]

Here's a Christian explanation of free speech.

https://www.gotquestions.org/freedom-of-speech.html

 

[DreadNiK]

I just discovered that a left-leaning youtuber I like, cultofdusty, has been banned from several platforms, because the alt-right who he upsets have been trawling through his posting history and reporting anything remotely questionable. apparently he was banned from twitter for referring to someone as a cowardly bitch.

now, I don't think they should have banned him and don't think they can justify it within their own Ts&Cs like they can with far more egregious violators, but they are perfectly within their rights to do so...

 

[DreadNiK]

Here's a Christian explanation of free speech.

https://www.gotquestions.org/freedom-of-speech.html

why would anyone care what a religion that gave rise to the inquisition and witch burning has to say about free speech?

 

[Jono8]

I just discovered that a left-leaning youtube I like, cultofdusty, has been banned from several platforms, because the alt-right who he upsets have been trawling through his posting history and reporting anything remotely questionable. apparently he was banned from twitter for referring to someone as a cowardly bitch.

now, I don't think they should have banned him and don't think they can justify it within their own Ts&Cs like they can with far more egregious violators, but they are perfectly within their rights to do so...

But people in this thread keep telling us they are completely biased and only ban right wing who break their terms?

 

[DreadNiK]

surely not? who would claim such a thing?

Why is it is difficult to admit that it's political motivations at a work. It's so obvious. It's well know that these and most tech companies are extremely left leaning. It's the most basic logic.

 

[Screeeech]

That still opens up an even bigger can of worms though as then the companies themselves have to decide on whether a march or protest that is being organised will become violent or has definite violent intent. The difficulty also, is that the described intention is often ultimately noble. They are against racism, white supremacy, fascism, sexism, antisemitism etc. All of which are demonstrably bad things. I don't agree that anything should be solved with violence, but that leaves it up to the company themselves to work out whether there is true intent to cause and incite violence.

I think you're being naive if you think Antifa are truly against all of those things, some of them are - some of them just want to smash things up and have a good old riot. As for decision making - if the US authorities have labelled them as a terrorist organisation - as far as I'm concerned, the decision has been made already.

​

What do you mean their own narrative? As it is their own company, they can apply their own "narrative" as much as they want to their own platform. You seem very confused. You seem to be genuinely advocating for there to be some government rule to force social media companies to host anything and everyone and not be allowed to ban people who violate their terms of service. That truly would be a violation of their own free speech and rights..

You also have to remember that the "narrative" is set against lies, bullying, racism, hate speech, white supremacy, fascism, sexism, antisemitism etc. This is a good thing.

By narrative, I mean a hard left worldview.

Of course, it's their own company - and yes, they can apply their own narrative as much as they want on their own platform, I'm not talking about anybody being forced into doing anything, I just think that a platform such as Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc - should attempt to be as neutral as possible, and it is in fact a mistake for them to impose Ts & Cs which favour any specific narrative or worldview, because then it's no longer a neutral platform, and then the Ts & Cs won't be applied fairly to everyone, if you start to ban one group of people - you have to go after all of them, it can't be done properly at Facebook scale.

Simply saying; "They're against lies, bullying, racism, hate speech, white supremacy, so we should just let them swing the hammer at anybody who's part of those groups" is problematic, because as soon as someone from Antifa or Blacklivesmatter starts engaging in hate speech or bullying, or even arguably racism (BLM) - they get let off scot free, because the people swinging the ban hammer aren't applying the rules in a uniform manner, their skewed towards their own prejudice.​

Given the choice, I would prefer for us to be governed by intelligent and well educated people, yes.

Intelligent and well educated people are one thing, but then they come from a society which is so totally backward and broken (American society) I'd question a lot of the policies and practises which these companies may implement in their platforms.

Like Google Safesearch - with it turned on, you can find videos of people being killed, islamic state beheading people, murdering, killing, hatred - yet not a single bare breast or backside,

All developed by super clever people, with totally backward and broken views, it's nonsense - yet it's the same for everyone if you turn it on.

​

Ultimately (and i point to Werewolf's insightful post about it again), they are comparable because a large part of the decisions are based on making money. Hate speech and racism etc is fortunately not popular and will potentially affect advertising revenue form them. The same way it would likely affect OCUK's sales if this forum was associated with that sort of thing.


What is your ultimate proposal to combat this? Do you think that by law, private companies or individuals with social media websites should be forced to host anything, as long as it is within the law?

I don't think anybody should be forced to do anything, instead people using these global social media platforms, should learn to deal with things they find offensive without relying on some sort of higher authority to sanitise everything for them - look the other way, turn it off, unsubscribe, change the channel, don't click on it, or just deal with it.

It reminds me of that episode of Black Mirror, (Arkangel) where a child gets fitted with an implant, which can filter out dangerous, disturbing or upsetting images from their vision or sound in real life - which at first seems great, but ultimately ends up crippling her and becomes a massive problem, because she's no longer able to make her own mind up about anything - it's all being done by a third party.

 

[Screeeech]

I just discovered that a left-leaning youtuber I like, cultofdusty, has been banned from several platforms, because the alt-right who he upsets have been trawling through his posting history and reporting anything remotely questionable. apparently he was banned from twitter for referring to someone as a cowardly bitch.

now, I don't think they should have banned him and don't think they can justify it within their own Ts&Cs like they can with far more egregious violators, but they are perfectly within their rights to do so...

To be fair Twitter is really, really weird when it comes to accounts being suspended, a friend of mine had their account suspended for calling someone a **** when they smashed up a new iPhone for fun with a hammer, yet other people seem to post all manner of horror without any repercussions at all.

 

[jsmoke]

why would anyone care what a religion that gave rise to the inquisition and witch burning has to say about free speech?

Well the original Church became so corrupted with paganism and State control that it essentially morphed into a State authority of the Roman Empire. The original principles of the inquisitions were to excommunicate heretics which over the centuries turned into brutalising heretics as more and more false teachers got into powerful positions.

https://www.gotquestions.org/history-Christianity.html

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/inquisitions.html

 

[StriderX]

It reminds me of that episode of Black Mirror, (Arkangel) where a child gets fitted with an implant, which can filter out dangerous, disturbing or upsetting images from their vision or sound in real life - which at first seems great, but ultimately ends up crippling her and becomes a massive problem, because she's no longer able to make her own mind up about anything - it's all being done by a third party.

Lol, you just described a helicopter parent, they already exist without the need for an invasive implant.

 

[DreadNiK]

Well the original Church became so corrupted with paganism and State control that it essentially morphed into a State authority of the Roman Empire. The original principles of the inquisitions were to excommunicate heretics which over the centuries turned into brutalising heretics as more and more false teachers got into powerful positions.

https://www.gotquestions.org/history-Christianity.html

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/inquisitions.html

not sure how that answers my question, but then it was a bit rhetorical anyway...

I think as long as they have a concept of 'heresy' or 'blasphemy' then religions are pretty much disqualified from a rational discussion of free speech. christianity is certainly a lot further along than some other religions with respect to freedom of speech, though

 

[DreadNiK]

To be fair Twitter is really, really weird when it comes to accounts being suspended, a friend of mine had their account suspended for calling someone a **** when they smashed up a new iPhone for fun with a hammer, yet other people seem to post all manner of horror without any repercussions at all.

I'm guessing it depends on whether (and possibly how much/often and mayyybe by whom [at least maybe those who spam reports get disregarded or something]) you actually get reported.

Also, I do find it amusing to report people on facebook (especially my friends) if they post a dodgy photo or something, I find it pretty hilarious if they get banned/suspended

 

[Jono8]

I think you're being naive if you think Antifa are truly against all of those things, some of them are - some of them just want to smash things up and have a good old riot. As for decision making - if the US authorities have labelled them as a terrorist organisation - as far as I'm concerned, the decision has been made already.

​

By narrative, I mean a hard left worldview.

Of course, it's their own company - and yes, they can apply their own narrative as much as they want on their own platform, I'm not talking about anybody being forced into doing anything, I just think that a platform such as Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc - should attempt to be as neutral as possible, and it is in fact a mistake for them to impose Ts & Cs which favour any specific narrative or worldview, because then it's no longer a neutral platform, and then the Ts & Cs won't be applied fairly to everyone, if you start to ban one group of people - you have to go after all of them, it can't be done properly at Facebook scale.

Simply saying; "They're against lies, bullying, racism, hate speech, white supremacy, so we should just let them swing the hammer at anybody who's part of those groups" is problematic, because as soon as someone from Antifa or Blacklivesmatter starts engaging in hate speech or bullying, or even arguably racism (BLM) - they get let off scot free, because the people swinging the ban hammer aren't applying the rules in a uniform manner, their skewed towards their own prejudice.​

Intelligent and well educated people are one thing, but then they come from a society which is so totally backward and broken (American society) I'd question a lot of the policies and practises which these companies may implement in their platforms.

Like Google Safesearch - with it turned on, you can find videos of people being killed, islamic state beheading people, murdering, killing, hatred - yet not a single bare breast or backside,

All developed by super clever people, with totally backward and broken views, it's nonsense - yet it's the same for everyone if you turn it on.

​

I don't think anybody should be forced to do anything, instead people using these global social media platforms, should learn to deal with things they find offensive without relying on some sort of higher authority to sanitise everything for them - look the other way, turn it off, unsubscribe, change the channel, don't click on it, or just deal with it.

It reminds me of that episode of Black Mirror, (Arkangel) where a child gets fitted with an implant, which can filter out dangerous, disturbing or upsetting images from their vision or sound in real life - which at first seems great, but ultimately ends up crippling her and becomes a massive problem, because she's no longer able to make her own mind up about anything - it's all being done by a third party.

But this is all just your perception of it. You seem to claim bias without actually proving it. As someone pointed out in this thread a few posts ago a left leaning Youtube was banned for breaking their terms of service also. Furthermore, even if there was bias, it doesn't even matter because they can decide who uses their services and what they don't want posted on their website.

Once again with this "instead people using these global social media platforms, should learn to deal with things they find offensive without relying on some sort of higher authority to sanitise everything for them -" you have seemingly overlooked the money making aspect of their business. Many of the terms in question will be in there because to have that sort of thing on the platform harms advertising revenue. Many companies won't want their products associated with anything to do with him so why should they pay to host his videos and views if they arent getting any money in return from advertising? Also, so what if Facebook and Youtube want to make a platform where people don't have to put up with Alex Jones' nonsense? Alex Jones isnt banned from the internet or banned from talking. You simply can't see his stuff on certain websites. Seriously, what is the big deal? Youtube and Facebook do not want to be associated with him and that is that.

Alex Jones has repeatedly and without question violated their terms of service. The reason he has most likely been singled out, is that he is more well known than most, so naturally complaints about his violations of the terms of service will be larger. He has therefore been highlighted as an abuser of said terms more frequently and so obviously Facebook/Youtube etc have taken action.

 

[DreadNiK]

But this is all just your perception of it. You seem to claim bias without actually proving it. As someone pointed out in this thread a few posts ago a left leaning Youtuber was banned for breaking their terms of service also.

sorry just to be clear, he wasn't banned from youtube (thankfully), he was banned from twitter and facebook (and maybe some others)

 

[Jono8]

Lol, you just described a helicopter parent, they already exist without the need for an invasive implant.

Furthermore, it is completely untrue and a ridiculous comparison. No one is forcing anyone to use Youtube or Facebook etc.

People are still free to listen to Alex Jones if they so wish.