Free speech.

[husaberg]

The question is irrelevant.

If you are doing 65 in a 50 zone, do you have to do it 3 times before the Copper gives you a ticket?


Your example is poor, would your claiming that others are speeding result in getting you getting out of the a ticket........
The questions entirely relevant,your unwillingness to answer it shows your point that in your opinion other are being treated differently is apparently unfounded


Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban, so where is the bans for the people on that list?
And that's the bit you have to contend with: They have a self-declared left wing bias. They are happy to ban unsavory right-wing characters and reluctant to ban unsavory left-wing characters.

This means that the ToS is not an equal set of rules, to be applied without prejudice - but a thin justification for them to get rid of people they don't like. That last point is rather salient because that is now the actions of an editorial board and if Twitter is making editorial decisions, then they can be held accountable for the content on their platform.


Can you categorically attest with 100% accuracy that others have had the same number of complaints and warnings about their behavior and breached the site rules as Alex jones appears to have.
If you cant do this you cant compare them and say one is being treated differently.

[FJRider]

Can you point to where in the Terms of Service it defines the extent needed to have ones account terminated?

You can't?

People seldom read the fine print before they "Click" ... I agree. Thus if you get (your account) terminated ... their end decision is your problem. No comeback ... because you agreed to their conditions.


Well, that would mean that it's solely up to the company to use their disgression which is informed by their self-declared biases.

I digress ... but I think the word you need is discretion ... :whistle: but we know big words confuse you ... ;)

[FJRider]

... If you are doing 65 in a 50 zone, do you have to do it 3 times before the Copper gives you a ticket?

That is entirely up to the "Copper's" Discretion ... and is written in legislation as such.

As such ... your question is irrelevant ...

[TheDemonLord]

Your example is poor your are pointing out that others are speeding expecting that it will get you off not getting a ticket........
The questions entirely relevant,your unwillingness to answer it shows your point that in your opinion other are being treated differently is apparently unfounded

Not at all,

The expectation is that if a copper pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket, he'll also give someone like yourself a ticket in the same scenario.

If however, the copper only gives certain group(s) tickets, you'd call into question the application of the rules...

[husaberg]

Not at all,

The expectation is that if a copper pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket, he'll also give someone like yourself a ticket in the same scenario.

If however, the copper only gives certain group(s) tickets, you'd call into question the application of the rules...
No, exactly what you are offering is Alex jones should not have been banned as others are doing stuff........
Just as it would be irrelevant if you offered it as an excuse to why you should get a ticket.
Its irrelevant to Jones being banned.

Which is well with in the rights of the site owners to do so anyway. Its their site they can do what ever they wish.

The copper would be to busy with your excuses to give anyone else a ticket anyway.




Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban, so where is the bans for the people on that list?
And that's the bit you have to contend with: They have a self-declared left wing bias. They are happy to ban unsavory right-wing characters and reluctant to ban unsavory left-wing characters.

This means that the ToS is not an equal set of rules, to be applied without prejudice - but a thin justification for them to get rid of people they don't like. That last point is rather salient because that is now the actions of an editorial board and if Twitter is making editorial decisions, then they can be held accountable for the content on their platform.


As for the terms of service - I see Sarah Jeong still has her Twitter account....
That argument only holds up if the Terms of Use are applied equally, which they clearly aren't.



Twitter has openly vowed to "Ban the Nazis" - yet allows Antifa members (a domestic Terrorist group) to remain on the platform.
If Alex Jones has breached the Terms of Use, then so has Sarah Jeong - this is not an opinion, but an objective fact.
Alex gets banned, Sarah does not.
Why?
Because Sarah has the "correct" Politics and Alex does not.


So why haven't any of those accounts on that link been banned?
and therein lies the issue.
I can point to multiple left wing verified accounts, with tweets that are clearly as much a breach of the ToS that Alex Jones is claimed to have made - and yet... they are all still active...
So why is that? And before you ask, yes Twitter has been made aware of those accounts.


Way to dodge the point - which is that those on that list I've posted are clearly in breach of the ToS, yet their accounts are still active and verified.
Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban, so where is the bans for the people on that list?
And that's the bit you have to contend with: They have a self-declared left wing bias. They are happy to ban unsavory right-wing characters and reluctant to ban unsavory left-wing characters.
This means that the ToS is not an equal set of rules, to be applied without prejudice - but a thin justification for them to get rid of people they don't like. That last point is rather salient because that is now the actions of an editorial board and if Twitter is making editorial decisions, then they can be held accountable for the content on their platform.



Can you categorically attest with 100% accuracy that others have had the same number of complaints and warnings about their behavior and breached the site rules as Alex jones appears to have?
If you cant do this you cant compare them and say one is being treated differently

[TheDemonLord]

No, exactly what you are offering is Alex jones should not have been banned as others are doing stuff........

No, that's not what I've said at all.

That's a complete strawman.

[husaberg]

No, that's not what I've said at all.

That's a complete strawman.
No what you are offering is a strawman
You have offered no defense for Jones other than just keep going on others have done the same.


In a statement on the decision to remove Jones’s content from its site, Facebook said that the company was not doing so because Jones was a conspiracy theorist, but because he was “glorifying violence” and “using dehumanizing language” against minorities:

As a result of reports we received, last week, we removed four videos on four Facebook Pages for violating our hate speech and bullying policies. These pages were the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the InfoWars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page. In addition, one of the admins of these Pages – Alex Jones – was placed in a 30-day block for his role in posting violating content to these Pages.

Since then, more content from the same Pages has been reported to us — upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies... While much of the discussion around Infowars has been related to false news, which is a serious issue that we are working to address by demoting links marked wrong by fact checkers and suggesting additional content, none of the violations that spurred today’s removals were related to this.

More recently, Jones has been embroiled in a series of lawsuits filed by people about whom he has made repeated false assertions, like Marcel Fontaine: Infowars declared him to be the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (despite the fact that Fontaine had never even visited the state of Florida). There’s also Leonard Pozner, the father of a Sandy Hook victim, Noah Pozner, whose family has endured endless harassment by followers of Jones who believe that Pozner’s son never existed.
To be clear, this isn’t the first time Jones has been sued for making outrageous false statements. But now, supporters of his victims have started going after not just Jones but the platforms that host him and broadcast his messages — like Facebook.

youtube

Videos that incite others to commit acts of violence are strictly prohibited from YouTube. If your video asks others to commit an act of violence or threatens people with serious acts of violence, it will be removed from the site.

Terrorist content
We do not permit terrorist organizations to use YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment. YouTube also strictly prohibits content related to terrorism, such as content that promotes terrorist acts, incites violence, or celebrates terrorist attacks.
If posting content related to terrorism for an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic purpose, be mindful to provide enough information so viewers understand the context. Graphic or controversial footage may be subject to age-restrictions or a warning screen.

Hate speech policy
We encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view, but we don't permit hate speech.

Hate speech refers to content that promotes violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as:

race or ethnic origin
religion
disability
gender
age
veteran status
sexual orientation/gender identity
There is a fine line between what is and what is not considered to be hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but if the primary purpose of the content is to incite hatred against a group of people solely based on their ethnicity, or if the content promotes violence based on any of these core attributes, like religion, it violates our policy.

Harassment and cyberbullying policy
We want you to use YouTube without fear of being subjected to malicious harassment. In cases where harassment crosses the line into a malicious attack it can be reported and will be removed. In other cases, users may be mildly annoying or petty and should simply be ignored.
Harassment may include :
Abusive videos, comments, messages
Revealing someone’s personal information, including sensitive personally identifiable information such as social security numbers, passport numbers, or bank account numbers.
Maliciously recording someone without their consent
Deliberately posting content in order to humiliate someone
Making hurtful and negative comments/videos about another person
Unwanted sexualization, which encompasses sexual harassment or sexual bullying in any form
Incitement to harass other users or creators

Policy on threats
The YouTube community is important to us and we want to see it flourish. To ensure that this is possible, content that makes threats of serious physical harm against a specific individual or defined group of individuals will be removed.
People who threaten others may receive a strike on their account and their account may be terminated.

Facebook

2. Account suspension or termination
We want Facebook to be a place where people feel welcome and safe to express themselves and share their thoughts and ideas.
If we determine that you have breached our terms or policies, we may take action against your account to protect our community and services, including by suspending access to your account or disabling it. We may also suspend or disable your account if you create risk or legal exposure for us or when we are permitted or required to do so by law.


Combat harmful conduct, and protect and support our community:
People will only build community on Facebook if they feel safe. We employ dedicated teams around the world and develop advanced technical systems to detect misuse of our Products, harmful conduct towards others and situations where we may be able to help support or protect our community. If we learn of content or conduct like this, we will take appropriate action – for example, offering help, removing content, blocking access to certain features, disabling an account or contacting law enforcement.


Do not post:
Statements of intent, calls to action or advocation for the following:
Acts of physical harm committed against people
Acts of physical harm committed against animals except in cases of hunting, fishing, religious sacrifice or food preparation/processing
Poaching or selling endangered species and their parts
Staged animal vs animal fights
Theft
Vandalism/property damage
Fraud
Arranged marriages with refugees or internally displaced persons
Trafficking as referenced in Section 2
Sexual violence or sexual exploitation, including sexual assault, as referenced in Section 7 and Section 8


18. False news
Policy rationale
Reducing the spread of false news on Facebook is a responsibility that we take seriously. We also recognise that this is a challenging and sensitive issue. We want to help people stay informed without stifling productive public discourse. There is also a fine line between false news and satire or opinion. For these reasons, we don't remove false news from Facebook, but instead significantly reduce its distribution by showing it lower in the News Feed.
We are working to build a more informed community and reduce the spread of false news in a number of different ways, namely by
Disrupting economic incentives for people, Pages and domains that propagate misinformation
Using various signals, including feedback from our community, to inform a machine learning model that predicts which stories may be false
Reducing the distribution of content rated as false by independent third-party fact-checkers
Empowering people to decide for themselves what to read, trust and share by informing them with more context and promoting news literacy
Collaborating with academics and other organisations to help solve this challenging issue

[TheDemonLord]

No what you are offering is a strawman
You have offered no defense for Jones other than just keep going on others have done the same.


So I'm strawmanning myself - that's a new one....

The defense of Jones was pointing out that the decision to ban him will make him a Martyr of sorts, by providing both his ardent followers and fringe audience an implicit proof to his claims.

My secondary point is not in defense of Jones - but to point out that these rules aren't applied evenly, It's one rule if you are right wing and say something critical about a group of people who've just run over a prisoner with a tank as a means of public execution vs if you are Left Wing and make openly racist statements about White people (see Candice Owens vs Sarah Jeong).

From there flows the discussion as to whether (as a platform open which open, public, political debate is taking place) there needs to be protections.

For my answer there - I'm not sure. The best solution would be for these companies to redress their internal political biases and apply their ruleset fairly and without bias.

[husaberg]

So I'm strawmanning myself - that's a new one....

The defense of Jones was pointing out that the decision to ban him will make him a Martyr of sorts, by providing both his ardent followers and fringe audience an implicit proof to his claims.

My secondary point is not in defense of Jones - but to point out that these rules aren't applied evenly, It's one rule if you are right wing and say something critical about a group of people who've just run over a prisoner with a tank as a means of public execution vs if you are Left Wing and make openly racist statements about White people (see Candice Owens vs Sarah Jeong).

From there flows the discussion as to whether (as a platform open which open, public, political debate is taking place) there needs to be protections.

For my answer there - I'm not sure. The best solution would be for these companies to redress their internal political biases and apply their ruleset fairly and without bias.

Do you not understand, that the Guilt of Alex Jones in breaking site rules, has nothing to do with what others have done or may not have done. So going on and on about it gets you nowhere. This opinion of yours is irrelevant.
All of these companies ie twitter, Youtube, Facebook are private companies. They can ban anyone they wish to, for what ever reason they wish. Its their right. Its their site.
Your feelings about it are also completely irrelevant.
These organisations have a right and a obligation to shield themselves from potential laws suits and they do this by determining what content is appropriate or not on their own sites. They are a business that sells add spaces.
So therefor the content that is hosted on their sites is a reflection on them and their ability to conduct business.
They dont care about your individual opinion nor should they, they will do what they want which is whats in the best interest of their shareholders, at the moment is distancing themselves away from a nutjob Alex Jones and his cult of idiots. They balance that with the money they could make out of having him hosted on their sites
Lastly who cares what Jones followers think about banning him, they are conspiracy theorists and nutjobs.

[Graystone]

Can you point to where in the Terms of Service it defines the extent needed to have ones account terminated?

You can't?

Well, that would mean that it's solely up to the company to use their disgression which is informed by their self-declared biases.

I'll again point you to things like this: https://twitter.com/antifachecker?lang=en

Now compare this - Alex Jones, for all his blow hard antics - was he ever declared a Domestic Terrorist organization?

Cause regardless of whatever backflips you are attempting to pull, I'm pretty sure that being part of a Terrorist group would be against the ToS...

Can you point to the reasons why his account was terminated? It's a rather simple question...

[Katman]

Do you not understand, that the Guilt of Alex Jones in breaking site rules, has nothing to do with what others have done or may not have done.

You're very particular about site rules, aren't you?

Particularly when they can be used in an attempt to silence an opinion you don't like.

[Ocean1]

Can you point to the reasons why his account was terminated? It's a rather simple question...

You're suggesting the rules are applied with bias AND not completely transparent?

To be fair, historically the first has usually required the second.

[TheDemonLord]

Can you point to the reasons why his account was terminated? It's a rather simple question...

It's also a completely irrelevant question.

[TheDemonLord]

Do you not understand, that the Guilt of Alex Jones in breaking site rules, has nothing to do with what others have done or may not have done. So going on and on about it gets you nowhere. This opinion of yours is irrelevant.

And I've never made that argument. Try again.


All of these companies ie twitter, Youtube, Facebook are private companies. They can ban anyone they wish to, for what ever reason they wish. Its their right. Its their site.
Your feelings about it are also completely irrelevant.

That is indeed the starting position, however I'll again point to Trump's twitter account, it's now considered a Public Space and bound by the protections of the 1st Amendment.

The follow on question is whether, as a platform upon which an increasing amount of Political debate occurs, needs protection.

And I'll re-iterate the solution - they need to correct their internal biases and apply their existing ToS evenly. No one would have an issue if they did that.


These organisations have a right and a obligation to shield themselves from potential laws suits and they do this by determining what content is appropriate or not on their own sites. They are a business that sells add spaces.

Ah yes, and how is that working out for them? I believe the phrase is "Get Woke, Go Broke".

I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content. People are complaining about them censoring Political content. And those two things are not the same.


So therefor the content that is hosted on their sites is a reflection on them and their ability to conduct business.

Fundamentally incorrect. It's the traffic numbers (unique visitors) that is a reflection on them and their ability to conduct business. And so far the uptick in membership from sites such as minds.com, Full30.com etc. with each wave of political purges from the main sites has been huge.



They dont care about your individual opinion nor should they, they will do what they want which is whats in the best interest of their shareholders, at the moment is distancing themselves away from a nutjob Alex Jones and his cult of idiots. They balance that with the money they could make out of having him hosted on their sites
Lastly who cares what Jones followers think about banning him, they are conspiracy theorists and nutjobs.

And what is best for their shareholders?

Well, that would be to have the highest count of unique visitors, registered users etc. consider that Alex Jones had about ~2-3 Million subscribers, Most people have heard of him. Content either supporting, discussing or Mocking him runs at about 50:1 (so for every video he does, there are 50 or so posted of clips, rebuttals, support etc.)

His reach is realistically somewhere in the 10s of Millions, possibly even over 100 Million - which happens to be significant.

So what happens - well, Alex Jones will go over to his preferred alternative provider. His dedicated fanbase will follow him there. Undoubtedly, that fanbase will start to make content on that alternative platform - which will be linked, shared, sent, Posted on KB etc. which will then drive more content. I'm not saying this will be the end of Youtube, but it will have an impact.

And that is all traffic and content that Youtube et al could be leveraging for Ad content.

Distancing themselves from a popular content creator comes at a cost and it's certainly not good for business. It's just the same as when TelstraClear stopped serving adult content on their cable network. Principled stands are almost never good for business.

[husaberg]

You're very particular about site rules, aren't you?
Particularly when they can be used in an attempt to silence an opinion you don't like.
Not really, i just know the difference between free speech and hate speech.
I also know the difference between stating an opinion and being abusive.
If someone opinion is getting silenced because of the sites rules ,it's because they are choosing to behave outside them.
Its pretty simple, If they dont like the site rules they can leave the site or set up their own.

[husaberg]

And I've never made that argument. Try again.



That is indeed the starting position, however I'll again point to Trump's twitter account, it's now considered a Public Space and bound by the protections of the 1st Amendment.

The follow on question is whether, as a platform upon which an increasing amount of Political debate occurs, needs protection.

And I'll re-iterate the solution - they need to correct their internal biases and apply their existing ToS evenly. No one would have an issue if they did that.



Ah yes, and how is that working out for them? I believe the phrase is "Get Woke, Go Broke".

I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content. People are complaining about them censoring Political content. And those two things are not the same.



Fundamentally incorrect. It's the traffic numbers (unique visitors) that is a reflection on them and their ability to conduct business. And so far the uptick in membership from sites such as minds.com, Full30.com etc. with each wave of political purges from the main sites has been huge.




And what is best for their shareholders?

Well, that would be to have the highest count of unique visitors, registered users etc. consider that Alex Jones had about ~2-3 Million subscribers, Most people have heard of him. Content either supporting, discussing or Mocking him runs at about 50:1 (so for every video he does, there are 50 or so posted of clips, rebuttals, support etc.)

His reach is realistically somewhere in the 10s of Millions, possibly even over 100 Million - which happens to be significant.

So what happens - well, Alex Jones will go over to his preferred alternative provider. His dedicated fanbase will follow him there. Undoubtedly, that fanbase will start to make content on that alternative platform - which will be linked, shared, sent, Posted on KB etc. which will then drive more content. I'm not saying this will be the end of Youtube, but it will have an impact.

And that is all traffic and content that Youtube et al could be leveraging for Ad content.

Distancing themselves from a popular content creator comes at a cost and it's certainly not good for business. It's just the same as when TelstraClear stopped serving adult content on their cable network. Principled stands are almost never good for business.


All of this was covered and disproved in the last page.:whistle:
The trump twitter is different hes a public official using it as an official information source

Peaceful public speech and demonstrations in those venues cannot be stopped based on what is being said without a compelling government interest. Twitter, however, is not a real-world space. And it’s run by a private company.
The judge’s ruling found, however, that the company has less control over the @realDonaldTrump account than Trump himself and White House social media director Dan Scavino – also a public official. Their power includes the ability to block people from seeing the account’s tweets, and “from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets,” in the form of replies and comments on Twitter’s platform.
Also key was the fact that the @realDonaldTrump account is used for governmental purposes. Specifically, the judge found that “the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President” – such as announcing the appointments and terminations of government officials.




In a statement on the decision to remove Jones’s content from its site, Facebook said that the company was not doing so because Jones was a conspiracy theorist, but because he was “glorifying violence” and “using dehumanizing language” against minorities:

As a result of reports we received, last week, we removed four videos on four Facebook Pages for violating our hate speech and bullying policies. These pages were the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the InfoWars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page. In addition, one of the admins of these Pages – Alex Jones – was placed in a 30-day block for his role in posting violating content to these Pages.

Since then, more content from the same Pages has been reported to us — upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies... While much of the discussion around Infowars has been related to false news, which is a serious issue that we are working to address by demoting links marked wrong by fact checkers and suggesting additional content, none of the violations that spurred today’s removals were related to this.

More recently, Jones has been embroiled in a series of lawsuits filed by people about whom he has made repeated false assertions, like Marcel Fontaine: Infowars declared him to be the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (despite the fact that Fontaine had never even visited the state of Florida). There’s also Leonard Pozner, the father of a Sandy Hook victim, Noah Pozner, whose family has endured endless harassment by followers of Jones who believe that Pozner’s son never existed.
To be clear, this isn’t the first time Jones has been sued for making outrageous false statements. But now, supporters of his victims have started going after not just Jones but the platforms that host him and broadcast his messages — like Facebook.

Facebook and all the others are in the business to sell advertising they decide whether the number of views is worth the legal action or the sponsors threatening to removes adds.

https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/youtube-alex-jones-ban-1202896074/
https://twitter.com/slpng_giants?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweete mbed%7Ctwterm%5E1026467934506504193&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvariety.com%2F2018%2Fdigital %2Fnews%2Fyoutube-alex-jones-ban-1202896074%2F
https://www.recode.net/2018/9/3/17813124/sleeping-giants-breitbart-advertising-matt-rivitz-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast

[TheDemonLord]

All of this was covered and disproved in the last page.:whistle:

Not at all - you've not provided any data that shows the banning of Alex Jones is good for business.

You've provided a moral argument that it should be good for business, but that requires a number of presuppositions to be true.

Presuppositions that I reject.

[husaberg]

Not at all - you've not provided any data that shows the banning of Alex Jones is good for business.

You've provided a moral argument that it should be good for business, but that requires a number of presuppositions to be true.

Presuppositions that I reject.


I have supplied plenty of information thats shows continuing to do business with Alex is bad for business.
Unless Youtube like to be the subject of legal action?
Unless of course youtube like to have sponsors withdraw adds?


In reality, the fact that tech companies acted now, after tolerating Infowars on their platforms for years, has much more to do with mounting outside pressure. One of the groups that put a spotlight on Facebook, YouTube and Apple helping to distribute Infowars content had been Sleeping Giants, a progressive activism group that has also been organizing advertiser boycotts against other far-right media outlets.
Earlier on Monday, the group singled out YouTube for not doing enough to prevent Infowars from distributing hate speech on its platform.


How a Twitter account convinced 4,000 companies to stop advertising on Breitbart
https://www.recode.net/2018/9/3/17813124/sleeping-giants-breitbart-advertising-matt-rivitz-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast

Last week, YouTube said that some of the warnings and bans handed down to some right-wing channels might have been mistakes from human moderators, but despite the walk back, some companies have begun pulling ads from Infowars’ The Alex Jones Channel.
CNN reports that numerous companies, including Nike, Moen, Expedia, Acer, ClassPass, Honey, Alibaba, and OneFamily, have pulled their ads after learning that their ads were running on Jones’ channel.
Advertisers can also prevent ads from being run on specific channelsThe shooting and its aftermath have led some companies to pause their advertising and support of the National Rifle Association, such as software giant Symatec, Delta, and United. https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/4/17076286/advertisers-alex-jones-infowars-youtube-channel-conspiracy-theories

https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/03/technology/youtube-ads-infowars-alex-jones/index.html
Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel
March 3, 2018
A Nike spokesperson said the company was "disturbed to learn that we appeared on [The Alex Jones Channel]." It has since asked YouTube to address why the channel wasn't flagged by a filter it had enabled.

Nike, like some of the other brands, opted in to a "sensitive subject exclusion" filter to better control where its ads appear. The exclusion filters include, according to YouTube: "Tragedy and Conflict;" "Sensitive Social Issues;" "Sexually Suggestive Content;" "Sensational & Shocking;" and "Profanity & Rough Language."
A Grammarly spokesperson said on Saturday the company had not been aware of the ads. "We have stringent sensitive subject exclusion filters in place with YouTube that we believed would exclude such channels. We've asked YouTube to ensure this does not happen again."
A spokesperson for 20th Century Fox said the company was unaware its ad had been placed on an InfoWars YouTube channel and after learning it had, immediately took it down. The company believes that it existing filters should have prevented it showing on the InfoWars channel.

The company is now having further conversations with YouTube, the spokesperson said, "to make sure this never happens again," and has asked for a refund.
A spokesperson for Mozilla told CNN, "We have explicit exclusions set up for our YouTube campaigns and should absolutely not have appeared alongside this content. We are disappointed to learn that YouTube's filters are not as effective as promised in preventing advertisements running alongside objectionable content. We've since reached out to Google and paused our advertising on the channel."

A spokesperson for USA for UNHCR said that this was the group's first time running ads on YouTube, and that it would now pull its ads from all of YouTube, and has asked for money spent on InfoWars-related channels back.

And a spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told CNN it has paused the specific ad campaign that ran on an InfoWars YouTube channel, and are looking into whether other ad campaigns are similarly affected.


Major brands suspend YouTube ads on Infowars channel 3-3-18 http://thehill.com/homenews/news/376581-major-brands-suspend-youtube-ads-on-infowars-channel
A number of the country’s major brands are pushing to remove their ads from YouTube channels for far-right website Infowars and its founder Alex Jones, saying they were unaware the ads were placed there, CNN reported Saturday.
CNN reported that ads from several major companies and organizations — including Nike, 20th Century Fox, the Mormon Church, Expedia, Alibaba and the National Rifle Association — were being featured on Infowars's channels on the platform.
Many of the brands said they were unaware of the situation and canceled their ads on the channel after CNN reached out for comment. Several said they have reached out to YouTube about the situation.


More recently, Jones has been embroiled in a series of lawsuits filed by people about whom he has made repeated false assertions, like Marcel Fontaine: Infowars declared him to be the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (despite the fact that Fontaine had never even visited the state of Florida). There’s also Leonard Pozner, the father of a Sandy Hook victim, Noah Pozner, whose family has endured endless harassment by followers of Jones who believe that Pozner’s son never existed.
To be clear, this isn’t the first time Jones has been sued for making outrageous false statements. But now, supporters of his victims have started going after not just Jones but the platforms that host him and broadcast his messages — like Facebook.


In December, Welch showed up to Comet Ping Pong on a Sunday afternoon armed with a AR-15 assault rifle and revolver and fired multiple times following a panicked evacuation by workers and customers. His shots struck a locked closet door, which had computer equipment inside.
The conspiracy alleged that the ring operated in the basement the pizza restaurant, where Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta, sometimes ate.

[TheDemonLord]

The trump twitter is different hes a public official using it as an official information source

Or is he a private Citizen using his personal Twitter account? Afterall, there is an official @POTUS account...

The judges ruling is very flimsy - because although they point out it's not a real world space, they acknowledge (implicitly) that it IS a space where "Peaceful public speech" is occurring.

They've already conceded that there is a place on Twitter that requires the Government to enforce the protections of the first Amendment.


Facebook and all the others are in the business to sell advertising they decide whether the number of views is worth the legal action or the sponsors threatening to removes adds.


So, show me the data that Alex Jones was good for business.

Because I'm pretty sure it will result in decrease in Revenue for Youtube and Facebook. As I said, Get Woke, Go broke.

[TheDemonLord]

I have supplied plenty of information thats shows continuing to do business with Alex is bad for business.
Unless Youtube like to be the subject of legal action?
Unless of course youtube like to have sponsors withdraw adds?

All you've posted is that they've Kowtowed to some screeching banshees (SleepingGiants).

Breitbart is still up and running, with Ad Revenue.

Furthermore, Consider this - Pornhub.com gets no Ad Revenue from mainstream businesses - yet it's 27th in the list of most visited websites - if your presupposition is correct, then there is no way for a site like Pornhub to exist, and yet....

In regards to the lawsuits - Tish and Pish - there are multiple lawsuits from and against big companies like that at any given time. But need I remind you of why they went after them? Their actions as behaving in an editorial manner has opened them up to this kind of lawsuit...

Which proves my point - it's not good for business, it's bad for business.

[husaberg]

Or is he a private Citizen using his personal Twitter account? Afterall, there is an official @POTUS account...

The judges ruling is very flimsy - because although they point out it's not a real world space, they acknowledge (implicitly) that it IS a space where "Peaceful public speech" is occurring.

They've already conceded that there is a place on Twitter that requires the Government to enforce the protections of the first Amendment.



So, show me the data that Alex Jones was good for business.

Because I'm pretty sure it will result in decrease in Revenue for Youtube and Facebook. As I said, Get Woke, Go broke.


All you've posted is that they've Kowtowed to some screeching banshees (SleepingGiants).

Breitbart is still up and running, with Ad Revenue.

Furthermore, Consider this - Pornhub.com gets no Ad Revenue from mainstream businesses - yet it's 27th in the list of most visited websites - if your presupposition is correct, then there is no way for a site like Pornhub to exist, and yet....

In regards to the lawsuits - Tish and Pish - there are multiple lawsuits from and against big companies like that at any given time. But need I remind you of why they went after them? Their actions as behaving in an editorial manner has opened them up to this kind of lawsuit...

Which proves my point - it's not good for business, it's bad for business.

Maybe you should actually read what is written.

In reality, the fact that tech companies acted now, after tolerating Infowars on their platforms for years, has much more to do with mounting outside pressure. One of the groups that put a spotlight on Facebook, YouTube and Apple helping to distribute Infowars content had been Sleeping Giants, a progressive activism group that has also been organizing advertiser boycotts against other far-right media outlets.
Earlier on Monday, the group singled out YouTube for not doing enough to prevent Infowars from distributing hate speech on its platform.


How a Twitter account convinced 4,000 companies to stop advertising on Breitbart
https://www.recode.net/2018/9/3/17813124/sleeping-giants-breitbart-advertising-matt-rivitz-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast

Last week, YouTube said that some of the warnings and bans handed down to some right-wing channels might have been mistakes from human moderators, but despite the walk back, some companies have begun pulling ads from Infowars’ The Alex Jones Channel.
CNN reports that numerous companies, including Nike, Moen, Expedia, Acer, ClassPass, Honey, Alibaba, and OneFamily, have pulled their ads after learning that their ads were running on Jones’ channel.
Advertisers can also prevent ads from being run on specific channelsThe shooting and its aftermath have led some companies to pause their advertising and support of the National Rifle Association, such as software giant Symatec, Delta, and United. https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/4/17076286/advertisers-alex-jones-infowars-youtube-channel-conspiracy-theories

https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/03/technology/youtube-ads-infowars-alex-jones/index.html
Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel
March 3, 2018
A Nike spokesperson said the company was "disturbed to learn that we appeared on [The Alex Jones Channel]." It has since asked YouTube to address why the channel wasn't flagged by a filter it had enabled.

Nike, like some of the other brands, opted in to a "sensitive subject exclusion" filter to better control where its ads appear. The exclusion filters include, according to YouTube: "Tragedy and Conflict;" "Sensitive Social Issues;" "Sexually Suggestive Content;" "Sensational & Shocking;" and "Profanity & Rough Language."
A Grammarly spokesperson said on Saturday the company had not been aware of the ads. "We have stringent sensitive subject exclusion filters in place with YouTube that we believed would exclude such channels. We've asked YouTube to ensure this does not happen again."
A spokesperson for 20th Century Fox said the company was unaware its ad had been placed on an InfoWars YouTube channel and after learning it had, immediately took it down. The company believes that it existing filters should have prevented it showing on the InfoWars channel.

The company is now having further conversations with YouTube, the spokesperson said, "to make sure this never happens again," and has asked for a refund.
A spokesperson for Mozilla told CNN, "We have explicit exclusions set up for our YouTube campaigns and should absolutely not have appeared alongside this content. We are disappointed to learn that YouTube's filters are not as effective as promised in preventing advertisements running alongside objectionable content. We've since reached out to Google and paused our advertising on the channel."

A spokesperson for USA for UNHCR said that this was the group's first time running ads on YouTube, and that it would now pull its ads from all of YouTube, and has asked for money spent on InfoWars-related channels back.

And a spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told CNN it has paused the specific ad campaign that ran on an InfoWars YouTube channel, and are looking into whether other ad campaigns are similarly affected.


Major brands suspend YouTube ads on Infowars channel 3-3-18 http://thehill.com/homenews/news/376581-major-brands-suspend-youtube-ads-on-infowars-channel
A number of the country’s major brands are pushing to remove their ads from YouTube channels for far-right website Infowars and its founder Alex Jones, saying they were unaware the ads were placed there, CNN reported Saturday.
CNN reported that ads from several major companies and organizations — including Nike, 20th Century Fox, the Mormon Church, Expedia, Alibaba and the National Rifle Association — were being featured on Infowars's channels on the platform.
Many of the brands said they were unaware of the situation and canceled their ads on the channel after CNN reached out for comment. Several said they have reached out to YouTube about the situation.


More recently, Jones has been embroiled in a series of lawsuits filed by people about whom he has made repeated false assertions, like Marcel Fontaine: Infowars declared him to be the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (despite the fact that Fontaine had never even visited the state of Florida). There’s also Leonard Pozner, the father of a Sandy Hook victim, Noah Pozner, whose family has endured endless harassment by followers of Jones who believe that Pozner’s son never existed.
To be clear, this isn’t the first time Jones has been sued for making outrageous false statements. But now, supporters of his victims have started going after not just Jones but the platforms that host him and broadcast his messages — like Facebook.


In December, Welch showed up to Comet Ping Pong on a Sunday afternoon armed with a AR-15 assault rifle and revolver and fired multiple times following a panicked evacuation by workers and customers. His shots struck a locked closet door, which had computer equipment inside.
The conspiracy alleged that the ring operated in the basement the pizza restaurant, where Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta, sometimes ate.



I also note your opinion on legal matters is not exactly as relevant as a federal court judges

Peaceful public speech and demonstrations in those venues cannot be stopped based on what is being said without a compelling government interest. Twitter, however, is not a real-world space. And it’s run by a private company.
The judge’s ruling found, however, that the company has less control over the @realDonaldTrump account than Trump himself and White House social media director Dan Scavino – also a public official. Their power includes the ability to block people from seeing the account’s tweets, and “from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets,” in the form of replies and comments on Twitter’s platform.
Also key was the fact that the @realDonaldTrump account is used for governmental purposes. Specifically, the judge found that “the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President” – such as announcing the appointments and terminations of government officials.

Also your views on the continued success of Beibart is not reflected by the facts.

'Breitbart' Loses Half Its Readership https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/316455/breitbart-loses-half-its-readership.html
In February, the site had 7.8 million visitors, a 49% dip from 2017. The site had 15 million unique visitors last October.

Breitbart lost 90 percent of its advertisers in two months:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/

[Katman]

I also know the difference between stating an opinion and being abusive.

Really?

So why have you never been quite so eager to play Hall Monitor when others on here have repeatedly thrown around the words "you're a fuckwit"?

[husaberg]

Really?
So why have you never been quite so eager to play Hall Monitor when others on here have repeatedly thrown around the words "you're a fuckwit"?
I have no idea what you are talking about, But you seem to be miffed about something.

[Katman]

I have no idea what you are talking about

Just pointing out your selective agenda.

[husaberg]

Just pointing out your selective agenda.
No you havent you have not pointed out anything.... You made a few vague generalizations and an insinuation.
You made a remark that was not backed up by any actual supporting data that was based on a assumption made by you that was and still is apparently incorrect.
Reading between the lines , it appears you seem miffed you cant abuse people on a forum anymore, All i can say is. That's apparently nothing to do with me but everything to do with your lack of ability to control your emotions.

[TheDemonLord]

Maybe you should actually read what is written.

Quite - like the part where all of the Companies say that they aren't cancelling their Youtube Advertisement campaigns, they just don't want their ads to appear on the Alex Jones channel.

Which is the opposite of what you are trying to portray - that they are cancelling ALL of their Advertisement OVER the Alex Jones Channel.


I also note your opinion on legal matters is not exactly as relevent as a federal court judges

Whereas my IT opinion carries a bit more weight - and this is where we are having the Philosophical discussion. Besides, the fact that a Federal court has classed a private citizens personal Twitter account as a public domain pretty much proves my point.

As for breitbart - I read the "90% drop in Advertising" - but did you read the fine print? That it was just the number of companies that advertise on the site, it says nothing as to what the percentage of revenue they lost.

The drop in viewership - Possible suggestions - Social Media filtering Algorithms, the leaving of Milo from Brietbart, The US Election was done and dusted by 2017.

And you can't draw a causation between a drop in advertisers leading to a drop in visitors - people don't visit sites for the Adverts...

[Laava]

I see you lot are still banging on in here, getting NOWHERE! Why are you wasting your time?
There, I exercised my free speech, now I'm waiting to see how many people get offended...

[husaberg]

Quite - like the part where all of the Companies say that they aren't cancelling their Youtube Advertisement campaigns, they just don't want their ads to appear on the Alex Jones channel.

Which is the opposite of what you are trying to portray - that they are cancelling ALL of their Advertisement OVER the Alex Jones Channel.



Whereas my IT opinion carries a bit more weight - and this is where we are having the Philosophical discussion. Besides, the fact that a Federal court has classed a private citizens personal Twitter account as a public domain pretty much proves my point.

As for breitbart - I read the "90% drop in Advertising" - but did you read the fine print? That it was just the number of companies that advertise on the site, it says nothing as to what the percentage of revenue they lost.

The drop in viewership - Possible suggestions - Social Media filtering Algorithms, the leaving of Milo from Brietbart, The US Election was done and dusted by 2017.

And you can't draw a causation between a drop in advertisers leading to a drop in visitors - people don't visit sites for the Adverts...

Read it again many have threatened to or have pulled all their advertising
Your IT carries no weight compared to a federal court judge when it comes to legal matters. None at all. You are reading only part of the the ruling and then trying to construct a narrative that suits what you want the outcome to be.
90% less advertisers is a loss of revenue
if they have 2600 less advertisers saying they dont want to advertise on a page its less revenue. 2900 now.
nope 3800 now https://www.fastcompany.com/40535815/thousands-of-advertisers-shun-breitbart-but-amazon-remains

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2017/jun/06/breitbart-ad-revenue-drops-more-90-percent/

https://ir.net/news/politics/124618/breitbart-loses-so-many-advertisers-they-are-now-advertising-steve-bannons-unnerving-iq/


But Chief Executive Larry Solov recently told the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-breitbart-news-20161116-story.html)that the company relies on advertising for the majority its revenue and that it uses multiple ad networks.

[TheDemonLord]

Read it again many have threatened to or have pulled all their advertising

From that Channel.

Not from Youtube overall (from your material):


some companies have begun pulling ads from Infowars’ The Alex Jones Channel.

The company believes that it existing filters should have prevented it showing on the InfoWars channel.

told CNN it has paused the specific ad campaign that ran on an InfoWars YouTube channel,

were being featured on Infowars's channels on the platform. Many of the brands said they were unaware of the situation and canceled their ads on the channel


Your IT carries no weight compared to a federal court judge when it comes to legal matters. None at all. You are reading only part of the the ruling and then trying to construct a narrative that suits what you want the outcome to be.

Except that a Federal court has made a ruling, infringing upon the Personal Account of a US Citizen, hosted by a Private US company.

That means that a part of Twitter is now considered a Public place - I've read the ruling, I've also read the inconsistency in it, stemming from the obvious that the Judge is probably not as well acquainted with technology as they are with the Law.

Furthermore, there has been a discussion (at multiple times) as to whether an Internet Bill of Rights is needed - to codify the rights of a Netizen.


90% less advertisers is a loss of revenue
if they have 2600 less advertisers saying they dont want to advertise on a page its less revenue. 2900 now.
nope 3800 now https://www.fastcompany.com/40535815/thousands-of-advertisers-shun-breitbart-but-amazon-remains

Never said it wasn't a loss - the question is - how much - If 10% of your customers are responsible for 80% of your ad income - then it's not a loss of 90% of revenue, but only 20%. However, the site is still running and getting views - so it rather disproves your point.

[Graystone]

It's also a completely irrelevant question.

It's entirely relevant, as the assertion that he was unjustly banned relies on an examination of the ban reason. I get that you're up in arms against any erosion of your white male privelige, but at least make the sembelence of being logical about it eh!

[Katman]

I get that you're up in arms against any erosion of your white male privelige

I suppose Serena Williams is now your new poster girl.

[husaberg]

From that Channel.

Not from Youtube overall (from your material):








Except that a Federal court has made a ruling, infringing upon the Personal Account of a US Citizen, hosted by a Private US company.

That means that a part of Twitter is now considered a Public place - I've read the ruling, I've also read the inconsistency in it, stemming from the obvious that the Judge is probably not as well acquainted with technology as they are with the Law.

Furthermore, there has been a discussion (at multiple times) as to whether an Internet Bill of Rights is needed - to codify the rights of a Netizen.



Never said it wasn't a loss - the question is - how much - If 10% of your customers are responsible for 80% of your ad income - then it's not a loss of 90% of revenue, but only 20%. However, the site is still running and getting views - so it rather disproves your point.

Look you are not a lawyer or a federal judge
So your opinion is not really that relevent compared to a federal court judge i dont know how much clearer i can make it.
Secondly the over 3000 advertisers have pulled their advertisements associated with Brebeirt
If you cant see how that effects the income of a site that gets income from advertisement i dont know how to explain it to you so you will understand.
Most of the adverts that are left are third party adds of limited income potential


Breitbart appears to have been particularly hard hit by Facebook’s Jan. 12 announcement that it would scale back on posts from news organizations in users’ feeds. In February, comScore reported some dip in traffic for sites across the political spectrum but an analysis by The Outline found that conservative sites were affected most. The study found that, though Breitbart was posting about 9 percent less content on Facebook, its engagement had dropped by nearly 28 percent.
“Other [conservative] sites are getting killed, other sites are really taking it on the chin,” Shapiro said, suggesting that not all of Breitbart’s problems are unique.
But Breitbart’s decline in traffic comes at the same time its advertising base has been decimated by a boycott campaign. Its number of direct advertisers has been slashed from around 250 at the beginning of 2017 to just 17 now, according to the advertising consulting firm, MediaRadar.
Asked whether Breitbart is in trouble, MediaRadar CEO Todd Krizelman said, “From an advertising perspective yes, very clearly.”

ALex Jones has been removed from many sites he has seen is add revenue removed as multiple advertisers remove their adverts from being associated with his sites, he is facing criminal charges that have overflowed to the companies hosting his media.
Simply put hes not someone most business want to be associated with.


https://www.libertyheadlines.com/infowars-banned-will-lose-3-millionyr-ad-revenue/
he company has violated its agreement with Infowars and this represents a direct, politically motivated attack on our funding with a potential revenue loss of around $3 million dollars a year.
https://www.infowars.com/bombshell-major-ad-agency-suspends-infowars-over-support-for-trump/



In March, the Times revealed that a number of advertisements were appearing on YouTube videos promoting extremist, hateful and inappropriate content, which led many companies to pull their ads from the website. Audi, L'Oreal and the UK government, among others, all removed ads in light of the findings.


Until today, Jones and his content were extraordinarily resilient. Virtually no one was willing to ban the prominent conspiracy theorist, especially since the social media companies were facing constant accusations that they were biased against conservative views.
But now the balance has tipped, perhaps because defamation court case against Jones, accusing him of calling the Sandy Hook school shooting a hoax, is finally going ahead.

[TheDemonLord]

It's entirely relevant,

Not at all. Since I've not made the claim that would make the question relevant.


as the assertion that he was unjustly banned relies on an examination of the ban reason.

Except that's not been my point. You're trying the same Strawman that Husa is/was.


I get that you're up in arms against any erosion of your white male privelige

Why would you bring race into this discussion, unless you are a Racist?
Why would you bring sex into this discussion, unless you are a Sexist?

[TheDemonLord]

Look you are not a lawyer or a federal judge
So your opinion is not really that relevent compared to a federal court judge i dont know how much clearer i can make it.

You could try addressing the point, that would be a start. As I've said, the ruling contradicts itself from a IT perspective (which I DO happen to be an Expert on). Futhermore there is a Philosophical contradiction:

On the one hand they are trying to claim Private company, private rules and then acknowledging that something privately hosted has become a public space, in need of governmental protection

Now, I accept the contradiction, because this is an emergent phenomena, and Law often takes several years (or decades) to catch up with anything Emergent.


Secondly the over 3000 advertisers have pulled their advertisements associated with Brebeirt
If you cant see how that effects the income of a site that gets income from advertisement i dont know how to explain it to you so you will understand.

Because we have no data (conveniently...) on what that translates to. Is it a 5% drop in revenue, a 20% drop a 90% drop (as is inferred)?


Most of the adverts that are left are third party adds of limited income potential

Well, Amazon is still there - I hear they are a pretty big deal on the internet...


ALex Jones has been removed from many sites he has seen is add revenue removed as multiple advertisers remove their adverts from being associated with his sites, he is facing criminal charges that have overflowed to the companies hosting his media.
Simply put hes not someone most business want to be associated with.

Those companies have requested their ads not be associated on his Channel, not on Youtube as a whole - the risk that you are trying to portray is a red herring. Those companies are still paying Youtube for advertising. The revenue stream still exists.

Then you have to content with Alex Jones' popularity - his impact as stated previously is probably in the ~100 Million range - that's about 10% of youtube's user base. Most people have heard of Alex Jones and/or watched content either by him or containing him.

His Criminal charges are due to the Editorial style decisions at the company, which is an own goal.

Simply put hes not someone that businesses with a left wing bias want to be associated with. And all of the business in question have a left wing bias.

[FJRider]

The expectation is that if a copper pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket, he'll also give someone like yourself a ticket in the same scenario.

Not even close to the truth ... The police have the discretion to issue ticket's as THEY see fit. I've been in a group that has been pulled over (been going quite quickly) and of the four stopped ... I was not issued a ticket. I answered his questions politely and remained silent otherwise. The others chose to voice their revenue gathering opinions (and a few oink oink's) ... and were rewarded appropriately.

Same (traffic) Offense but different end result.


If however, the copper only gives certain group(s) tickets, you'd call into question the application of the rules...

If "Certain Groups" are involved in the same traffic offenses ... I'd question the attitude of the group ... rather than the attitude of the copper.

[husaberg]

You could try addressing the point, that would be a start. As I've said, the ruling contradicts itself from a IT perspective (which I DO happen to be an Expert on). Futhermore there is a Philosophical contradiction:

On the one hand they are trying to claim Private company, private rules and then acknowledging that something privately hosted has become a public space, in need of governmental protection

Now, I accept the contradiction, because this is an emergent phenomena, and Law often takes several years (or decades) to catch up with anything Emergent.



Because we have no data (conveniently...) on what that translates to. Is it a 5% drop in revenue, a 20% drop a 90% drop (as is inferred)?



Well, Amazon is still there - I hear they are a pretty big deal on the internet...



Those companies have requested their ads not be associated on his Channel, not on Youtube as a whole - the risk that you are trying to portray is a red herring. Those companies are still paying Youtube for advertising. The revenue stream still exists.

Then you have to content with Alex Jones' popularity - his impact as stated previously is probably in the ~100 Million range - that's about 10% of youtube's user base. Most people have heard of Alex Jones and/or watched content either by him or containing him.

His Criminal charges are due to the Editorial style decisions at the company, which is an own goal.

Simply put hes not someone that businesses with a left wing bias want to be associated with. And all of the business in question have a left wing bias.

Too funny for words so you are claiming to be more of an expert of US law than a Federal court Judge.
I am not addressing your point as i do not think in any shape or form that your opinion carries more weight than a federal court judge.

The judge’s ruling found, however, that the company has less control over the @realDonaldTrump account than Trump himself and White House social media director Dan Scavino – also a public official. Their power includes the ability to block people from seeing the account’s tweets, and “from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets,” in the form of replies and comments on Twitter’s platform.
Also key was the fact that the @realDonaldTrump account is used for governmental purposes. Specifically, the judge found that “the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President” – such as announcing the appointments and terminations of government officials.

As for brebeirt loisng a confirmed 3000 advertisers is substantial no one but the owners can put it in a dollar amount, there is nothing suspicious in the lack of $ amounts as Brebiert have not released them.
Suggesting that as they still have a few advertisers neglects that have 3000 less to pay the bills along with substantially less viewers.
The criminal charges against Jones are dues not to his editorial style but due to continued harassment and defamation of the the parents of a children who were murdered.
If you dont think that Googles legal people are not worried about the fact that youtube was used to conduct this you are sadly mistaken.



February 23rd: YouTube removes an Alex Jones conspiracy theory video and hands his channel a strike; two more over a three-month period would've resulted on a permanent ban. The video, on the Alex Jones Channel, InfoWars' main YouTube account, was titled "David Hogg Can't Remember His Lines In TV Interview" and suggested that one of the survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting was a crisis actor. "Last summer we updated the application of our harassment policy to include hoax videos that target the victims of these tragedies," YouTube says at the time. "Any video flagged to us that violates this policy is reviewed and then removed."

March 4th: A number of big advertisers on YouTube, including Acer, Fox, Nike and Paramount, having become aware of their ads running next to Jones' InfoWars videos, ask YouTube to discontinue the practice. According to the brands involved, they didn't realize their ads were being displayed on what they called offensive material, and decided to create exclusion filters so their products would not be promoted in videos from Alex Jones and other channels like it. YouTube declines to comment on the matter at the time.

July 11th: Facebook hosts a Q&A session with reporters about its efforts to fight fake news but fails to explain why a page like InfoWars, known for spreading misinformation, is allowed to live on its site. Facebook's argument seems to be that it doesn't want to be an arbiter of the truth. "We just don't think banning pages for sharing conspiracy theories or false news is the right way to go," the company says. "They seem to have YouTube and Twitter accounts too -- we imagine for the same reason."

July 17th: Facebook testifies before Congress (again), in a hearing titled "Examining the Content Filtering Practices of Social Media Giants." The company's president for global policy management, Monika Bickert, is unable to tell members of the House Judiciary Committee why InfoWars hasn't been banned from the site for spreading conspiracies. "Allegations that survivors of a tragedy like Parkland are crisis actors, that violates our policy and we remove that content," she says. "If they posted sufficient content that violated our threshold, that page would come down." The problem is that Facebook apparently can't decide when a page should be banned, since it doesn't have a "three strikes and you're out" policy like YouTube. "That threshold varies," Bickert says, "depending on the severity of different types of violations."

House Judiciary Committee Hearing On Content Filtering Practices Of Facebook, Google And Twitter

Facebook's head of global policy management, Monika Bickert, testifying at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
July 25th: YouTube removes multiple videos from the Alex Jones Channel, citing a violation of its community guidelines. Of the four videos removed, two reportedly featured hate speech against Muslims and transgender people. Another one was titled "How to prevent liberalism" and featured Jones mocking a child being shoved by an adult man. "We have long standing policies against child endangerment and hate speech," YouTube says in a statement. "We apply our policies consistently according to the content in the videos, regardless of the speaker or the channel. We also have a clear three-strikes policy and we terminate channels when they receive three strikes in three months." Even though four videos were removed, though, this counts as only one strike.

July 27th: Facebook blocks Jones from posting on his personal profile for 30 days, though the InfoWars and "Alex Jones" public pages aren't part of the suspension. The company says it's banning Jones for violating its community standards, after removing several videos from his account that promoted hateful content -- some of which were the same ones YouTube removed on July 25th. "Our Community Standards make it clear that we prohibit content that encourages physical harm [bullying], or attacks someone based on their religious affiliation or gender identity [hate speech]" Facebook said.

August 1st: Spotify removes an unspecified number of episodes of Alex Jones' podcast after user uproar. Multiple complaints from subscribers led the company to conduct a review of the show's content, and episodes that violate its hate content policy are taken down. The podcast, naturally, focuses on Jones' wild conspiracy theories about "liberals." In a statement, Spotify says, "We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community."

August 3rd: Stitcher takes things a step further and completely removes Jones' podcast from its service. The company says that in his program he has "harassed or allowed harassment" of others, and therefore it decided it would be best to take this severe action. According to Stitcher, that harassment "has led listeners of the show to engage in similar harassment and other damaging activity." Therefore, the company says, "we have decided to remove his podcasts from the Stitcher platform."

August 5th: Following in Stitcher's footsteps, Apple removes five controversial InfoWars podcasts from its ecosystem. This includes iTunes and the Podcasts apps. The company tells BuzzFeed News that it "does not tolerate hate speech." The action appears certain to severely limit Jones' reach, considering the hundreds of millions of iOS and Mac users in the US.

August 6th: Facebook finally decides to ban Jones and his InfoWars pages from its site, following months of indecisiveness. The same day, YouTube removes his official page, the Alex Jones Channel, from its site. Both companies say the decision to take these stronger measures came after Jones repeatedly their violated community guidelines.


Amazon has quietly stopped endorsing InfoWars host Alex Jones’s products which it continues to sell on its marketplace.
The web giant refused to comment on whether it would remove Jones on Tuesday afternoon but has been busy removing its “Amazon choice” label from items sold by InfoWars, including its line of dietary supplements.

[Drew]

No you havent you have not pointed out anything.... You made a few vague generalizations and an insinuation.
You made a remark that was not backed up by any actual supporting data that was based on a assumption made by you that was and still is apparently incorrect.
Reading between the lines , it appears you seem miffed you cant abuse people on a forum anymore, All i can say is. That's apparently nothing to do with me but everything to do with your lack of ability to control your emotions.
He gets to abuse folk more than me. I'm sin binned at the minute. Can only assume for something I said to Katman.

[TheDemonLord]

Too funny for words so you are claiming to be more of an expert of US law than a Federal court Judge.
I am not addressing your point as i do not think in any shape or form that your opinion carries more weight than a federal court judge.

Except that's not what I'm claiming - Please put the Strawman down.

You're not addressing the point, because you know it's fundamentally correct.


As for brebeirt loisng a confirmed 3000 advertisers is substantial no one but the owners can put it in a dollar amount, there is nothing suspicious in the lack of $ amounts as Brebiert have not released them.
Suggesting that as they still have a few advertisers neglects that have 3000 less to pay the bills along with substantially less viewers.

So, why is the site still running? If your claim is it can no longer afford to pay the bills, then it would be shut down. But the site is still up - which means clearly, the money they have lost is not significant enough to stop the operation of the site.

Which brings us to my ancillary point - the left-wing "Activists" such as Sleeping Giant aren't as effectual as they wish to appear to be. That in turn reinforces my main point - It's not a factual claim to say that they are bad for business.

In fact, remember the old adages: There's no such thing as bad publicity and the french "Succès de scandale"


The criminal charges against Jones are dues not to his editorial style but due to continued harassment and defamation of the the parents of a children who were murdered.
If you dont think that Googles legal people are not worried about the fact that youtube was used to conduct this you are sadly mistaken.

They had an airtight response:

"First Amendment - he's allowed to spout Conspiracy Crap and it's not our Job to stop him. If he's doing something illegal, Charge him with a crime and see how it goes"

I want to draw specific attention to one of the lines in your timeline:


July 11th: Facebook hosts a Q&A session with reporters about its efforts to fight fake news but fails to explain why a page like InfoWars, known for spreading misinformation, is allowed to live on its site. Facebook's argument seems to be that it doesn't want to be an arbiter of the truth. "We just don't think banning pages for sharing conspiracy theories or false news is the right way to go," the company says. "They seem to have YouTube and Twitter accounts too -- we imagine for the same reason."

Remember when we talking about making editorial decisions? Facebook's response was absolutely correct in this instance. It is not their job to be the surrogate Censor.

But, we've seen a reverse on this - the moment they started to be the arbiter of truth, they became an Editor with oversight and responsibilities - and furthermore, we've seen collusion on this (remember that all of the social media sites banned him within hours of each other).

All from companies who share the same approximate geographic location for their main headquarters, have the same political leanings and whose staff have a similar west coast, left-wing outlook on life.

[Graystone]

Not at all. Since I've not made the claim that would make the question relevant.



Except that's not been my point. You're trying the same Strawman that Husa is/was.



Why would you bring race into this discussion, unless you are a Racist?
Why would you bring sex into this discussion, unless you are a Sexist?

Right... So just what is the claim you're peddling back to?

Alex Jones is already part of the discussion, a hero for supporters of White male privelige.

[TheDemonLord]

Not even close to the truth ... The police have the discretion to issue ticket's as THEY see fit. I've been in a group that has been pulled over (been going quite quickly) and of the four stopped ... I was not issued a ticket. I answered his questions politely and remained silent otherwise. The others chose to voice their revenue gathering opinions (and a few oink oink's) ... and were rewarded appropriately.

Same (traffic) Offense but different end result.

By your own admission - different scenarios: You passed the attitude test, they didn't.


If "Certain Groups" are involved in the same traffic offenses ... I'd question the attitude of the group ... rather than the attitude of the copper.

Sure, but let me put it this way - If all other factors were equal (behavior, speed, road worthiness of the vehicle etc.) and the only thing changed was say the political leanings of the individual (maybe they had a National sticker vs a Labour sticker) - would your expectation be that they would receive the same treatment from the same officer?

If however across multiple instances (so not one or two but thousands upon thousands) that was not the case, you'd rightly cry Foul.

[TheDemonLord]

Right... So just what is the claim you're peddling back to?

Well, if you want to be a part of the discussion, you can read...


Alex Jones is already part of the discussion, a hero for supporters of White male privelige.

And yet, I've not mentioned it, Husabergs not mentioned - and then here you are spouting derogatory phrases involving Race and Sex - like a Racist Sexist...

[FJRider]

By your own admission - different scenarios: You passed the attitude test, they didn't.

The Law (enforcement) do not (in MY experience) differentiate between "Scenarios" ... it differentiates between offences committed. Any OTHER way of issuing Traffic Offense notices is illegal. Officer discretion (in your favor) is not something that can ALWAYS be relied on roadside after being stopped to get out of any traffic misdemeanor. Therefore (in my opinion) it is not a scenario as such ... merely action and reaction. How those actions (or scenarios if you really do prefer) play out is almost totally in the hands of those involved. The discretion of the officer involved dictates the end result. Attitude and behavior of those stopped can and does have influence on the end result ... but the one with the discretion has the final say at the roadside ... ;)


Sure, but let me put it this way - If all other factors were equal (behavior, speed, road worthiness of the vehicle etc.) and the only thing changed was say the political leanings of the individual (maybe they had a National sticker vs a Labour sticker) - would your expectation be that they would receive the same treatment from the same officer?

If however across multiple instances (so not one or two but thousands upon thousands) that was not the case, you'd rightly cry Foul.

In my (vast) experience of roadside "chats" with Law Enforcement Representative's ... neither political or personal leanings/beliefs influenced the officer(s) decisions at any time. Agreed ... they were not always happy ... but in MY experience ... they were always fair.

Maybe .... it was my attitude that made the difference. But I'm not an expert (self declared) in IT ... so I couldn't say for sure ... ;)

[husaberg]

Except that's not what I'm claiming - Please put the Strawman down.

You're not addressing the point, because you know it's fundamentally correct.



So, why is the site still running? If your claim is it can no longer afford to pay the bills, then it would be shut down. But the site is still up - which means clearly, the money they have lost is not significant enough to stop the operation of the site.

Which brings us to my ancillary point - the left-wing "Activists" such as Sleeping Giant aren't as effectual as they wish to appear to be. That in turn reinforces my main point - It's not a factual claim to say that they are bad for business.

In fact, remember the old adages: There's no such thing as bad publicity and the french "Succès de scandale"



They had an airtight response:

"First Amendment - he's allowed to spout Conspiracy Crap and it's not our Job to stop him. If he's doing something illegal, Charge him with a crime and see how it goes"

I want to draw specific attention to one of the lines in your timeline:



Remember when we talking about making editorial decisions? Facebook's response was absolutely correct in this instance. It is not their job to be the surrogate Censor.

But, we've seen a reverse on this - the moment they started to be the arbiter of truth, they became an Editor with oversight and responsibilities - and furthermore, we've seen collusion on this (remember that all of the social media sites banned him within hours of each other).

All from companies who share the same approximate geographic location for their main headquarters, have the same political leanings and whose staff have a similar west coast, left-wing outlook on life.

Thats exactly what you are claiming, that you know better than a Federal court judge.
Drawing attention to one line is rather silly especially as its one line you wish to take out of context. While you ignore the rest.
While they dont want to make editorial decision they acknowledge that the content on their sites is not in keeping with their rules which is why it was being removed.
All the social media sites removing jones as once appears to be the domino effect, one site showed guts made the call the others followed.
But lets be serious he had been on shaky ground for months.
The certainly would have got the wind up due to their failures to adhere to their own guild-lines in front of congress in July.


He gets to abuse folk more than me. I'm sin binned at the minute. Can only assume for something I said to Katman.
I noticed that.
Katman red repped me this afternoon and claimed "he had special knowledge of what goes on on KB behind the scenes", I just think hes "SPECIAL needs"
Makes a change from his normal abuse i guess.

[TheDemonLord]

In my (vast) experience of roadside "chats" with Law Enforcement Representative's ... neither political or personal leanings/beliefs influenced the officer(s) decisions at any time. Agreed ... they were not always happy ... but in MY experience ... they were always fair.

And that's the point - No one has any issues when the rules are fairly enforced.

The claim that I'm making is that the rules are being selectively enforced. In fact, if we extend our Police Metaphor - do you remember the fuss that was kicked up when Police were letting of Maori for various offences.

[husaberg]

And that's the point - No one has any issues when the rules are fairly enforced.

The claim that I'm making is that the rules are being selectively enforced. In fact, if we extend our Police Metaphor - do you remember the fuss that was kicked up when Police were letting of Maori for various offences.
So your latest failed analogy would be akin to suggesting when you are getting a ticket for speeding to the police officer that you shouldn't get a ticket as other have speed and not got caught yet, Yeah that is logical.

[TheDemonLord]

Thats exactly what you are claiming, that you know better than a Federal court judge.

On IT Matters - which is different from what you are trying to posit. Hence you need to stop with the Strawman and address the actual argument.


Drawing attention to one line is rather silly especially as its one line you wish to take out of context.

No, it's entirely in context and in the timeline. Their initial position was one of Free Speech and acknowledging that they shouldn't be editorializing content.


While they dont want to make editorial decision they acknowledge that the content on their sites is not in keeping with their rules which is why it was being removed.

You're playing a sleight of hand, they are under no legal or congressional obligation to keep to their Rules. They could have told Congress to piss off, citing the first amendment.

You are trying to make it sound like they were under some fiat of force from the government to do something.


All the social media sites removing jones as once appears to be the domino effect, one site showed guts made the call the others followed.
But lets be serious he had been on shaky ground for months.
The certainly would have got the wind up due to their failures to adhere to their own guild-lines in front of congress in July.


Or they were colluding behind the scenes. And given the physical proximity of those companies and other factors - that's well within the realms of possibility.

[TheDemonLord]

So your latest failed analogy would be akin to suggesting when you are getting a ticket for speeding to the police officer that you shouldn't get a ticket as other have speed and not got caught yet, Yeah that is logical.

Keep setting up that Strawman....

[husaberg]

On IT Matters - which is different from what you are trying to posit. Hence you need to stop with the Strawman and address the actual argument.



No, it's entirely in context and in the timeline. Their initial position was one of Free Speech and acknowledging that they shouldn't be editorializing content.



You're playing a sleight of hand, they are under no legal or congressional obligation to keep to their Rules. They could have told Congress to piss off, citing the first amendment.

You are trying to make it sound like they were under some fiat of force from the government to do something.



Or they were colluding behind the scenes. And given the physical proximity of those companies and other factors - that's well within the realms of possibility.
Your actual argument is you believe are more of an expert on legal matters than a Federal court judge. Which is delusional when it comes to legal matters.
No you took a line out of context and katmaned it.
If they told Congress to piss off they would have had congress removing their freedoms to act as they have thus far.
Colluding really, so do you have any evidence or are you just trying to create a conspiracy.
As for the accusation that i are offering a strawman its clearly you that are trying to do this.
its pretty simple Jones has breached the site rules of the sites he was banned from.
but as a defense you can only offer strawmans , Do you offer that he is not guilty, nope, instead you offer up as a defense others are guilty, that there is a classic strawman. you then introduce all these other players and possible conspiracies and how he can say whatever he likes, but this is not the case at all.



July 11th: Facebook hosts a Q&A session with reporters about its efforts to fight fake news but fails to explain why a page like InfoWars, known for spreading misinformation, is allowed to live on its site. Facebook's argument seems to be that it doesn't want to be an arbiter of the truth. "We just don't think banning pages for sharing conspiracy theories or false news is the right way to go," the company says. "They seem to have YouTube and Twitter accounts too -- we imagine for the same reason."

July 17th: Facebook testifies before Congress (again), in a hearing titled "Examining the Content Filtering Practices of Social Media Giants." The company's president for global policy management, Monika Bickert, is unable to tell members of the House Judiciary Committee why InfoWars hasn't been banned from the site for spreading conspiracies. "Allegations that survivors of a tragedy like Parkland are crisis actors, that violates our policy and we remove that content," she says. "If they posted sufficient content that violated our threshold, that page would come down." The problem is that Facebook apparently can't decide when a page should be banned, since it doesn't have a "three strikes and you're out" policy like YouTube. "That threshold varies," Bickert says, "depending on the severity of different types of violations."

July 25th: YouTube removes multiple videos from the Alex Jones Channel, citing a violation of its community guidelines. Of the four videos removed, two reportedly featured hate speech against Muslims and transgender people. Another one was titled "How to prevent liberalism" and featured Jones mocking a child being shoved by an adult man. "We have long standing policies against child endangerment and hate speech," YouTube says in a statement. "We apply our policies consistently according to the content in the videos, regardless of the speaker or the channel. We also have a clear three-strikes policy and we terminate channels when they receive three strikes in three months." Even though four videos were removed, though, this counts as only one strike.

July 27th: Facebook blocks Jones from posting on his personal profile for 30 days, though the InfoWars and "Alex Jones" public pages aren't part of the suspension. The company says it's banning Jones for violating its community standards, after removing several videos from his account that promoted hateful content -- some of which were the same ones YouTube removed on July 25th. "Our Community Standards make it clear that we prohibit content that encourages physical harm [bullying], or attacks someone based on their religious affiliation or gender identity [hate speech]" Facebook said.


https://youtu.be/oeYznRiQ0dU?t=427
If you watch they are fighting to keep their special privileges.ie section 230
This occured a liitlle over a week before jones content was removed and the process of suspending Jones activities went into overdrive.
Its pretty clear reading between the lines they were offered a chance to clean up there sites or face having their privillages revoked, as just saying "hey we only run the site and people post stuff its not our fault what the content is" is no longer enough

[Graystone]

Well, if you want to be a part of the discussion, you can read...



And yet, I've not mentioned it, Husabergs not mentioned - and then here you are spouting derogatory phrases involving Race and Sex - like a Racist Sexist...

And if only you could write coherently we could have one.

:laugh: the derogatory phrases are your interpretation, and they certainly are not racist or sexist. Could it be, that such white male supremacy behavior is part of the reason Alex Jones was banned? A reason you absolutely want to keep out of the discussion as it invalidates your mutterings about martyrdom...

[Graystone]

On IT Matters - which is different from what you are trying to posit. Hence you need to stop with the Strawman and address the actual argument.

Drop the wide-on for IT, has nobody told you it is a bitch job only there to facilitate the needs and desires of other industries/services?

[Katman]

If you watch they are fighting to keep their special privileges.ie section 230
This occured a liitlle over a week before jones content was removed and the process of suspending Jones activities went into overdrive.
Its pretty clear reading between the lines they were offered a chance to clean up there sites or face having their privillages revoked, as just saying "hey we only run the site and people post stuff its not our fault what the content is" is no longer enough

So they were coerced into censoring their sites?

[husaberg]

So they were coerced into censoring their sites?

Its not cemsorship if i'ts removes abuse.
its also not censorship if its in the terms and conditions the user signed.

[Katman]

Its not cemsorship if i'ts removes abuse.
its also not censorship if its in the terms and conditions the user signed.

But are you suggesting they were threatened with the removal of privileges if they didn't remove certain content from their sites?

Because if you are, that sounds like the very definition of coercion.

And censorship.

[husaberg]

But are you saying they were threatened with the removal of privileges if they didn't remove certain content from their sites?

Because if you are, that sounds like the very definition of coercion.

And censorship.
No there are merely reminding them of their obligations to upheld all parts of the constitution.
Because under section 230 they are granted privileges relating to content filtering but that comes at a cost that they have to be seen enforcing their own rules they have in place to protect the other first amendment rights of their citizens.
Did you not understand that?

Also its pretty hard to push the freedom of the press angle when thy dont have to comply with the same checks and balances the press has too.
I can see why you cant understand how that works as you are only interested in free Speech when it suits you.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the other parts of the Constitution before making such generations about the right to free speech.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT 14

[1.] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


AMENDMENT 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[TheDemonLord]

And if only you could write coherently we could have one.

Are you struggling to understand


Except that's not been my point. You're trying the same Strawman that Husa is/was.

If so - perhaps you might want to go back to read about Spot the Dog.


:laugh: the derogatory phrases are your interpretation, and they certainly are not racist or sexist. Could it be, that such white male supremacy behavior is part of the reason Alex Jones was banned? A reason you absolutely want to keep out of the discussion as it invalidates your mutterings about martyrdom...

It's discriminating based on Race and Sex - Therefore, it's Racist and Sexist.

Why are you so eager to make it about Race and Sex? Unless you are a Racist, Sexist.

The only thing that I've mentioned about Martyrdom is:


a large part of his schtick was that powerful organizations are working together for their own nefarious purposes, are screwing over the little guy to do so and are going to be coming after Him for 'exposing' it.

And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.

See how there is no Race or Sex involved in that argument.

[TheDemonLord]

Your actual argument is you believe are more of an expert on legal matters than a Federal court judge. Which is delusional when it comes to legal matters.

Except this isn't solely a Legal matter, is it? It has to do with ways of communicating that have only existed in the last 10 years and only really been used as a platform for political Discourse in the last 5-6 years.

The Judges ruling first outlines the rights of a private company to conduct business as they see fit, but then acknowledges that in a specific instance they must set rules to preserve constitutional rights.

If you wished to argue the point honestly, you'd talk about the factors around the decision and why it's not appropriate to extend their requirement to the wider populace - but of course, you know that the retort would be a simple statement of fact - they have set the precedent that in order to preserve constitutional rights, they can infringe on the rights of a private citizen and private company.


No you took a line out of context and katmaned it.

You posted it, I pointed out that it shows what their position was.


If they told Congress to piss off they would have had congress removing their freedoms to act as they have thus far.

And then, they could Cite the 1st Amendment and tell Congress to get Fucked. Literally.

New York Times Co. v. United States
or
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

There is a long history of decisions by the Supreme Court in the US that where there is uncertainty, they ere on the side of Free Speech.


Colluding really, so do you have any evidence or are you just trying to create a conspiracy.

I'm not saying for certain it happened, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion.



As for the accusation that i are offering a strawman its clearly you that are trying to do this.
its pretty simple Jones has breached the site rules of the sites he was banned from.
but as a defense you can only offer strawmans , Do you offer that he is not guilty, nope, instead you offer up as a defense others are guilty, that there is a classic strawman. you then introduce all these other players and possible conspiracies and how he can say whatever he likes, but this is not the case at all.

I'll make it really simple:

I think banning Jones was a bad decision. Not because I like him. Not because I support him. But because banning him provides validation of his claims to his followers AND because I don't like censorship (Political or Otherwise).

The next point is that this ruleset is not being applied to those that hold the same political views as Twitter. This is not saying that Alex Jones should or should not have been banned because of this (which is what you are trying to Strawman me as saying) - only that this is a form of Political Censorship.


If you watch they are fighting to keep their special privileges.ie section 230
This occured a liitlle over a week before jones content was removed and the process of suspending Jones activities went into overdrive.
Its pretty clear reading between the lines they were offered a chance to clean up there sites or face having their privillages revoked, as just saying "hey we only run the site and people post stuff its not our fault what the content is" is no longer enough

Ah Yes, Section 230 - I think we should refer to a judgement made in favour of AOL:


holding AOL negligent in promulgating harmful content would be equivalent to holding AOL "liable for decisions relating to the monitoring, screening, and deletion of content from its network -- actions quintessentially related to a publisher's role."

Remember what I said about once they start Editorializing, they shot themselves in the foot?

Thank you for proving my point (once again)

[husaberg]

Except this isn't solely a Legal matter, is it? It has to do with ways of communicating that have only existed in the last 10 years and only really been used as a platform for political Discourse in the last 5-6 years.

The Judges ruling first outlines the rights of a private company to conduct business as they see fit, but then acknowledges that in a specific instance they must set rules to preserve constitutional rights.

If you wished to argue the point honestly, you'd talk about the factors around the decision and why it's not appropriate to extend their requirement to the wider populace - but of course, you know that the retort would be a simple statement of fact - they have set the precedent that in order to preserve constitutional rights, they can infringe on the rights of a private citizen and private company.



You posted it, I pointed out that it shows what their position was.



And then, they could Cite the 1st Amendment and tell Congress to get Fucked. Literally.

New York Times Co. v. United States
or
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

There is a long history of decisions by the Supreme Court in the US that where there is uncertainty, they ere on the side of Free Speech.



I'm not saying for certain it happened, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion.




I'll make it really simple:

I think banning Jones was a bad decision. Not because I like him. Not because I support him. But because banning him provides validation of his claims to his followers AND because I don't like censorship (Political or Otherwise).

The next point is that this ruleset is not being applied to those that hold the same political views as Twitter. This is not saying that Alex Jones should or should not have been banned because of this (which is what you are trying to Strawman me as saying) - only that this is a form of Political Censorship.



Ah Yes, Section 230 - I think we should refer to a judgement made in favour of AOL:



Remember what I said about once they start Editorializing, they shot themselves in the foot?

Thank you for proving my point (once again)

Your point is you think you know better then a US judge does when it comes to the law, You clearly don't. Its entirely a legal mater which it was brought before the US federal Court rather than TDL's IT desk.
You then wish to propagate that in your opinion that Congress has no powers to uphold the rights of US citzens, they clearly do
You then wish to use only parts of the US constitution when it suits your argument. The Constitution has more than one part. I posted the relevent ones above.
You seek to say youtube twitter and facebook they are free to do as they wish in regards to content on their sites
Yet you then attempt to say they are not free to do as they wish when it it comes to banning people such as Jones when he fails to meet their own rules.
Congress's Job is to protect all its citizens this includes reminding companies of its obligations under the US Consitution this includes and them input into laws that effect them.
If Social media dont want to have further laws put in place to protect the rights of all US citizens they need to uphold all of the US constitution or face the consequences of not doing so which will result in regulation.


Free speech on Social media
This is not a First Amendment issue though plenty of people think it is.
This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the First Amendment. Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations. "So if, say, Twitter decides to ban you, you'd be a bit out of luck," . "You can't make a First Amendment claim in court."


Can you be arrested for saying something critical of the government on social media
Definitely a First Amendment issue.
But, like pretty much everything in law, there are exceptions and nuances.
"It's definitely unconstitutional, unless you are trying to incite people to violence with your speech,"


If Your comment or post was deleted on social media
It's a private company, so it's not a First Amendment issue.
There's that refrain again: Private companies, like social media sites, can do whatever they want.

[TheDemonLord]

Your point is you think you know better then a US judge does when it comes to the law, You clearly don't. Its entirely a legal mater which it was brought before the US federal Court rather than TDL's IT desk.
You then wish to propagate that in your opinion that Congress has no powers to uphold the rights of US citzens, they clearly do
You then wish to use only parts of the US constitution when it suits your argument. The Constitution has more than one part. I posted the relevent ones above.
You seek to say youtube twitter and facebook they are free to do as they wish in regards to content on their sites
Yet you then attempt to say they are not free to do as they wish when it it comes to banning people such as Jones when he fails to meet their own rules.
Congress's Job is to protect all its citizens this includes reminding companies of its obligations under the US Consitution this includes and them input into laws that effect them.
If Social media dont want to have further laws put in place to protect the rights of all US citizens they need to uphold all of the US constitution or face the consequences of not doing so which will result in regulation.

https://betanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/straw_man.jpg

On point 1: There is a technology component, which is what I'm addressing, not the legal component. And on that part, yes, I DO think I know better (considering I've been working in Internet/Cloud based companies for over a Decade). Your attempt to claim otherwise is as the picture.

On point 2: Wrong way round. Congress has no powers to infringe the rights of US Citizens. That's the entire point of the Constitution - to Limit the powers of Government.

On point 3: There's a reason why the First Amendment is First (and the second amendment is directly after it) - it is the Amendment that is held in highest regard. If a situation arises where there appears to be a conflict, it tends to take precedence - so citing it is entirely correct. You just don't like that it disproves your argument.

On point 4: Yes, they are free to do as they wish - however, if they want to claim objectivity, then I'm going to hold them to the set of rules they espouse to follow. You'll note, I've not stopped them from doing anything, I've just pointed out it was both dumb and hypocritical. Furthermore, the bias has now meant they are undertaking a "Publishers role", which has implications.

On point 5: So what law have they breached? You'll need to prove that if you wish to make that claim.

On point 6: The only reason they would need to do that, is if it's considered a Public space, so do you know better than the Lawyer now as well?

[husaberg]

On point 1: There is a technology component, which is what I'm addressing, not the legal component. And on that part, yes, I DO think I know better (considering I've been working in Internet/Cloud based companies for over a Decade). Your attempt to claim otherwise is as the picture.
the ruling was on a legal mater, you mater how much you try and twist it its exactly what it is thats why a judge made the ruling rather than a self syled IT expert.

On point 2: Wrong way round. Congress has no powers to infringe the rights of US Citizens. That's the entire point of the Constitution - to Limit the powers of Government.
Congress is protecting the rights of all US citizens.

On point 3: There's a reason why the First Amendment is First (and the second amendment is directly after it) - it is the Amendment that is held in highest regard. If a situation arises where there appears to be a conflict, it tends to take precedence - so citing it is entirely correct. You just don't like that it disproves your argument.
No it doesnt as i have said numerous times they are a private organisation, The first amendment doesnt apply you cant have it both ways.

On point 4: Yes, they are free to do as they wish - however, if they want to claim objectivity, then I'm going to hold them to the set of rules they espouse to follow. You'll note, I've not stopped them from doing anything, I've just pointed out it was both dumb and hypocritical. Furthermore, the bias has now meant they are undertaking a "Publishers role", which has implications.
Your point is moot as they are free to do as they wish. no matter what you think it is you that is being hypocritical in attempting to say they have impinged someones free speech one it doesnt apply and two when they are only enforcing their rules.

On point 5: So what law have they breached? You'll need to prove that if you wish to make that claim.
I said they have a duty to protect the rights of all their citizens they will make laws to do this if required, which is why there is so many amendments to the constitution.

On point 6: The only reason they would need to do that, is if it's considered a Public space, so do you know better than the Lawyer now as well?
I dont need to know more than a lawyer (or claim to that was you in the first section) because i can follow the process and the reason they invited facebook and twitter and youtube to speak before Congress.
In case you missed it there was some pretty major problems exposed at the Last US election with regards to social media. The Social media big three have readily acknowledged Russians exploited their platforms ahead of the 2016 election So they were asked to explain to Congress what they're doing to counter abuse of their networks ahead of this year's congressional midterms.
Also i know more than half of Americans think the government should regulate tech companies, nearly two-thirds of US adults believe social media harassment is "a major problem," and most of them believe it's the tech industry's job to fix it.

[TheDemonLord]

the ruling was on a legal mater, you mater how much you try and twist it its exactly what it is thats why a judge made the ruling rather than a self syled IT expert.

Okay. Technology creates an Emergent problem. The Law often takes up to a Decade to address it. The Judges ruling (in regards to the Technology component) is contradictory. This is not a legal opinion, it's a Technology opinion.

Case in point: Truth in Domain Names act - was passed in 2003 and later strengthened in 2006 - the problem had been around since the mid 90s.


Congress is protecting the rights of all US citizens.

And what right is it that you are presupposing they are violating?


No it doesnt as i jhave said numerous times they are a private organisation, Note you are not a judge or a lawyer.

Except the Judge in point has made a ruling, on a private organization, in regards to the 1st Amendment.


Your point is moot as they are free to do as they wish.

So you've just invalidated your argument then...


I said they have a duty to protect the rights of all their citizens they will make laws to do this if required, which is why there is amendments to the constitution.

No, the constitution defines the limits on the government. There are only 27 Amendments. You are clearly getting confused...


I dont need to know more than a lawyer or claim to that was you in the first section because i can follow the process and the reason they invited facebook and twitter and youtube to speak before Congress.
In case you missed it there was some pretty major problems exposed at the Last US election with regards to social media. The Social media big three have readily acknowledged Russians exploited their platforms ahead of the 2016 election So they were asked to explain to Congress what they're doing to counter abuse of their networks ahead of this year's congressional midterms.
Also More than half of Americans think the government should regulate tech companies, nearly two-thirds of US adults believe social media harassment is "a major problem," and most of them believe it's the tech industry's job to fix it.

What an interesting point... - so, you are saying that if the companies are allowing Political speech on their platforms, they have an obligation to make sure it's unbiased so as to not unfairly sway popular opinion...

Which would mean selectively banning right-wing figures, whilst not banning Left-wing figures would run counter to this - Thanks again for proving my point.

And as for your stats - the devil is in the details:

If you were to ask the "over half of Americans" what the Government should regulate the companies on - I can guarantee you, you wouldn't have a unanimous response.

Then you have to discuss what is Harassment - if you ask a Left-wing activist, Harassment is merely disagreeing with their opinion...

[husaberg]

the ruling was on a legal mater, you mater how much you try and twist it its exactly what it is thats why a judge made the ruling rather than a self syled IT expert.


Okay. Technology creates an Emergent problem. The Law often takes up to a Decade to address it. The Judges ruling (in regards to the Technology component) is contradictory. This is not a legal opinion, it's a Technology opinion.


No it doesnt as i have said numerous times they are a private organisation, The first amendment doesn't apply you cant have it both ways.


Except the Judge in point has made a ruling, on a private organization, in regards to the 1st Amendment.

You really need to get your story straight judge makes a ruling and they are wrong because you know better yet another judge makes a ruling that you agree with (thats nothing to do with the argument as it doesnt apply to the actions of facebook and twitter and youtube) but you then claim this proves your point.
Which one is it?
The judges riuling if you bothered to read it said the multiple use of the account to deliver official information deemed it a public place (not the whole of twitter only the trump account.) the Judge made a legal ruling in regards to its use defining its legal jurisdiction which is entirely a legal matter.

The judge’s ruling found, however, that the company has less control over the @realDonaldTrump account than Trump himself and White House social media director Dan Scavino – also a public official. Their power includes the ability to block people from seeing the account’s tweets, and “from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets,” in the form of replies and comments on Twitter’s platform.
Also key was the fact that the @realDonaldTrump account is used for governmental purposes. Specifically, the judge found that “the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President” – such as announcing the appointments and terminations of government officials.
The rest is just you attempting to claim a win when it the reality that you lost pages ago. When it was pointed out that Youtube and facebook and all the others were entirely within there rights to ban him. You just dont like it that Alex Jones was banned and it was entirely legal the way it happened and it has nothing to do with free speech.
Thus I will ask you a pretty simple question
Were facebook etc behaving within their rights to ban Alex Jones yes or no.

[Graystone]

Are you struggling to understand



If so - perhaps you might want to go back to read about Spot the Dog.



It's discriminating based on Race and Sex - Therefore, it's Racist and Sexist.

Why are you so eager to make it about Race and Sex? Unless you are a Racist, Sexist.

The only thing that I've mentioned about Martyrdom is:



And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.

See how there is no Race or Sex involved in that argument.

So what is your point? The dude isn't a martyr on account if they are right to ban him based on his behaviour, not his beliefs.

What's discriminating based on race/sex? Are you saying it is racist for me to call someone else out as a racist?

[TheDemonLord]

So what is your point? The dude isn't a martyr on account if they are right to ban him based on his behaviour, not his beliefs.

There's my point.

If they are banning him on his behaviour (as they and you claim), then the expectation is that they would ban everyone else who falls fowl of the standards they set.

But that isn't what has happened, which indicates that it isn't just his behaviour, but ALSO his beliefs.

And being banned for his beliefs is what will make him a Martyr to his fanbase and considering what he espoused, will provide a justification and verification for what he says:

"They are out to get me"
and so they went out and proceeded to "get him"


What's discriminating based on race/sex? Are you saying it is racist for me to call someone else out as a racist?

"White Male Privilege"

I see that phrase in the same way that you'd see the phrase "Nigger Bitch beneficiary" - the discrimination and derogatory nature of the comment is the same.

That, and the fact you brought it into the discussion where it did not exist prior is why I called you a Sexist and Racist.

[Graystone]

There's my point.

If they are banning him on his behaviour (as they and you claim), then the expectation is that they would ban everyone else who falls fowl of the standards they set.

But that isn't what has happened, which indicates that it isn't just his behaviour, but ALSO his beliefs.

And being banned for his beliefs is what will make him a Martyr to his fanbase and considering what he espoused, will provide a justification and verification for what he says:

"They are out to get me"
and so they went out and proceeded to "get him"



"White Male Privilege"

I see that phrase in the same way that you'd see the phrase "Nigger Bitch beneficiary" - the discrimination and derogatory nature of the comment is the same.

That, and the fact you brought it into the discussion where it did not exist prior is why I called you a Sexist and Racist.

And it's that if (which was a typo of of) which requires an understanding of the reasons he was banned, thus they are entirely relevant, and not a Strawman as you claim.

Are you off your rocker? White male privilege is not a derogatory term, it's a well observed attribute in many societies. Nor was it used to discriminate against you in any way.

[TheDemonLord]

And it's that if (which was a typo of of) which requires an understanding of the reasons he was banned, thus they are entirely relevant, and not a Strawman as you claim.

A rather telling Typo then...

The reason for his ban is irrelevant, since I've not made any statement as to whether or not it was justified. So it's entirely a strawman of my position, since I've never made that claim.

The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban, then it stands to reason that other people who have likewise breached the ToS should also be banned.

If they are not being banned, then it is clear that the stated reason (breach of ToS) is not the sole reason for the ban.


Are you off your rocker? White male privilege is not a derogatory term, it's a well observed attribute in many societies. Nor was it used to discriminate against you in any way.

It's a derogatory term as far as I (and others) are concerned, Coined by Marxist activists, propagated by University courses with no serious academic standards. I'll simply restate - I look upon you when you use that phrase, in the same way you look upon a member of the KKK when they use the phrase "Nigger Bitch Beneficiary".

Well Observed? Only by Marxists, Racists and Sexists - obsessed with Power, Race and Sex.

And not used to Discriminate? Then tell me - why specify a group if not to discriminate?

[husaberg]

There's my point.

If they are banning him on his behaviour (as they and you claim), then the expectation is that they would ban everyone else who falls fowl of the standards they set.

But that isn't what has happened, which indicates that it isn't just his behaviour, but ALSO his beliefs.

And being banned for his beliefs is what will make him a Martyr to his fanbase and considering what he espoused, will provide a justification and verification for what he says:

"They are out to get me"
and so they went out and proceeded to "get him"




Plenty of people have been banned from You tube with far greater number of subscribers than Alex Jones
Are you suggesting they were out to get them as well
https://www.nickiswift.com/114873/youtube-stars-banned/
For the record in regards to Jones they were clear.


Apple, the largest podcast platform, said in a statement that it "does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users. Podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory making them no longer searchable or available for download or streaming. We believe in representing a wide range of views, so long as people are respectful to those with differing opinions."


a spokesperson for Spotify said in a statement on Monday: "We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community. Due to repeated violations of Spotify’s prohibited content policies, The Alex Jones Show has lost access to the Spotify platform."


A spokesperson for YouTube told Billboard in a statement: "All users agree to comply with our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines when they sign up to use YouTube. When users violate these policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts." The terms specifically prohibit hate speech, though YT did not specify why it took the action in removing four pages: the Alex Jones Channel, Alex Jones, InfoWars and InfoWars Nightly News.


Last week, podcast platform Stitcher also pulled all of Jones' episodes and Facebook had earlier suspended Jones' personal account,

[Katman]

And now we have a cartoonist receiving death threats over his caricature of Serena Williams.

The world's gone barking fucking mad.

[Drew]

And now we have a cartoonist receiving death threats over his caricature of Serena Williams.

The world's gone fucking mad.
What's your point? That has nothing to do with free speech, it's just regards looking for stuff to be upset about.

[FJRider]

And that's the point - No one has any issues when the rules are fairly enforced.

If I am in a group that gets stopped ... then I get the officers discretion and the others get charged ... is the law getting fairly enforced or not ... ??? :shifty:


The claim that I'm making is that the rules are being selectively enforced. In fact, if we extend our Police Metaphor - do you remember the fuss that was kicked up when Police were letting of Maori for various offences.

Aside from the fact I ignore most of you claims (as I think most of them are bullshit) and nearly ignored this one. BUT ... is this a call of your's of some form of (reverse .. ???) Police racism ??? :scratch: Or is it simply that Maori are not allowed to use the officers discretion to escape charges ... if white dudes are getting pinged ... ??? :scratch:

As I recall ... you are a (self declared) expert in IT. Are you also a (self declared) expert in law too ... ??? :scratch:

[Katman]

If I am in a group that gets stopped ... then I get the officers discretion and the others get charged ... is the law getting fairly enforced or not?

No, it's not.

[FJRider]

No, it's not.


What law would be broken then ... ???

And ... life isn't always fair ... Get over it ... :cool:

But if I'm are within the bounds of the :Police: and I'm let off ... and you're not ... :bleh:

[Katman]

What law would be broken then ... ???

And ... life isn't always fair ... Get over it ... :cool:

But if I'm are within the bounds of the :Police: and I'm let off ... and you're not ... :bleh:

If everyone in your group was guilty of the same offence, your penchant for sucking pig dick doesn't make his discretion 'fair'.

And yes, I'm all too painfully aware that life isn't always fair.

[Graystone]

A rather telling Typo then...

The reason for his ban is irrelevant, since I've not made any statement as to whether or not it was justified. So it's entirely a strawman of my position, since I've never made that claim.

The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban, then it stands to reason that other people who have likewise breached the ToS should also be banned.

If they are not being banned, then it is clear that the stated reason (breach of ToS) is not the sole reason for the ban.



It's a derogatory term as far as I (and others) are concerned, Coined by Marxist activists, propagated by University courses with no serious academic standards. I'll simply restate - I look upon you when you use that phrase, in the same way you look upon a member of the KKK when they use the phrase "Nigger Bitch Beneficiary".

Well Observed? Only by Marxists, Racists and Sexists - obsessed with Power, Race and Sex.

And not used to Discriminate? Then tell me - why specify a group if not to discriminate?

By repeatedly saying it is not unfairly applied you are making assumptions on the reason though.

No, well observed by social scientists.

I was not specifying a group, white male privelige is a societal attribute.

[TheDemonLord]

Plenty of people have been banned from You tube with far greater number of subscribers than Alex Jones
Are you suggesting they were out to get them as well
https://www.nickiswift.com/114873/youtube-stars-banned/
For the record in regards to Jones they were clear.

What a Red Herring...

So Hate Speed is against the ToS and is justification for being banned - so let's try a bit of an experiment:


The difference between pedophilia jokes and attacking white people is that pedophilia jokes are bad, while attacking white people is good
or

you can’t be racist against white people
or

Fuck white people, you ain't shit. I'm done with you. 2014, you going down. Black Powwow!!!

And Hate speech is defined as:


Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity

Do you agree that the content of those tweets constitutes Hate Speech, based on the definition?
If the Content of those Tweets are Hate Speech, do you agree that the Authors should be banned (in line with your and the Social Media statements above)?

Which brings us to the last point - all of those authors are still on Twitter, with a verified Check mark. and we know that the list that they are on has been seen by twitter. So why haven't they be banned?

Next up is Candace Owens vs Sarah Jeong:

Sarah Jeong posts a series of Racist tweets, nothing happens - gets hired by the NYT
Candace Owens takes those tweets, replaces the race (from white to Jew if I remember correctly) and then tweets them. Candace Owens gets banned (albeit temporarily) by Twitter.

I don't know how more Black and White (pun intended) it can be.

[TheDemonLord]

If I am in a group that gets stopped ... then I get the officers discretion and the others get charged ... is the law getting fairly enforced or not ... ??? :shifty:

There are 2 philosophical view points here:

The first is the arbitrary response of No, it's not.
but to Quote Star Wars: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" and to quote Star Trek: "there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute."

Which brings me to the second view:

Everyone who has the mental capacity to operate a vehicle should know that being polite and courteous to the Police is more likely to result in a better outcome, especially if the result was marginal or momentarily over the speed limit.

And since that should be universally known - each individual is able act in such a manner as to maximize their ability to benefit from discretion.


Aside from the fact I ignore most of you claims (as I think most of them are bullshit) and nearly ignored this one.

As is your want and right.


BUT ... is this a call of your's of some form of (reverse .. ???) Police racism ???

There's no such thing as "Reverse Racism", only Racism. If we seek to have a less Racist society, it seems clear to me that to achieve that, we would want less Racism, not more.


Or is it simply that Maori are not allowed to use the officers discretion to escape charges ... if white dudes are getting pinged ... ??? :scratch:

If you are not familiar with the situation, then I'd suggest reading about it before making a comment on it.
If you are familiar with the situation, then you'd know that statement is completely disingenuous.


As I recall ... you are a (self declared) expert in IT. Are you also a (self declared) expert in law too ... ??? :scratch:

Except, I've not made a Legal claim...

[husaberg]

What a Red Herring...

So Hate Speed is against the ToS and is justification for being banned - so let's try a bit of an experiment:


or

or


And Hate speech is defined as:



Do you agree that the content of those tweets constitutes Hate Speech, based on the definition?
If the Content of those Tweets are Hate Speech, do you agree that the Authors should be banned (in line with your and the Social Media statements above)?

Which brings us to the last point - all of those authors are still on Twitter, with a verified Check mark. and we know that the list that they are on has been seen by twitter. So why haven't they be banned?

Next up is Candace Owens vs Sarah Jeong:

Sarah Jeong posts a series of Racist tweets, nothing happens - gets hired by the NYT
Candace Owens takes those tweets, replaces the race (from white to Jew if I remember correctly) and then tweets them. Candace Owens gets banned (albeit temporarily) by Twitter.

I don't know how more Black and White (pun intended) it can be.
The red herrings are all being fished up by you. You keep trying to muddy the water by bringing other people into the arguement.


The rest is just you attempting to claim a win when it the reality that you lost pages ago. When it was pointed out that Youtube and facebook and all the others were entirely within there rights to ban him. You just dont like it that Alex Jones was banned and it was entirely legal the way it happened and it has nothing to do with free speech.
Thus I will ask you a pretty simple question
Were facebook etc behaving within their rights to ban Alex Jones yes or no.

I asked if you agreed that they were behaving within their rights for banning Jones as he had posted material that that was in breach of the stds.
it was a yes or no answer?
Did he or did he not post material that was in breach of the stds?
Were they legally entitled to ban Jones Yes or No?
I note Youtube and twitter and Apple and Facebook all have their own definitions of what is acceptable( i even posted them.)
I posted a list of people that have been banned as you claimed it was only Jones banned and that you believed it was mainly only for his politics. This was clearly untruthful and not backed by facts.

[TheDemonLord]

By repeatedly saying it is not unfairly applied you are making assumptions on the reason though.

No, I'm not. Put the Strawman down.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this point: I have not made any comment as to whether or not Alex Jones was or was not in breach of the ToS. Any question about what he did or did not do is therefore irrelevant to the point I'm making.


No, well observed by social scientists.

Bullshit. The phrase, concept and description was created by an Intersectional Feminist with ZERO scientific training, there was NO methodology that she used to create the concept, it was literally just her personal feelings on the subject. The only people who think it's a serious thing are the Rabid left-wing activist pseudo disciplines.


I was not specifying a group, white male privelige is a societal attribute.

- Says "Not Specifying a group"
- Specifies a group: "White Male"

...

I'm having great difficulty believing you could be that stupid and contradictory.

[TheDemonLord]

The red herrings are all being fished up by you. You keep trying to muddy the water by bringing other people into the arguement.

Nope. They provide a clear case study to show that the rules are being selectively applied.


I asked if you agreed that Alex jones had posted material that that was in breach of the stds.
it was a yes or no answer?

Refer to my answer to Graystone. It's irrelevant to any point that I'm making.


I note Youtube and twitter and Apple and Facebook all have their own definitions of what is acceptable i even posted them.

They have variations on a theme, they are not wildly different. Given the Alex Jones scenario, it would appear that what warrants a Ban on one platform, will warrant a ban on the others.


I posted a list of people that have been banned as you claimed it was only Jones banned and that you believed it was only for his politics. This was untruthful and not backed by facts.

I've not said "Only for his politics" - You really are determined to argue dishonestly.

Here's what I said:


then it is clear that the stated reason (breach of ToS) is not the sole reason for the ban.

Other people have been banned, I'm not disputing that - most of which seems to be for sexual type behavior (which YT, to it's credit has been pretty consistent on) however, it's not relevant to the particular area of discussion - namely Political discussion.

[husaberg]

Nope. They provide a clear case study to show that the rules are being selectively applied.



Refer to my answer to Graystone. It's irrelevant to any point that I'm making.



They have variations on a theme, they are not wildly different. Given the Alex Jones scenario, it would appear that what warrants a Ban on one platform, will warrant a ban on the others.



I've not said "Only for his politics" - You really are determined to argue dishonestly.

Here's what I said:



Other people have been banned, I'm not disputing that - most of which seems to be for sexual type behavior (which YT, to it's credit has been pretty consistent on) however, it's not relevant to the particular area of discussion - namely Political discussion.
Thats not a case study, its you grasping at straws trying to indicate and mitigate a defense for his actions based on your view of others. Rather than address the real points.
For instance, You dont know how many times they have been warned or how many complaints have been received about the others conduct.
But the real telling point is you have still not answered the simple yes or no questions.
Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?
Given that you stated a ban on one forum requires the same behavior to warrant a ban on the rest its especially telling that you refuse to answer the question.

[TheDemonLord]

Thats not a case study, its you grasping at straws trying to indicate and mitigate a defense for his actions based on your view of others. Rather than address the real points.
For instance, You dont know how many times they have been warned or how many complaints have been received about the others conduct.
But the real telling point is you have still not answered the simple yes or no questions.
Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?
Given that you stated a ban on one forum requires the same behavior to warrant a ban on the rest its especially telling that you refuse to answer the question.

I'm not trying to mitigate his actions. This entire post is you trying to argue a point that you think you can win, which is entirely not the point I'm making.

As such, I'm refusing to entertain your diversions. The fact you have to resort to that tactic shows you can't rebut the point I'm making.

I did not state explicitly a ban on one is a ban on all:


Given the Alex Jones scenario, it would appear that what warrants a Ban on one platform, will warrant a ban on the others.

[husaberg]

I'm not trying to mitigate his actions. This entire post is you trying to argue a point that you think you can win, which is entirely not the point I'm making.

As such, I'm refusing to entertain your diversions. The fact you have to resort to that tactic shows you can't rebut the point I'm making.

I did not state explicitly a ban on one is a ban on all:
You are attempting to mitigate his actions in an alsmost child like fashion by offering up
"but but others are doing it mommy", or "but all the other kids get to stay up late mommy" do you seriously consider a judge except that as a defense?

So again Well another non answer of a simple line of questions are you trying to break Katspms record.
You seek to continue to though up all these other issues, to create an impression that its an other issue.
My questions are not a diversion is a simple question that is the whole basis of the foundation of your entire argument.
You are the one claiming he was thrown out for other reasons but you fail to answer whether he is guilty of the very thing alll the entities claim he was thrown out for.
Its pretty simple questions that you refuse to answer.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

I suggest the reason you do so for the simple reason it destroys your argument
your continued reticence to answer such simple question also destroys your credibility of anything else you offer up entirely.
As for my motives a point i think i can win?, i won it pages ago when you refused to answer the simple questions.
Granted all your subsequent Gish gallops have been entertaining though........:msn-wink:

[TheDemonLord]

My question Is not a diversion is a simple question that is the whole basis of the foundation of your entire argument.

Nope, it's the foundation of what you WANT to be my argument.


You are the one claiming he was thrown out for other reasons but you fail to answer whether he is guilty of the very thing alll the entities claim he was thrown out for.

If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach.

See how it is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making?


I suggest the reason you do so for the simple reason it destroys your argument
your continued reticence to answer such simple question also destroys your credibility of anything else you offer up entirely.
As for my motives a point i think i can win?, i won it pages ago when you refused to answer the simple questions.
Granted all your subsequent Gish gallops have been entertaining though........:msn-wink:

No Gish Gallops here - or can you point to a link I posted where I asked you to watch an excessively long video or read a long waffly blog post? You can't? Oh Dear.

I'm ignoring what you are asking because it is irrelevant to any points I've made. Which I'll recap (as you seem to have great difficulty comprehending this)

1: The Banning of Alex Jones was the most counter-productive action they could have taken, given the claims that he makes and his audience.

In this statement, I'm not making any claims to the validity of the banning, only that the outcome will not achieve what they seek to achieve.

2: That people who have made multiple racist statements (such as racist remarks directed against White People), which is in breach of the ToS, have not been banned. These people all share a similar political viewpoint, which is aligned with the self-declared political bias of the companies in question and demonstrates a selective application of the rules. The most Black and White example (sorry, but that Pun is far too amusing to only be used once) is Sarah Jeong vs Candace Owens.

Again - nothing about the validity of Alex Jones banning.

So, if you wish to honestly engage then cease this strawman attempt and rebut the points I'm making, not the ones you wish me to make.

[husaberg]

Nope, it's the foundation of what you WANT to be my argument.



If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach.

See how it is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making?



No Gish Gallops here - or can you point to a link I posted where I asked you to watch an excessively long video or read a long waffly blog post? You can't? Oh Dear.

I'm ignoring what you are asking because it is irrelevant to any points I've made. Which I'll recap (as you seem to have great difficulty comprehending this)

1: The Banning of Alex Jones was the most counter-productive action they could have taken, given the claims that he makes and his audience.

In this statement, I'm not making any claims to the validity of the banning, only that the outcome will not achieve what they seek to achieve.

2: That people who have made multiple racist statements (such as racist remarks directed against White People), which is in breach of the ToS, have not been banned. These people all share a similar political viewpoint, which is aligned with the self-declared political bias of the companies in question and demonstrates a selective application of the rules. The most Black and White example (sorry, but that Pun is far too amusing to only be used once) is Sarah Jeong vs Candace Owens.

Again - nothing about the validity of Alex Jones banning.

So, if you wish to honestly engage then cease this strawman attempt and rebut the points I'm making, not the ones you wish me to make.
Again you refuse to give a yes or no answer
Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

Lets look at the claims you have made and why its relevent


If Alex Jones has breached the Terms of Use, .



Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban,

There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour

A rather telling Typo then...
The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.


If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..


I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content.


And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.


Your claims and you claim its not relevant if youtube twitter and FB were within their rights to an him now. You by your own claims clearly said it was entirely relevant.

Your continued attempts to throw up other arguments while not answering simple questions is a gish gallop.

Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time
The throwing upo of all the other issues why not answering the simple questions put to you is also a strawman defense.

A straw man is a common form of argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) and is an informal fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent
No one is attempting to answer the conspiracies you are trying to present as they are a series of what if and maybes rather than any constructive decisive cohesive statements.
Its know as Katspaming.

[Graystone]

No, I'm not. Put the Strawman down.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this point: I have not made any comment as to whether or not Alex Jones was or was not in breach of the ToS. Any question about what he did or did not do is therefore irrelevant to the point I'm making.



Bullshit. The phrase, concept and description was created by an Intersectional Feminist with ZERO scientific training, there was NO methodology that she used to create the concept, it was literally just her personal feelings on the subject. The only people who think it's a serious thing are the Rabid left-wing activist pseudo disciplines.



- Says "Not Specifying a group"
- Specifies a group: "White Male"

...

I'm having great difficulty believing you could be that stupid and contradictory.

So when does the backpedling stop? What have you said about Alex Jones, and how does it relate to freedom of speech? What is the point you're making? I was under the impression it was that twitter is discriminating against him by banning him for his political veiws, but any rational person knows you would need to show discrimination (which is why I am asking these questions of you) for that to be a valid point.

So, is the statistical backing is somehow nullified because you don't like the person who came up with the buzzword for it?

I was not specifying a group, white male privilege is a societal attribute; that the attribute refers to a group of people is not discriminatory. I mean, is everyone who uses the word 'women' sexist since is specifies a group? You're completely losing the plot here mate. Is this like a Katman origins story? So many common threads between the two of you which are only growing and becoming more hilarious...

[TheDemonLord]

So when does the backpedling stop? What have you said about Alex Jones, and how does it relate to freedom of speech? What is the point you're making? I was under the impression it was that twitter is discriminating against him by banning him for his political veiws, but any rational person knows you would need to show discrimination (which is why I am asking these questions of you) for that to be a valid point.

"If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach."

See how there is no requirement to do with anything in relation to what Alex Jones actually said/did.


So, is the statistical backing is somehow nullified because you don't like the person who came up with the buzzword for it?

What statistical backing?

Here's the original paper that coined the phrase: http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/diversity/white-privilege-and-male-privilege.pdf

Would you care to show me the Statistical analysis? The hint is in the full title of the piece:


White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies

Every Statistic you will present is merely an attempt at a post hoc justification.


I was not specifying a group, white male privilege is a societal attribute; that the attribute refers to a group of people is not discriminatory. I mean, is everyone who uses the word 'women' sexist since is specifies a group? You're completely losing the plot here mate. Is this like a Katman origins story? So many common threads between the two of you which are only growing and becoming more hilarious...

I love how hard you are tying yourself in knots here, to justify the unjustifiable.

"White Male" is a group.

So to answer your question - is everyone who uses the word Women sexist? Well that depends on the context doesn't it... I'm sure you'd agree the statement "Women can't drive" is Sexist, It's implying a negative attribute applied to an entire group of People.

Just like "White Male Privilege" also implies a negative attribute to an entire group of people.

[TheDemonLord]

Lets look at the claims you have made and why its relevent

Your claims and you claim its not relevant if youtube twitter and FB were within their rights to an him now. You by your own claims clearly said it was entirely relevant.

Every single point does not make any reference to whether or not he breached the ToS, the IF that you are highlighting is me taking what they have said as writ. It matters not to my argument whether he did or did not breach the ToS. So any questions about this are irrelevant.

I'll simply restate the sentance that both yourself and Graystone seem to have trouble understanding:

"If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach."

Again, for both claims there is no burden of proof on my side as to whether or not he has breached the ToS, since I'm not trying to dispute or validate whether he did.


Your continued attempts to throw up other arguments while not answering simple questions is a gish gallop.

No, as I've made only 2 points. Are you having trouble counting as well as reading?


The throwing upo of all the other issues why not answering the simple questions put to you is also a strawman defense.

If it was as you say, it would be a Red Herring, not a Strawman, since I'm not trying to misrepresent your argument.

[husaberg]

Every single point does not make any reference to whether or not he breached the ToS,
Really thats not true now is it? you clearly did , so lets clear up that doubt you are attempting to create.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?



Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban,

There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour


The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.


If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..


I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content.


And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.

[Katman]

Is this like a Katman origins story? So many common threads between the two of you which are only growing and becoming more hilarious...

While your habit of using lots of words to convey absolutely fuck all of any substance is remarkably Berkesque. (Not to mention boganesque).

[TheDemonLord]

Really thats not true now is it? you clearly did , so lets clear up that doubt you are attempting to create.

Then you can't understand English or common English literary devices and we are at an impasse.

I'll simply restate: If he was banned due to a breach of the ToS (which I'm not arguing for or against), then others (who I am arguing have breached the ToS) should also be banned. The fact they have not been banned indicates that just breaching the ToS alone is not enough to warrant a Ban and therefore there is something in addition to have warranted the Ban.

If he has not breached the ToS, then there is something else to have warranted the Ban.

I'm not sure how much more simple I can make that sentance or point.

[husaberg]

Then you can't understand English or common English literary devices and we are at an impasse.

I'll simply restate: If he was banned due to a breach of the ToS (which I'm not arguing for or against), then others (who I am arguing have breached the ToS) should also be banned. The fact they have not been banned indicates that just breaching the ToS alone is not enough to warrant a Ban and therefore there is something in addition to have warranted the Ban.
If he has not breached the ToS, then there is something else to have warranted the Ban.

I'm not sure how much more simple I can make that sentance or point.

You can restate the fact you refuse to answer simple questions as many times and as many ways as you like. You can claim its not relevant again as well.


Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban,

There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour


The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.


If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..


I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content.


And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.


the questions you yourself point as as being relevant, but steadfastly refuse to answer will still be there.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

You have the terms and conditions of service for the platforms, you claim to understand them, you have access and knowledge of the content of what Alex jones posted.
but you steadfastly refuse to put on your big boy pants and admit he was in breach of the TOS.
Yet at the same time you freely state others were.

Can you not see how hypocritical that is of you to do this.

.
I can point to multiple left wing verified accounts, with tweets that are clearly as much a breach of the ToS .
Oh look above its seems you did once admit he was in breech inadvertantly at least.:killingme

Your reticence admitting whether he is in breach is especially amusing Especially considering you claimed you were an IT expert far more qualified than even a federal court judge in making a ruling about the internet.

Your point is you think you know better then a US judge does when it comes to the law, You clearly don't. Its entirely a legal mater which it was brought before the US federal Court rather than TDL's IT desk..


I DO think I know better (considering I've been working in Internet/Cloud based companies for over a Decade). .

[FJRider]

[QUOTE=Katman;1131109875]If everyone in your group was guilty of the same offence, your penchant for sucking pig dick doesn't make his discretion 'fair'.

Typical reaction to anybody getting something they didn't ... or can't keep their mouth shut long enough to get.

[Katman]

Typical reaction to anybody getting something they didn't ... or can't keep their mouth shut long enough to get.

Dude, I ain't sucking anyone's dick to get off a ticket.

[husaberg]

Dude, I ain't sucking anyone's dick to get off a ticket.
Odd because you were the only one that raised it as being a viable option. No one else did.

sucking pig dick doesn't make his discretion 'fair'.
And yes, I'm all too painfully aware that life isn't always fair.

[FJRider]

There are 2 philosophical view points here:

An expert on philosophy as well ... I'm impressed ... :niceone:



As is your want and right.

And within the bounds of free speech too ... I hope I didn't offend ... :blank:


There's no such thing as "Reverse Racism", only Racism. If we seek to have a less Racist society, it seems clear to me that to achieve that, we would want less Racism, not more.

So ... did you believe it to be racist or not ... ??? :rolleyes:


If you are familiar with the situation, then you'd know that statement is completely disingenuous.

Have you bought a dictionary ... or just learned to use it more often ... :lol:

[FJRider]

Odd because you were the only one that raised it as being a viable option. No one else did.

And I guess you could say ... his dick was inside the law ... :buggerd:

[TheDemonLord]

You can restate the fact you refuse to answer simple questions as many times and as many ways as you like. You can claim its not relevant again as well.

the questions you yourself point as as being relevant, but steadfastly refuse to answer will still be there.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

Was the fish riding a Bicycle?

YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THEREFORE I WIN!

/parody.


You have the terms and conditions of service for the platforms, you claim to understand them, you have access and knowledge of the content of what Alex jones posted.
but you steadfastly refuse to put on your big boy pants and admit he was in breach of the TOS.
Yet at the same time you freely state others were.

The clue is in the last sentance. My point is about others. Therefore, in relation to the point I am making It is irrelevant whether or not Alex Jones was or was not in breach.

It's relevant to the point you are trying to make, but not to mine.


Can you not see how hypocritical that is of you to do this.

All I see is someone intent on constructing an a terracotta army of Strawmen.


Especially considering you claimed you were an IT expert far more qualified than even a federal court judge in making a ruling about the internet.

Note how you've deliberately cherry picked the quotes, removing the qualification I made.

If you read the ruling that the judge made, there are parts of it that contradict each other. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that. Now, the Lawyer tries to limit these contradictions by setting limitations (namely that a personal account is being used in an Official Manner, for Official Statements, but an Official) but that doesn't change the contradiction between This statement:


Peaceful public speech and demonstrations in those venues cannot be stopped based on what is being said without a compelling government interest. Twitter, however, is not a real-world space. And it’s run by a private company.

and the ruling:


comments on the president’s account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I'll give you a clue - in statement one she refers differentiates between Twitter as not a real-world space and Public Venues (which currently are covered by the auspices of the 1st Amendment) and she makes a clear acknowledgement that Twitter is private.

She then goes on to acknowledge the The God-Emperors Twitter account is comparable to a Public forum (which is contradiction to the differentiation she made in statement 1) and that something owned and operated by a Private company, is now considered a Public space, requiring 1st Amendment protections.

This is not a Legal opinion, this is a combination of English and a bit of understanding about the Internet.

[TheDemonLord]

An expert on philosophy as well ... I'm impressed ... :niceone:

If you are handing out qualifications, then I'll take it...


And within the bounds of free speech too ... I hope I didn't offend ... :blank:

On the contrary, I think it'd be more interesting if you did manage to offend.


So ... did you believe it to be racist or not ... ??? :rolleyes:

If you treat a group different based solely on Race, then yes - that's Racism. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative.

Do you disagree with that statement? If not, can you tell me how a policy of letting people off for a particular crime based solely on their race isn't racist?

Even if the intent was benevolent?


Have you bought a dictionary ... or just learned to use it more often ... :lol:

Nah, I've just tried to be more careful with spelling... and besides - surely it would be a Thesaurus you are thinking of, if one is seeking to expand their vocabulary...

[husaberg]

The clue is in the last sentance. My point is about others. Therefore, in relation to the point I am making It is irrelevant whether or not Alex Jones was or was not in breach.

Only by your own admission it is relevant, your own words betray you.



If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..
If he is not guilty his ban was not due to a breach of TOS
You made it relevent there.


There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour
You say If they are banning him for his behavior, you made it relevant there.



The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.
You say, If his alleged breech to the tos warrent a ban it sounds like you made it relevant there to whether there was a breach or not.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

You have the terms and conditions of service for the platforms, you claim to understand them, you have access and knowledge of the content of what Alex jones posted.
Hint you have already admitted he was.....


.
I can point to multiple left wing verified accounts, with tweets that are clearly as much a breach of the ToS .

[husaberg]

And I guess you could say ... his dick was inside the law ... :buggerd:

Not only that, when you think about it hes the one claimed he got off his last ticket and that all cops are corrupt......:Police::baby::whistle::p

[TheDemonLord]

Only by your own admission it is relevant, your own words betray you.

If you remove all context from them, and interpret them in the most spastic way possible.

The only reason for doing so would be because the actual point being made isn't refutable.

It's like we have a coin toss - I'm saying that regardless of whether it's a Head or a Tail, there's a ~50% chance of it being Heads or Tails - you are arguing that because I don't know whether it happens to be a Head or a Tail, I can't make that statement.

And then demanding that I answer if it's a Head or a Tail as proof of some form of Victory.

[husaberg]

If you remove all context from them, and interpret them in the most spastic way possible.

The only reason for doing so would be because the actual point being made isn't refutable.

It's like we have a coin toss - I'm saying that regardless of whether it's a Head or a Tail, there's a ~50% chance of it being Heads or Tails - you are arguing that because I don't know whether it happens to be a Head or a Tail, I can't make that statement.

And then demanding that I answer if it's a Head or a Tail as proof of some form of Victory.
You are the one arguing here i am asking a simple series of questions.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

Its nothing like a coin toss The thing is you do know the answer you just dont want to answer the question.
Your motives for your avoidance of the question point towards that you know that if you admit this is the case you wont be able to infer it because of other reasons which you are quite willing to do despite not having any evidence.

[pritch]

however I'll again point to Trump's twitter account, it's now considered a Public Space and bound by the protections of the 1st Amendment.


True, because Trump uses it to disseminate policy, and has said he does so. So far though he may be unique. If for instance the Vice President only posted cat pictures and local church news, 1A protections would not apply.

[TheDemonLord]

You are the one arguing here i am asking a simple series of questions

You mean trying to Strawman my argument by asking irrelevant questions.


Its nothing like a coin toss The thing is you do know the answer you just dont want to answer the question.
Your motives for your avoidance of the question point towards that you know that if you admit this is the case you wont be able to infer it because of other reasons which you are quite willing to do despite not having any evidence.

The answer is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Any attempt to make it relevant is simply a display of intellectual cowardice on your part.

The inference I make is relevant regardless of what your opinion on whether or not he breached the ToS is, therefore any questioning along the lines of whether or not he breached them is....

IRRELEVANT!

[husaberg]

You mean trying to Strawman my argument by asking irrelevant questions.

!
only problem it was you yourself that acknowledged it was relevant.
Your unwillingness to answer it even if it wasn't relevant points to your knowledge it is highly relevant.


Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban,

There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour


The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.


If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..


I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content.


And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.



Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?


The answer is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Any attempt to make it relevant is simply a display of intellectual cowardice on your part.

There is only one coward here and that is you. Too scared to answer a simple question but very quick to accuse others of being guilty of the same issue.
IF you are going to bring forward conspiracy theories from now on at least show some degree of intestinal fortitude in answering simple questions about the conspiracy you are trying to put forward.
Unless you are just trying to be Katspam

[Ocean1]

You mean trying to Strawman my argument by asking irrelevant questions.



The answer is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Any attempt to make it relevant is simply a display of intellectual cowardice on your part.

The inference I make is relevant regardless of what your opinion on whether or not he breached the ToS is, therefore any questioning along the lines of whether or not he breached them is....

IRRELEVANT!

FFS, dude, just ask a question!

Any question!

That's all it takes!... Apparently.

Well OK, you have to ask it 43 times.

But then you win!

Ah, looks like it helps to multi-quote shit you're pretending to question, too...

And THEN you're the winner!

At least, inside your own head. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Voltaire]

you

need

more

quotes

SOME CAPITALS

a non MSM link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAnZ9Txv8XQ

and an air of being more informed
https://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/what-is-sheeple.jpg

[FJRider]

Not only that, when you think about it hes the one claimed he got off his last ticket and that all cops are corrupt......:Police::baby::whistle::p

At least he wouldn't get an "Over-width" charge ... possibly "wasting police time" though ... :pinch:

[FJRider]

If you are handing out qualifications, then I'll take it...

Swollen head syndrome already ...


On the contrary, I think it'd be more interesting if you did manage to offend.

I must try harder ...


If you treat a group different based solely on Race, then yes - that's Racism. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative.

Do you disagree with that statement? If not, can you tell me how a policy of letting people off for a particular crime based solely on their race isn't racist?

Even if the intent was benevolent?

Surprisingly ... a lot of it is because it's simply the only card most can play. Especially if it is ONLY to attract attention to a perceived issue. Usually based more on their ignorance than on intent to offend. Although intent to offend is a common issue.


Nah, I've just tried to be more careful with spelling... and besides - surely it would be a Thesaurus you are thinking of, if one is seeking to expand their vocabulary...

Your spelling is usually ok ... but you would be correct in having your Thesaurus (rather than your dictionary) handy ... people might think English is your second language.

What country ARE you originally from ... :scratch:

[Graystone]

"If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach."

See how there is no requirement to do with anything in relation to what Alex Jones actually said/did.



What statistical backing?

Here's the original paper that coined the phrase: http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/diversity/white-privilege-and-male-privilege.pdf

Would you care to show me the Statistical analysis? The hint is in the full title of the piece:



Every Statistic you will present is merely an attempt at a post hoc justification.



I love how hard you are tying yourself in knots here, to justify the unjustifiable.

"White Male" is a group.

So to answer your question - is everyone who uses the word Women sexist? Well that depends on the context doesn't it... I'm sure you'd agree the statement "Women can't drive" is Sexist, It's implying a negative attribute applied to an entire group of People.

Just like "White Male Privilege" also implies a negative attribute to an entire group of people.

ToS bans are not binary, for broken or unbroken, they're based on degree, and discretion. To show unfairness you do need to look at the reason for the ban.

And what is wrong with posthoc justification in this case? The condition already existed, it just lacked a name with a nice ring to it.

How is privilege applying a negative attribute to an entire group of people?

[Ocean1]

How is privilege applying a negative attribute to an entire group of people?

Because it infers that the group didn't earn whatever "advantages" they're "privileged" to receive.

Which is more or less THE philosophical calling card for all of socialism.

[Drew]

Because it infers that the group didn't earn whatever "advantages" they're "privileged" to receive.

Implies.

But what I take it to imply is that other groups are not being afforded the same RIGHTS as I am. Simply because they weren't born a white Male.

Same coin, different stamp.

[TheDemonLord]

Swollen head syndrome already ...

Funny that, I checked my Helmet size, it's still a Medium - so can't be that bad :P


Surprisingly ... a lot of it is because it's simply the only card most can play. Especially if it is ONLY to attract attention to a perceived issue. Usually based more on their ignorance than on intent to offend. Although intent to offend is a common issue.

I agree to a point. If you keep lazily playing the Race card, eventually it will loose it's impact - like the Boy who cried Wolf.


Your spelling is usually ok ... but you would be correct in having your Thesaurus (rather than your dictionary) handy ... people might think English is your second language.

What country ARE you originally from ... :scratch:

Well, I speak British first, English second :P

[TheDemonLord]

ToS bans are not binary, for broken or unbroken, they're based on degree, and discretion. To show unfairness you do need to look at the reason for the ban.

Aren't they? Because all of the big companies at multiple occasions have declared that Hate Speech has no place on their platforms. That's an absolute statement. Not one that is based on Degree or Discretion.

The terms of Service are quite vague and they've been keen to avoid outright stating it's discretionary - because that would mean they hold editorial/publishing power, which nullifies their defence of not being liable for the content posted on their site.

So given the ToS don't state there are degrees of infraction (only that which is allowed and that which is not) and the companies multiple statements about the Binary nature (This has no place on our platform)

Just how do you support that statement?

So no, I don't need to look at the reason for Alex Jones Ban - despite your and Husa's desperation (which happens to be rather telling...)


And what is wrong with posthoc justification in this case? The condition already existed, it just lacked a name with a nice ring to it.

Simple: They have no academic standards or statistical discipline to ensure that the subsequent studies aren't biased. All of the research in this field is based off of proving an Ideal, as opposed to doing actual research. They equate causation with correlation, based on a presupposition that is never questioned.

And no, the Condition didn't already exist, it's never been proven to exist and remains solely in the domain of the Activist left.


How is privilege applying a negative attribute to an entire group of people?

Ocean summed it up nicely.

[Ocean1]

Implies.

But what I take it to imply is that other groups are not being afforded the same RIGHTS as I am. Simply because they weren't born a white Male.

Same coin, different stamp.

Probably.

The original meaning was "having special rights or advantages". Which, you could make a compelling argument applies to pretty much any group EXCEPT white males.


But the interesting bit is Dictionary.com's more recent: "belonging to a class that enjoys special privileges" Which goes to show that if you misuse definitions long enough and lobby hard enough you CAN make definitions conform to your world view. But the problem with that is still: the evel white male bogeyman actually enjoys fewer priveliges, (or rights, or advantages) than pretty much any other group you can name.

The observation that white males appear better off than other groups isn't the problem, the problem is the assumption that they're only better off because they enjoyed special rights and privileges, (TM). The disappointing thing is that pointing out that the opposite is true is seen as "punching down", socially untenable.

[husaberg]

So no, I don't need to look at the reason for Alex Jones Ban - despite your and Husa's desperation (which happens to be rather telling...)
Really the only deperation displayed is your total avoidence of the reason and justification as to why he was banned.
Your attempts to say its not relevent, is just amusing and points to you trying to your total deseperation to by any means justify your illogical thought process and subsequent conpiracy theory.
You offer up all these alternative conspiracy theory's, while you fail to aknowlege that the sites were well within their rights to ban him for breaching their rules.

[Graystone]

Aren't they? Because all of the big companies at multiple occasions have declared that Hate Speech has no place on their platforms. That's an absolute statement. Not one that is based on Degree or Discretion.

The terms of Service are quite vague and they've been keen to avoid outright stating it's discretionary - because that would mean they hold editorial/publishing power, which nullifies their defence of not being liable for the content posted on their site.

So given the ToS don't state there are degrees of infraction (only that which is allowed and that which is not) and the companies multiple statements about the Binary nature (This has no place on our platform)

Just how do you support that statement?

So no, I don't need to look at the reason for Alex Jones Ban - despite your and Husa's desperation (which happens to be rather telling...)



Simple: They have no academic standards or statistical discipline to ensure that the subsequent studies aren't biased. All of the research in this field is based off of proving an Ideal, as opposed to doing actual research. They equate causation with correlation, based on a presupposition that is never questioned.

And no, the Condition didn't already exist, it's never been proven to exist and remains solely in the domain of the Activist left.



Ocean summed it up nicely.

What counts as hate speech? All ToS and legalise obviously has to be binary, it's the application which clearly is not, reality, is how I support that, and many other, statement.

What utter tripe, confirmation studies have been scientifically valid for ever.

Drew had a good response. The privelige is to be offered more opportunities as a group, it certainly does not diminish the efforts of the individual.

[TheDemonLord]

Really the only deperation displayed is your total avoidence of the reason and justification as to why he was banned.
Your attempts to say its not relevent, is just amusing and points to you trying to your total deseperation to by any means justify your illogical thought process and subsequent conpiracy theory.
You offer up all these alternative conspiracy theory's, while you fail to aknowlege that the sites were well within their rights to ban him for breaching their rules.

What Conspiracy have I offered up? Saying that Social Media companies have a Left Wing bias? It's not a conspiracy when it's confirmed by the CEO...

I've not disputed nor validated Alex Jones' ban - because the point I'm making is not on his ban. It's on the inconsistencies of their administrative actions.

You insist on trying to make what I've said about his Ban. It's not.

The fact that you are trying to make this about a Point I've not made shows you are incapable of refuting (or understanding) the point I am making.

[TheDemonLord]

What counts as hate speech? All ToS and legalise obviously has to be binary, it's the application which clearly is not, reality, is how I support that, and many other, statement.

If only I'd posted the definition of Hate Speech earlier in the thread....

So, you acknowledge that everything I've said is factual and accurate, yet you substitute your own belief as to what it should be based on what evidence exactly? You cite reality, but to do that - you have to acknowledge that my point is entirely valid: That it's being applied in an selective manner.

So which is it?


What utter tripe, confirmation studies have been scientifically valid for ever.

Which isn't what I said. You're doing a bait-and-switch, I qualified the statement to "In this field", and you are trying to substitute all studies across all fields.


Drew had a good response. The privelige is to be offered more opportunities as a group, it certainly does not diminish the efforts of the individual.

As a Group?

But hang on a minute... Weren't you saying:


I was not specifying a group

Which is it? Either you are a racist and a sexist, or you are confused and don't know what you are on about.

[husaberg]

What Conspiracy have I offered up

sure ...................




Which would mean selectively banning right-wing figures, whilst not banning Left-wing figures would run counter to this - Thanks

again
for proving my point.
Then you have to discuss what is Harassment - if you ask a Left-wing activist, Harassment is merely disagreeing with their opinion...





But that isn't what has happened, which indicates that it isn't just his behaviour, but ALSO his beliefs.




Or they were colluding behind the scenes. And given the physical proximity of those companies and other factors - that's well within the realms of possibility.

[Ocean1]

Drew had a good response. The privelige is to be offered more opportunities as a group, it certainly does not diminish the efforts of the individual.

You don't mean all dem white male pricks have got community service cards?!!!

Bastards!

What about that Job Seeker thing? Bet they're all into that!

Accommodation supplement? They're probably heavily represented there too!!!

How about this lot?

Accommodation Supplement
Assistance to transition into employment
Away from Home Allowance
Business Training and Advice Grant
Child Disability Allowance
Childcare Subsidy
Civilian Amputee Assistance
Clothing Allowance for Orphan's Benefit and Unsupported Child's Benefit
Community Costs
Community Services Card
Disability Allowance
Early Learning Payment
Education and employment-related training
Emergency Benefit
Emergency Maintenance Allowance
Employment Transition Grant
Establishment Grant
Extraordinary Care Fund
Flexi-wage
Flexible Childcare Assistance
Funeral Grant
Guaranteed Childcare Assistance Payment
Home Help
Jobseeker Support
New Employment Transition Grant
Orphan’s Benefit
Out of School Care and Recreation (OSCAR) Subsidy
Re-establishment grant (Special Needs Grant)
Recoverable Assistance Payment Grant
Residential Care Loan
Residential Care Subsidy
Residential Support Subsidy
Rural Assistance Payments
School and Year Start-up Payment
Seasonal Work Assistance
Social Rehabilitation Assistance
Sole Parent Support
Sole Parent Support Study Assistance
Special Benefit issue
Special Disability Allowance
Special Needs Grant
Steps to Freedom Grant
Supported Living Payment
Temporary Additional Support
Unsupported Child’s Benefit
Winter Energy Payment
Work Bonus
Working for Families
Young Parent Payment

Privileged rich pricks, fuck the lot of 'em!!!

[TheDemonLord]

sure ...................

Not exactly a conspiracy...

The closest thing I've come to a "Conspiracy" is by pointing to a fair degree of circumstantial evidence...

[husaberg]

Not exactly a conspiracy...

The closest thing I've come to a "Conspiracy" is by pointing to a fair degree of circumstantial evidence...
So just who did you suggest was part of the collusion then?
Note there was no evidence to suggest that there was collusion, but more than ample evidence that he was in breach of the site rules for the sites he was banned from.:laugh:
Which you choose to ignore as it doesn't suit the agenda you are pushing.

[Graystone]

If only I'd posted the definition of Hate Speech earlier in the thread....

So, you acknowledge that everything I've said is factual and accurate, yet you substitute your own belief as to what it should be based on what evidence exactly? You cite reality, but to do that - you have to acknowledge that my point is entirely valid: That it's being applied in an selective manner.

So which is it?



Which isn't what I said. You're doing a bait-and-switch, I qualified the statement to "In this field", and you are trying to substitute all studies across all fields.



As a Group?

But hang on a minute... Weren't you saying:



Which is it? Either you are a racist and a sexist, or you are confused and don't know what you are on about.

And I'll bet it is one open to interpretation...

What thread are you reading? I've repeatedly called you out on inaccuracies and other bullshit. It is being applied with discretion, as all such things are. You can call that selective application if you like, either way, you should look what the discretion/selection criteria is before spouting off some conspiracy theory nonsense.

So there have been no confirmation studies in that 'field', care to specify what the field is then? Oh, hang on, is this going to be one of your special exceptions to the rule again? :laugh:

I was specifying the attribute/condition, which applies to a group; ie, you don't have to be a white male to support/deny white male privilege, do try and keep up...

[Graystone]

You don't mean all dem white male pricks have got community service cards?!!!

Bastards!

What about that Job Seeker thing? Bet they're all into that!

Accommodation supplement? The're probably heavily represented there too!!!

How about this lot?

Accommodation Supplement
Assistance to transition into employment
Away from Home Allowance
Business Training and Advice Grant
Child Disability Allowance
Childcare Subsidy
Civilian Amputee Assistance
Clothing Allowance for Orphan's Benefit and Unsupported Child's Benefit
Community Costs
Community Services Card
Disability Allowance
Early Learning Payment
Education and employment-related training
Emergency Benefit
Emergency Maintenance Allowance
Employment Transition Grant
Establishment Grant
Extraordinary Care Fund
Flexi-wage
Flexible Childcare Assistance
Funeral Grant
Guaranteed Childcare Assistance Payment
Home Help
Jobseeker Support
New Employment Transition Grant
Orphan’s Benefit
Out of School Care and Recreation (OSCAR) Subsidy
Re-establishment grant (Special Needs Grant)
Recoverable Assistance Payment Grant
Residential Care Loan
Residential Care Subsidy
Residential Support Subsidy
Rural Assistance Payments
School and Year Start-up Payment
Seasonal Work Assistance
Social Rehabilitation Assistance
Sole Parent Support
Sole Parent Support Study Assistance
Special Benefit issue
Special Disability Allowance
Special Needs Grant
Steps to Freedom Grant
Supported Living Payment
Temporary Additional Support
Unsupported Child’s Benefit
Winter Energy Payment
Work Bonus
Working for Families
Young Parent Payment

Thieving rich pricks, fuck the lot of 'em!!!

That's nice dear, does it come with a point?

[Ocean1]

That's nice dear, does it come with a point?

It's a list of special rights and advantages.

But you're not completely clueless, so you already figured that out.

See if you're clever enough to work out which group is among the least likely to, as Dict.com says "belong to the class that enjoys those special privileges".

[Katman]

But you're not completely clueless.

You're kidding, right?

[pritch]

It's a list of special rights and advantages.


Some of those "advantages" most people would give a lot to avoid: child disability allowance, funeral grant, special disabillity allowance, even the "steps to freedom" grant has a sinister undertone. All you have to do to get that is a stretch inside? Thanks, but no thanks.

[Ocean1]

Some of those "advantages" most people would give a lot to avoid: child disability allowance, funeral grant, special disabillity allowance, even the "steps to freedom" grant has a sinister undertone. All you have to do to get that is a stretch inside? Thanks, but no thanks.

Aye, I'm pleased that we can afford be so charitable.

I just get sick the rabid left vilifying the "class" that actually provides it.

[TheDemonLord]

And I'll bet it is one open to interpretation...

The only people who are trying to interpret it, are the raving communists who pushed for it in the first place and are now starting to realise that it covers a good chunk of their Rhetoric. Which is why they've redefined racism to include "structures of Power"...

Note - Debating the interpretation of Hate Speech is not the same as debating whether Hate Speech should be implemented or is even a thing.


What thread are you reading? I've repeatedly called you out on inaccuracies and other bullshit. It is being applied with discretion, as all such things are. You can call that selective application if you like, either way, you should look what the discretion/selection criteria is before spouting off some conspiracy theory nonsense.

First point: Can you show a Statement, document or policy from any of the companies that supports this claim?
Second point: If you are going to stick to your guns and agree that it's being selectively applied - what exactly is your problem with my statement that the selective application favours those with Left Wing leanings?

As you've essentially admitted to my underlying point - the rules aren't being uniformly enforced, what do you have to rebut the above claim?



So there have been no confirmation studies in that 'field', care to specify what the field is then? Oh, hang on, is this going to be one of your special exceptions to the rule again? :laugh:

Nice attempt at a misrepresentation again...

I'm saying in the fields of Feminism, Womens Studies and other Post-Modern infected disciplines there have been many 'studies' done in an attempt to justify their a priori view - Such as the "study" that showed US Universities had higher rates of Rape than the Congo (which was done by some rather dishonest questioning and some redefining of words to get the outrage figure they needed), or the plethora of "Studies" that re-affirm the Wage Gap (despite the statistical methodology used to justify it would have you flunking any serious stats class) or what about the "studies" that claim the rates of false reporting for Rape is 2% (which is a pyramid of Citations that when traced back is an off-hand comment given by a single judge at a dinner in the 1970s, with no actual experiment or statistical analysis done) Or what about the "study" that was used by Sweden when it tried its "Feminist snow plowing" (because Snow plows prioritize the areas predominantly used by Men, aerterial routes, main roads etc. and of course we need 'equality') - which if I remember correctly caused absolute Chaos, lead (indirectly) to several deaths, hundreds of traffic accidents etc. etc.


I was specifying the attribute/condition, which applies to a group; ie, you don't have to be a white male to support/deny white male privilege, do try and keep up...

So you ARE a racist and a sexist then.

You're applying a negative attribute to a group, based on their protected characteristics.

[TheDemonLord]

So just who did you suggest was part of the collusion then?
Note there was no evidence to suggest that there was collusion

Remember when I said "Circumstantial Evidence"...

One of the big 4 Internet companies decide to ban Alex Jones, and less than 24 hours later (so realistically, not enough time to do a serious review of him or his Channel, unless it had been pre-planned...) is removed by all of the big 4 companies.

Companies who all have their headquarters in the same geographic area, Companies who all sit on various Tech advisory boards, the IETF, etc. Companies who at the senior levels have a fair amount of cross-polination when it comes to staff (there is a limited number of people in the world with experience on systems as complex and robust as the likes of FB, YT, Google etc.). Companies whose CEOs are known to each other as leaders in Cloud services.

Am I saying it's definitely proven beyond all shadow of a doubt? No.
I am saying it's definitely suggestive of a degree of collusion.

[husaberg]

Remember when I said "Circumstantial Evidence"...

One of the big 4 Internet companies decide to ban Alex Jones, and less than 24 hours later (so realistically, not enough time to do a serious review of him or his Channel, unless it had been pre-planned...) is removed by all of the big 4 companies.

Companies who all have their headquarters in the same geographic area, Companies who all sit on various Tech advisory boards, the IETF, etc. Companies who at the senior levels have a fair amount of cross-polination when it comes to staff (there is a limited number of people in the world with experience on systems as complex and robust as the likes of FB, YT, Google etc.). Companies whose CEOs are known to each other as leaders in Cloud services.

Am I saying it's definitely proven beyond all shadow of a doubt? No.
I am saying it's definitely suggestive of a degree of collusion.
yet you refuse to use any deductive reasoning to consider he had broke the terms and conditions of the sites...

[TheDemonLord]

yet you refuse to use any deductive reasoning to consider he had broke the terms and conditions of the sites...

Have I made an argument either advancing he broke the Terms and Conditions or an argument against that he broke the Terms and Conditions?

Oh I haven't?

Well, that would make "any deductive reasoning to consider he had broke the terms and conditions of the sites" Irrelevant, wouldnt it...

[husaberg]

Have I made an argument either advancing he broke the Terms and Conditions or an argument against that he broke the Terms and Conditions?

Oh I haven't?

Well, that would make "any deductive reasoning to consider he had broke the terms and conditions of the sites" Irrelevant, wouldnt it...
only though Yes you have made an argument that he didn't break the site terms and conditions......



"If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach."
.



The fact they have not been banned indicates that just breaching the ToS alone is not enough to warrant a Ban and therefore there is something in addition to have warranted the Ban.
If he has not breached the ToS, then there is something else to have warranted the Ban.



So why haven't any of those accounts on that link been banned?
I can point to multiple left wing verified accounts, with tweets that are clearly as much a breach of the ToS that Alex Jones is claimed to have made - and yet... they are all still active...
So why is that? And before you ask, yes Twitter has been made aware of those accounts.



Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS)
They are happy to ban unsavory right-wing characters and reluctant to ban unsavory left-wing characters.
This means that the ToS is not an equal set of rules, to be applied without prejudice - but a thin justification for them to get rid of people they don't like.


Can you point to where in the Terms of Service it defines the extent needed to have ones account terminated?
Well, that would mean that it's solely up to the company to use their disgression which is informed by their self-declared biases.
.

[TheDemonLord]

only though Yes you have made an argument that he didn't break the site terms and conditions......

No, please read what I wrote again.

you seem to be conflating a hypothetical with an actual position.

What you've quoted actually disproves what you said, which is highly entertaining.

To make it even simpler - this is a Binary scenario:

Either he is in breach of the ToS or he isn't.

If he is in breach - then I present an argument to state that other people who have posted content in violation of the Policies which you yourself have quoted, should also be banned. This argument is made in reference to those other people and the Policy itself, not to Alex Jones.

If he is not in breach - then I present an argument to state that the ban clearly had other factors, of which I present the political views of Alex Jones vs the Political bias of the companies in question.

As you can see (if you understand English), None of my arguments hinge on whether or not the Ban was valid for Alex Jones. Your continued attempts to make it about that show that you have no valid refutation.

[husaberg]

No, please read what I wrote again.

you seem to be conflating a hypothetical with an actual position.

What you've quoted actually disproves what you said, which is highly entertaining.

To make it even simpler - this is a Binary scenario:

Either he is in breach of the ToS or he isn't.

If he is in breach - then I present an argument to state that other people who have posted content in violation of the Policies which you yourself have quoted, should also be banned. This argument is made in reference to those other people and the Policy itself, not to Alex Jones.

If he is not in breach - then I present an argument to state that the ban clearly had other factors, of which I present the political views of Alex Jones vs the Political bias of the companies in question.

As you can see (if you understand English), None of my arguments hinge on whether or not the Ban was valid for Alex Jones. Your continued attempts to make it about that show that you have no valid refutation.
I read what you wrote you claimed he cant be in breach of the site rules on account of others action which is akin to a child saying others have done it so its not a breach of rules.
But seeing as you have repeatedly claimed whether he is in breach of the site rules is totally irrelevant but now now you are saying that it is relevant.
To claim that none of these arguments hinge on the guilt of alex jones is plain stupid, you cant logically claim he is the subject to a conspiracy, then claim whether he is guilty or not doesn't prove he wasn't thrown out of the sites based on some conspiracy you have cooked up.


Remember when I said "Circumstantial Evidence"...

One of the big 4 Internet companies decide to ban Alex Jones, and less than 24 hours later (so realistically, not enough time to do a serious review of him or his Channel, unless it had been pre-planned...) is removed by all of the big 4 companies.

Companies who all have their headquarters in the same geographic area, Companies who all sit on various Tech advisory boards, the IETF, etc. Companies who at the senior levels have a fair amount of cross-polination when it comes to staff (there is a limited number of people in the world with experience on systems as complex and robust as the likes of FB, YT, Google etc.). Companies whose CEOs are known to each other as leaders in Cloud services.

Am I saying it's definitely proven beyond all shadow of a doubt? No.
I am saying it's definitely suggestive of a degree of collusion.

PS many of the companies had been investigation jones for months so your serious review wasn't carried out is utter horseshit.


February 23rd: YouTube removes an Alex Jones conspiracy theory video and hands his channel a strike; two more over a three-month period would've resulted on a permanent ban. The video, on the Alex Jones Channel, InfoWars' main YouTube account, was titled "David Hogg Can't Remember His Lines In TV Interview" and suggested that one of the survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting was a crisis actor. "Last summer we updated the application of our harassment policy to include hoax videos that target the victims of these tragedies," YouTube says at the time. "Any video flagged to us that violates this policy is reviewed and then removed."

March 4th: A number of big advertisers on YouTube, including Acer, Fox, Nike and Paramount, having become aware of their ads running next to Jones' InfoWars videos, ask YouTube to discontinue the practice. According to the brands involved, they didn't realize their ads were being displayed on what they called offensive material, and decided to create exclusion filters so their products would not be promoted in videos from Alex Jones and other channels like it. YouTube declines to comment on the matter at the time.

July 11th: Facebook hosts a Q&A session with reporters about its efforts to fight fake news but fails to explain why a page like InfoWars, known for spreading misinformation, is allowed to live on its site. Facebook's argument seems to be that it doesn't want to be an arbiter of the truth. "We just don't think banning pages for sharing conspiracy theories or false news is the right way to go," the company says. "They seem to have YouTube and Twitter accounts too -- we imagine for the same reason."

July 17th: Facebook testifies before Congress (again), in a hearing titled "Examining the Content Filtering Practices of Social Media Giants." The company's president for global policy management, Monika Bickert, is unable to tell members of the House Judiciary Committee why InfoWars hasn't been banned from the site for spreading conspiracies. "Allegations that survivors of a tragedy like Parkland are crisis actors, that violates our policy and we remove that content," she says. "If they posted sufficient content that violated our threshold, that page would come down." The problem is that Facebook apparently can't decide when a page should be banned, since it doesn't have a "three strikes and you're out" policy like YouTube. "That threshold varies," Bickert says, "depending on the severity of different types of violations."

House Judiciary Committee Hearing On Content Filtering Practices Of Facebook, Google And Twitter

Facebook's head of global policy management, Monika Bickert, testifying at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
July 25th: YouTube removes multiple videos from the Alex Jones Channel, citing a violation of its community guidelines. Of the four videos removed, two reportedly featured hate speech against Muslims and transgender people. Another one was titled "How to prevent liberalism" and featured Jones mocking a child being shoved by an adult man. "We have long standing policies against child endangerment and hate speech," YouTube says in a statement. "We apply our policies consistently according to the content in the videos, regardless of the speaker or the channel. We also have a clear three-strikes policy and we terminate channels when they receive three strikes in three months." Even though four videos were removed, though, this counts as only one strike.

July 27th: Facebook blocks Jones from posting on his personal profile for 30 days, though the InfoWars and "Alex Jones" public pages aren't part of the suspension. The company says it's banning Jones for violating its community standards, after removing several videos from his account that promoted hateful content -- some of which were the same ones YouTube removed on July 25th. "Our Community Standards make it clear that we prohibit content that encourages physical harm [bullying], or attacks someone based on their religious affiliation or gender identity [hate speech]" Facebook said.

August 1st: Spotify removes an unspecified number of episodes of Alex Jones' podcast after user uproar. Multiple complaints from subscribers led the company to conduct a review of the show's content, and episodes that violate its hate content policy are taken down. The podcast, naturally, focuses on Jones' wild conspiracy theories about "liberals." In a statement, Spotify says, "We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community."

August 3rd: Stitcher takes things a step further and completely removes Jones' podcast from its service. The company says that in his program he has "harassed or allowed harassment" of others, and therefore it decided it would be best to take this severe action. According to Stitcher, that harassment "has led listeners of the show to engage in similar harassment and other damaging activity." Therefore, the company says, "we have decided to remove his podcasts from the Stitcher platform."

August 5th: Following in Stitcher's footsteps, Apple removes five controversial InfoWars podcasts from its ecosystem. This includes iTunes and the Podcasts apps. The company tells BuzzFeed News that it "does not tolerate hate speech." The action appears certain to severely limit Jones' reach, considering the hundreds of millions of iOS and Mac users in the US.

August 6th: Facebook finally decides to ban Jones and his InfoWars pages from its site, following months of indecisiveness. The same day, YouTube removes his official page, the Alex Jones Channel, from its site. Both companies say the decision to take these stronger measures came after Jones repeatedly their violated community guidelines.

Amazon has quietly stopped endorsing InfoWars host Alex Jones’s products which it continues to sell on its marketplace.
The web giant refused to comment on whether it would remove Jones on Tuesday afternoon but has been busy removing its “Amazon choice” label from items sold by InfoWars, including its line of dietary supplements.


As i stated earlier doing business with Jones has reached the tipping point where its bad for business.

[TheDemonLord]

I read what you wrote you claimed he cant be in breach of the site rules.

Try again.

I've not said ANYWHERE that he can't be in breach of the site rules.

That's your Strawman.

[husaberg]

Try again.

I've not said ANYWHERE that he can't be in breach of the site rules.

That's your Strawman.
Selective editing is your stawman along with selective interpretation on what is relevant.

[TheDemonLord]

Selective editing is your stawman along with selective interpretation on what is relevant.

So that would be "No, I can't find anywhere that you've said that"...

Glad to see you finally admitting it...

Now, would you like to try arguing the actual points I've made or are you still deadset on demonstrating you lost the debate pages ago?

[husaberg]

So that would be "No, I can't find anywhere that you've said that"...

Glad to see you finally admitting it...

Now, would you like to try arguing the actual points I've made or are you still deadset on demonstrating you lost the debate pages ago?

You lost the debate when you failed to answer the question about jones breach of site rules when you claimed others had done so.
it was driven home when you claimed it wasnt relevent and yet you claimed the others alleged breaches were.

[TheDemonLord]

You lost the debate when you failed to answer the question about jones breach of site rules when you claimed others had done so.
it was driven home when you claimed it wasnt relevent and yet you claimed the others alleged breaches were.

The only relevant question would be whether the others I had claimed to have breached the ToS had or not - as that is made in respect to the ToS and those others.

Not Alex Jones.

That you keep trying to make it relevant is just icing on the cake.

[husaberg]

The only relevant question would be whether the others I had claimed to have breached the ToS had or not - as that is made in respect to the ToS and those others.

Not Alex Jones.

That you keep trying to make it relevant is just icing on the cake.
of course whatever you claim today is relevant........:rolleyes:
I will give you a hint other than on the kindergarten playground guilt is established by the deeds of the individual in question, rather than others

[Graystone]

The only people who are trying to interpret it, are the raving communists who pushed for it in the first place and are now starting to realise that it covers a good chunk of their Rhetoric. Which is why they've redefined racism to include "structures of Power"...

Note - Debating the interpretation of Hate Speech is not the same as debating whether Hate Speech should be implemented or is even a thing.



First point: Can you show a Statement, document or policy from any of the companies that supports this claim?
Second point: If you are going to stick to your guns and agree that it's being selectively applied - what exactly is your problem with my statement that the selective application favours those with Left Wing leanings?

As you've essentially admitted to my underlying point - the rules aren't being uniformly enforced, what do you have to rebut the above claim?




Nice attempt at a misrepresentation again...

I'm saying in the fields of Feminism, Womens Studies and other Post-Modern infected disciplines there have been many 'studies' done in an attempt to justify their a priori view - Such as the "study" that showed US Universities had higher rates of Rape than the Congo (which was done by some rather dishonest questioning and some redefining of words to get the outrage figure they needed), or the plethora of "Studies" that re-affirm the Wage Gap (despite the statistical methodology used to justify it would have you flunking any serious stats class) or what about the "studies" that claim the rates of false reporting for Rape is 2% (which is a pyramid of Citations that when traced back is an off-hand comment given by a single judge at a dinner in the 1970s, with no actual experiment or statistical analysis done) Or what about the "study" that was used by Sweden when it tried its "Feminist snow plowing" (because Snow plows prioritize the areas predominantly used by Men, aerterial routes, main roads etc. and of course we need 'equality') - which if I remember correctly caused absolute Chaos, lead (indirectly) to several deaths, hundreds of traffic accidents etc. etc.



So you ARE a racist and a sexist then.

You're applying a negative attribute to a group, based on their protected characteristics.

The people interpreting it, is anyone using it, as you are.

Do I need to? It is self evident that the application of the ToS is discretionary and not held to the letter every single time; I mean, most say to only tick the box if you read the EULA which nobody does...
My problem with that is it is misleading, unsupported, and implies the discretion is used to politically bias free speech.

That's a pretty narrow field list, why would it not just be social sciences?

Racism/sexism is characterized by the judgment of someone based on their group membership, not by specifying that a group is a thing and describing it. And privilege is not a negative attribute. Please try and keep up.

[TheDemonLord]

of course whatever you claim today is relevant........:rolleyes:
I will give you a hint other than on the kindergarten playground guilt is established by the deeds of the individual in question, rather than others

And?

Still not addressing the point I made.

[TheDemonLord]

The people interpreting it, is anyone using it, as you are.

What a post-modern answer... Problem is, we have definitions, which are agreed upon by the majority of People. We know the definition of Hate Speech, except for the left-wing radicals who are now realizing that it encompasses their rhetoric.

Just like they are trying to redefine Racism.


Do I need to? It is self evident that the application of the ToS is discretionary and not held to the letter every single time; I mean, most say to only tick the box if you read the EULA which nobody does...

Given that it is contradicting to both statements made by the CEOs, the Companies PR department AND the actual ToS themselves - then yeah, you do need to prove it.

Unless you want to concede the point I'm making - that the discretion you are claiming exists will be influenced by the self-declared biases of the companies


My problem with that is it is misleading, unsupported, and implies the discretion is used to politically bias free speech.

It's supported by a large volume of circumstantial data. I'll again refer to Sarah Jeong vs Candace Owen - Candace was banned, Sarah was not. For the same tweet, with just the group changed.

The difference between the 2 ladies - Candace is an outspoken Conservative, Sarah is on the Left.


That's a pretty narrow field list, why would it not just be social sciences?

The Social sciences have some pretty rabid post-modern influences.


Racism/sexism is characterized by the judgment of someone based on their group membership, not by specifying that a group is a thing and describing it. And privilege is not a negative attribute. Please try and keep up.

Privilege (in the way you are using) is a negative attribute.

I'll make it really simple:

"Racism/sexism is characterized by the judgment of someone based on their group membership"

Like saying "White Men have Privilege".

[husaberg]

And?

Still not addressing the point I made.
What point is that that, that somehow in TDL land and in kindergartens another’s guilt or not somehow hinges on the actions of others who might have perpetrated a similar action without being caught.
That was ruled out ages ago.
You see the guilt of an individual in the rel world is decided on his own actions or non actions

[TheDemonLord]

What point is that that, that somehow in TDL land and in kindergartens another’s guilt or not somehow hinges on the actions of others who might have perpetrated a similar action without being caught.
That was ruled out ages ago.
You see the guilt of an individual in the rel world is decided on his own actions or non actions

Except I've never made that point.

I've not contested Alex Jones guilt or otherwise. Your repeated attempts to set this strawman up are both pitiful and revealing.

[husaberg]

Except I've never made that point.

I've not contested Alex Jones guilt or otherwise. Your repeated attempts to set this strawman up are both pitiful and revealing.
Its you that is offering the stawman.
I refuted your argument.
You are the one offering up multiple associated things when the real crux of the discussion was Alex Jones conduct and subsequent banishment from various forms of social media.
You seek to continually turn it into a political motivated conspiracy theory situation where as all the evidence points to the the far more likely scenario that it is simply a cause and effect situation.
That is why every time Jones apparent guilt is pointed out you claim it to be "irrelevant to the situation",
When in fact it is to anyone who is not trying to promote a conspiracy theory as to why he was ejected from the social media platforms

[Graystone]

What a post-modern answer... Problem is, we have definitions, which are agreed upon by the majority of People. We know the definition of Hate Speech, except for the left-wing radicals who are now realizing that it encompasses their rhetoric.

Just like they are trying to redefine Racism.



Given that it is contradicting to both statements made by the CEOs, the Companies PR department AND the actual ToS themselves - then yeah, you do need to prove it.

Unless you want to concede the point I'm making - that the discretion you are claiming exists will be influenced by the self-declared biases of the companies



It's supported by a large volume of circumstantial data. I'll again refer to Sarah Jeong vs Candace Owen - Candace was banned, Sarah was not. For the same tweet, with just the group changed.

The difference between the 2 ladies - Candace is an outspoken Conservative, Sarah is on the Left.



The Social sciences have some pretty rabid post-modern influences.



Privilege (in the way you are using) is a negative attribute.

I'll make it really simple:

"Racism/sexism is characterized by the judgment of someone based on their group membership"

Like saying "White Men have Privilege".

Seems awfully evasive for something you claim is well known...

Given it isn't contradicting reality though... Perhaps you could show how it is contradicting the CEO's etc...

Circumstantial data is just that, not even up to the standard of confirmation studies which you do not allow, you how can you justify using such circumstantial rubbish to support your point?

Irrelevant, I'm asking you to explain why confirmation studies are not allowed in this field, and why the field you have defined for this is so unreasonably narrow.

Saying white men have privilege is not describing someone based on their group membership though; it's a description of the group. Please try to understand simple english.

[TheDemonLord]

Seems awfully evasive for something you claim is well known...

Yeah, except that I've previously posted the definition of Hate Speech...


Given it isn't contradicting reality though... Perhaps you could show how it is contradicting the CEO's etc...

"Hate speech has no place on our platform" - that's an absolute statement, not one that implies a degree of Discretion (which you are claiming).


Circumstantial data is just that, not even up to the standard of confirmation studies which you do not allow, you how can you justify using such circumstantial rubbish to support your point?

More bait and switch.


Irrelevant, I'm asking you to explain why confirmation studies are not allowed in this field, and why the field you have defined for this is so unreasonably narrow.

The safeguards against bias are not present on those fields. The Methodologies aren't robust and the statistical analysis are laughable.

That's why.

As for the narrowness, it's almost like there a common reason that links them together.


Saying white men have privilege is not describing someone based on their group membership though; it's a description of the group. Please try to understand simple english.

Except some people are White Men, so yes, it's EXACTLY describing someone based on their group Membership.

Stop trying to justify your Racism and Sexism.

[Graystone]

Yeah, except that I've previously posted the definition of Hate Speech...



"Hate speech has no place on our platform" - that's an absolute statement, not one that implies a degree of Discretion (which you are claiming).



More bait and switch.



The safeguards against bias are not present on those fields. The Methodologies aren't robust and the statistical analysis are laughable.

That's why.

As for the narrowness, it's almost like there a common reason that links them together.



Except some people are White Men, so yes, it's EXACTLY describing someone based on their group Membership.

Stop trying to justify your Racism and Sexism.

Shouldn't be too hard to pull out again then... (like your father should have)

:laugh: is that it? seriously?

In what sense is that bait and switch? You've clearly shown a double standard again, where reasoning behind your opinion has a much lower bar for acceptance than those in opposition to it.

Safeguards against bias? Are they not peer reviewed then? Is this the whole of social science that lacks safeguards? Or is this a special exception where we just discount evidence because you don't like it for specific topic within that field?

You've really lost the plot here haven't you? A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members within that group, this is basic shit. Interesting to note just how sensitive to being called sexist/racist you are, struck a little to close to the bone I guess.

[TheDemonLord]

Shouldn't be too hard to pull out again then... (like your father should have)

Or you could have some honesty here...


:laugh: is that it? seriously?

It's more than you've got.


In what sense is that bait and switch? You've clearly shown a double standard again, where reasoning behind your opinion has a much lower bar for acceptance than those in opposition to it.

Am I making a peer reviewed scientific claim?


Safeguards against bias? Are they not peer reviewed then? Is this the whole of social science that lacks safeguards? Or is this a special exception where we just discount evidence because you don't like it for specific topic within that field?

Peer reviewed by people who hold the same a priori assumptions and underlying presuppositions. Which is no real Peer Review at all.

It's not that I don't like the evidence, it's because it's deliberately manipulated to prove a point.


You've really lost the plot here haven't you? A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members within that group, this is basic shit. Interesting to note just how sensitive to being called sexist/racist you are, struck a little to close to the bone I guess.

Okay - let's try this experiment:

"Maori are Criminals"

Is that Racist?

Afterall, according to you - "A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members within that group"

[Graystone]

Or you could have some honesty here...



It's more than you've got.



Am I making a peer reviewed scientific claim?



Peer reviewed by people who hold the same a priori assumptions and underlying presuppositions. Which is no real Peer Review at all.

It's not that I don't like the evidence, it's because it's deliberately manipulated to prove a point.



Okay - let's try this experiment:

"Maori are Criminals"

Is that Racist?

Afterall, according to you - "A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members within that group"

Thanks for conceding the first two points.

No but you are putting your claims up against the others, thus the bar should be the same.

What an utter crock of shit. As no evidence is forthcoming to back up your points, it is clear you seek to throw out all the scientific findings on one topic simply because you do not agree with them.

Dude, learn some fucking english. The equivalent would be 'maori crime', the "are" you inserted completely changes the meaning from an attribute to a description.

[TheDemonLord]

Thanks for conceding the first two points.

I think you are mistaking a dismissive reply to pathetic 'questions' as some form of victory.

You've started a point, I've made a counterpoint backed by statements from the group(s) and people in question. You've merely asserted that your interpretation of events is correct with ZERO supporting evidence. But even worse than that:

My Claim is that based on their actions there is a clear political bias.
Your claim is that based on their actions there is clearly some discretion (acknowledging my point) but you eschew any possibility of political leaning having any influence completely out of hand.

You've already conceded the point, but then arbitrarily state that Politics could not have anything to do with it.


No but you are putting your claims up against the others, thus the bar should be the same.

In what universe? You are dead set on setting up this false equivalence.


What an utter crock of shit. As no evidence is forthcoming to back up your points, it is clear you seek to throw out all the scientific findings on one topic simply because you do not agree with them.

Except, you know, the 4 separate mantras I cited where the "scientific findings" were all ideologically driven horseshit that would have any serious statistician laughing their ass off.


Dude, learn some fucking english. The equivalent would be 'maori crime', the "are" you inserted completely changes the meaning from an attribute to a description.

Glad you agree - so what is the implication of "White Male Privilege" - it's the Idea that "White Men" *cue drumroll* ARE "Privileged".

Which is why it's Racist and Sexist. It's why anyone who spouts the "White Male Privilege" crap is ALSO a racist and a sexist, which finally is why the left is currently trying to redefine Racism and Sexism so they don't fall afoul of the standards they implemented.

[Graystone]

I think you are mistaking a dismissive reply to pathetic 'questions' as some form of victory.

You've started a point, I've made a counterpoint backed by statements from the group(s) and people in question. You've merely asserted that your interpretation of events is correct with ZERO supporting evidence. But even worse than that:

My Claim is that based on their actions there is a clear political bias.
Your claim is that based on their actions there is clearly some discretion (acknowledging my point) but you eschew any possibility of political leaning having any influence completely out of hand.

You've already conceded the point, but then arbitrarily state that Politics could not have anything to do with it.



In what universe? You are dead set on setting up this false equivalence.



Except, you know, the 4 separate mantras I cited where the "scientific findings" were all ideologically driven horseshit that would have any serious statistician laughing their ass off.



Glad you agree - so what is the implication of "White Male Privilege" - it's the Idea that "White Men" *cue drumroll* ARE "Privileged".

Which is why it's Racist and Sexist. It's why anyone who spouts the "White Male Privilege" crap is ALSO a racist and a sexist, which finally is why the left is currently trying to redefine Racism and Sexism so they don't fall afoul of the standards they implemented.

Given you pedantry on anything you think you are right on, I'm not sure you're capable of genuine dismissal...

The discretion is in regard to how far the ToS have been breached. You have provided no evidence that it is politically motivated at all. A piss poor attempt at correlation is utterly laughable.

You've said their conclusions are wrong, in what universe is that not a claim against theirs?

Cited? Where? I recall you blithering on about some shit you disagreed with, but citations to the peer reviewed articles in question has not been provided.

But there is no 'are' in the term I used, but you had to put one in the term you used. That's the difference, in simple english. I know you're not very well educated, but even you should be able to understand that.

[husaberg]

Not exactly a conspiracy...

The closest thing I've come to a "Conspiracy" is by pointing to a fair degree of circumstantial evidence...

........................



My Claim is that based on their actions there is a clear political bias..

well it was your opinion...... then it was circumstantial evidence ......now its there was clear bias
Are you convincing yourself there was a conspiracy.........

[TheDemonLord]

Given you pedantry on anything you think you are right on, I'm not sure you're capable of genuine dismissal...

Sargons Law.


The discretion is in regard to how far the ToS have been breached. You have provided no evidence that it is politically motivated at all. A piss poor attempt at correlation is utterly laughable.

Right - except Discretion is not mentioned or specified anywhere in the ToS or statements by the Company.

You are happy to concede a point that by the standards you are setting for the political point 'has no evidence', yet when it comes to a point you disagree suddenly its "There's no Evidence"

So which is it? Either there is no evidence - and therefore there is no discretion that you can prove or you have to concede that the levels of Evidence are inferred and so you cannot dismiss out of hand the notion that politics is a factor in the Discretion.


You've said their conclusions are wrong, in what universe is that not a claim against theirs?

Okay. The claims I make against Post-Modern infected "disciplines" are separate from the claims I'm making about Twitter.

Trying to conflate the 2 is a Bait and Switch.


Cited? Where? I recall you blithering on about some shit you disagreed with, but citations to the peer reviewed articles in question has not been provided.

I've referred to several well-known examples of flawed studies that were used to further reinforce a narrative driven conclusion.

You're just being dishonest here. Probably because you don't want to go down that road.


But there is no 'are' in the term I used, but you had to put one in the term you used. That's the difference, in simple english. I know you're not very well educated, but even you should be able to understand that.

If no White Men ARE privileged, There can be no such phenomena as "White Male Privilege"

And since you've acknowledged that the form "Group of people based on Protected Characteristic ARE Negative Attribute" is a form of Prejudice, then so to it must follow that "White Male Privilege" as a concept is wholly Racist and Sexist.

I despair that we even have to argue this.

You should try moving past Simple English, it's stunting your ability to reason.

[TheDemonLord]

........................

well it was your opinion...... then it was circumstantial evidence ......now its there was clear bias
Are you convincing yourself there was a conspiracy.........

Yes, Opinion, based on Circumstantial evidence, that shows Clear bias.

I've not said there is a Conspiracy.

[Graystone]

Sargons Law.



Right - except Discretion is not mentioned or specified anywhere in the ToS or statements by the Company.

You are happy to concede a point that by the standards you are setting for the political point 'has no evidence', yet when it comes to a point you disagree suddenly its "There's no Evidence"

So which is it? Either there is no evidence - and therefore there is no discretion that you can prove or you have to concede that the levels of Evidence are inferred and so you cannot dismiss out of hand the notion that politics is a factor in the Discretion.



Okay. The claims I make against Post-Modern infected "disciplines" are separate from the claims I'm making about Twitter.

Trying to conflate the 2 is a Bait and Switch.



I've referred to several well-known examples of flawed studies that were used to further reinforce a narrative driven conclusion.

You're just being dishonest here. Probably because you don't want to go down that road.



If no White Men ARE privileged, There can be no such phenomena as "White Male Privilege"

And since you've acknowledged that the form "Group of people based on Protected Characteristic ARE Negative Attribute" is a form of Prejudice, then so to it must follow that "White Male Privilege" as a concept is wholly Racist and Sexist.

I despair that we even have to argue this.

You should try moving past Simple English, it's stunting your ability to reason.

Argument from Authority.

It's in the ToS that they reserve the right to remove content. Reserving the right, means by discretion. Seems like pretty good evidence to me :laugh: Now if only you had some to support your political bias notion...

I have not conflated the two at all. That point was always about peer reviewed science and nothing to do with twitter.

Referring to examples is not citing though is it? The key difference is you're hiding behind that bullshit instead of pointing me to the source as you know I'll just show why your interpretation is wrong, again.

For fucks sake, learn some english, Christ it isn't that hard. Just because some members in a group have an attribute doesn't mean all members do; I know you're sexist and racist, but even so, that should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

[husaberg]

Yes, Opinion, based on Circumstantial evidence, that shows Clear bias.

I've not said there is a Conspiracy.
No you said there was a clear political bias.... thats not written as being your opinion (which it is) but you wrote it as if it was a fact.


there is a clear political bias.

As for not stating there was a conspiracy you constantly infer there was one.



Or they were colluding behind the scenes. And given the physical proximity of those companies and other factors - that's well within the realms of possibility.

[TheDemonLord]

Argument from Authority.

It's not an Argument... It's an observation...


It's in the ToS that they reserve the right to remove content. Reserving the right, means by discretion. Seems like pretty good evidence to me :laugh: Now if only you had some to support your political bias notion...

They also say that Hate Speech has no place on their platform - that's an absolute...

However, in your "where's your evidence for Political bias" - when the CEO says they have a left leaningl Bias, that's some pretty good evidence...


Referring to examples is not citing though is it? The key difference is you're hiding behind that bullshit instead of pointing me to the source as you know I'll just show why your interpretation is wrong, again.

Not at all, you know the Studies, I know the studies and the examples I've posted have all been widely criticized


For fucks sake, learn some english, Christ it isn't that hard. Just because some members in a group have an attribute doesn't mean all members do; I know you're sexist and racist, but even so, that should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

So, "Maori are Criminals" isn't Racist because: Just because some members in a group have an attribute doesn't mean all members do

Except you've confirmed that the above IS a racist Statement.

This is the problem with Post-Modernism derived theories - they lack any form of consistency.

And as for calling me Sexist and Racist - It's funny how you've only had to resort to that once I've shown your linguistic hi jinks to be empty.

Face the simple fact: "White Male Privilege" IS a Racist, Sexist notion. Put forward by Racists and Sexists, and championed by Racists and Sexists.

[TheDemonLord]

No you said there was a clear political bias.... thats not written as being your opinion (which it is) but you wrote it as if it was a fact.



As for not stating there was a conspiracy you constantly infer there was one.

"Our Bias, which I fully admit is Left Leaning"

Jack Dorsey - Twitter CEO.

That's a verbatime quote.

So....

[husaberg]

"Our Bias, which I fully admit is Left Leaning"

Jack Dorsey - Twitter CEO.

That's a verbatime quote.

So....
Well interesting they pretty much banned him last then isn't it, if they are the leftest you point out bias that was the reason to ban him why was it them that banned him practically lastout of all the groups.
far latter than the other platforms did then........
Far less logical than the flood of complaints about infoewars continued widely acknowledged breaches of tos finally coming to a head.

PS the rest of the verbatim comments from the twitter CEO.

Dorsey said his "Twitter has a responsibility to be open about its political viewpoints, but to operate without bias when applying content policies to users."
"We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is ... is more left-leaning," Dorsey says.
"But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," he added.
Dorsey went on to insist that "Twitter only polices behavior on the platform, not content."




https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-bans-alex-jones-infowars/
Professional tragedy troll Alex Jones went to Washington Wednesday to claw back the attention he's lost since Facebook, Apple, YouTube, Spotify, and other tech giants booted him from their services last month. He stalked behind Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey as they testified to the Senate, accosted senator Marco Rubio during a post-hearing interview, berated a CNN reporter as he stood in the hallways, and broadcast it all on Twitter, the last platform that would have him.

And it backfired.
On Thursday, just a day after Jones brought his circus to Capitol Hill, Twitter announced it was finally banning Jones and his conspiracy site InfoWars, citing "new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy." That policy prohibits "excessively aggressive insults that target an individual, including content that contains slurs or similar language." Dorsey had previously defended Twitter's decision to allow Jones to continue operating on the platform, saying Jones hadn't violated Twitter's policies.
But in early August, CNN reporter Oliver Darcy publicly pointed out (https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/09/media/twitter-infowars-alex-jones/index.html) a number of instances in which Jones had, in fact, violated those policies, leading Jones—or someone on his team—to delete the tweets in question. Days later, Twitter forced Jones to delete another offending tweet and put his account in read-only mode for a week. The time-out lifted, and Jones' account lived on.


Ironically, it was the initial CNN story—or rather, Jones' unhinged response to it—that proved his eventual undoing. On Wednesday, just before Dorsey was set to testify at his second congressional hearing of the day, Jones approached Darcy as he waited in line with media colleagues to be let into the hearing room. Jones, flanked by his entourage, cornered Darcy, jabbed a phone in his face, and harassed the reporter for more than 10 minutes about his work, his employer, and his looks, saying he has the "eyes of a rat." The entire ordeal streamed on Periscope, which is owned by Twitter
That this particular broadside was the last straw for Twitter seems curious. Yes, Twitter had plenty of reason to suspend Jones on Thursday. But it had just as many reasons a week ago and the week before that, and in early August when all of its contemporaries jumped ship. Compared to Jones' long trail of misdeeds on Twitter—claiming that no one was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting, and comparing Parkland shooting survivors to Nazis, to name a few—his rant against Darcy seems tame. Certainly a CNN reporter who covers Jones for a living is better equipped to handle his ravings than a mass shooting victim would be, and insulting a person's looks hardly compares to claiming a parent's dead child never really existed.
But ultimately, the tirade against Darcy was too public for Twitter to ignore. Standing there, in the halls of Congress, outside the room where Twitter's CEO sat, and in front of nearly every tech reporter in the industry, Jones tested the limits of what he could get away with until suddenly he couldn't get away with it anymore.
As for Twitter, taking this action was likely only a matter of time. Ever since the company broke with its peers to stand beside Jones, all eyes have been on the @realalexjones account, waiting for even the slightest infraction. And it was a relatively slight infraction, for Jones at least, that did it.

[Drew]

Face the simple fact: "White Male Privilege" IS a Racist, Sexist notion. Put forward by Racists and Sexists, and championed by Racists and Sexists.

Rubbish.

White males are the bench mark for social and economic hierarchy. Anyone not a white Male has to work harder for the same opportunity. We are the privileged.

[Grumph]

Well, you're privleged enough to have an overflowing in box. Clear the damm thing please.

[pete376403]

Would be hard to claim Twitter is biased against right wing conservatives when Trump seems to run him entire policy by tweet

[Graystone]

It's not an Argument... It's an observation...



They also say that Hate Speech has no place on their platform - that's an absolute...

However, in your "where's your evidence for Political bias" - when the CEO says they have a left leaningl Bias, that's some pretty good evidence...



Not at all, you know the Studies, I know the studies and the examples I've posted have all been widely criticized



So, "Maori are Criminals" isn't Racist because: Just because some members in a group have an attribute doesn't mean all members do

Except you've confirmed that the above IS a racist Statement.

This is the problem with Post-Modernism derived theories - they lack any form of consistency.

And as for calling me Sexist and Racist - It's funny how you've only had to resort to that once I've shown your linguistic hi jinks to be empty.

Face the simple fact: "White Male Privilege" IS a Racist, Sexist notion. Put forward by Racists and Sexists, and championed by Racists and Sexists.

I was drawing parallels between your lack of understanding of both the Argument from Authority, and the Sargon's Law buzz terms you use in an effort to seem intelligent.

But what constitutes hate speech is not an absolute.

Taken out of context, and not supplied with the source. Tsk, tsk.

I don't know the studies, citations are a thing, use them.

That is racist due to the implication that all maori are criminals. You could instead use "Some Maori are criminals" or "Maori criminals", words mean things dude, you should learn this. That you have to insert words to completely change the meaning of the term, and try to establish a false equivalence shows you to be an uneducated moron driven by racist and sexist ideals. I've resorted to rational discussion as I always do, not my problem you can't keep up!

[Drew]

Well, you're privleged enough to have an overflowing in box. Clear the damm thing please.

Ok. Done that.

[TheDemonLord]

Well interesting they pretty much banned him last then isn't it, if they are the leftest you point out bias that was the reason to ban him why was it them that banned him practically lastout of all the groups.
far latter than the other platforms did then........
Far less logical than the flood of complaints about infoewars continued widely acknowledged breaches of tos finally coming to a head.

PS the rest of the verbatim comments from the twitter CEO.

They are (by their own admission) biased to the Left...

The problem is you look at the comments "Not content, but behavior" - by what metric do they judge behavior (and let's put aside for the moment that on Twitter, your behavior can only be monitored by Content...), well, it's a Left leaning bias. And when we look at high profile accounts, we see that those who say things, that are a breach of the ToS, but in line with Left-wing ideals aren't censured, whereas if someone on the right *cough* Candace Owens *cough* posts the exact same thing, they do get Censured.

[TheDemonLord]

Rubbish.

White males are the bench mark for social and economic hierarchy. Anyone not a white Male has to work harder for the same opportunity. We are the privileged.

Can you prove that?

Are you sure you've accounted for every variable that could account for success and found that it was solely the Colour of Skin and the Gender that was the difference?

What about in the USA - the highest average earners aren't even White, so if there is some form of Privilege, it's clearly not working too well...

Let me put it to you another way:

Those who have had the fortune to grow up with a stable family unit and have had a good work ethic instilled in them by their parents tend to get the best opportunities.

Edit: And you know this - if someone demonstrates that they are hard working, competent and reliable, Doors open to them that would otherwise remain shut.

That has nothing to do with Race or Gender, however, there is a large overlap between people who have that, and the group "White Males" - and so if you were dishonest with statistics and hell-bent on justifying some underlying ideologically driven jealousy, you could make it seem like they were the bench mark...

[TheDemonLord]

I was drawing parallels between your lack of understanding of both the Argument from Authority, and the Sargon's Law buzz terms you use in an effort to seem intelligent.

No, I think you were confused and talking shit.


But what constitutes hate speech is not an absolute.

It's got a legal definition, that would seem to be fairly absolute. However, I want to again draw a distinction between those who do not think the concept exists (which is not an argument against the definition per se), those who think it should not be criminalised (which is not an argument against the definition, but an argument against it's application), and those who think it should be criminalised.

None of those groups are really arguing about the Definition, so where exactly is this debate? It seems like you are trying to bolster your argument with some imaginary disagreement...


Taken out of context, and not supplied with the source. Tsk, tsk.

I don't know the studies, citations are a thing, use them.

Then how can you assert my statements on them are wrong...


That is racist due to the implication that all maori are criminals. You could instead use "Some Maori are criminals" or "Maori criminals", words mean things dude, you should learn this. That you have to insert words to completely change the meaning of the term, and try to establish a false equivalence shows you to be an uneducated moron driven by racist and sexist ideals. I've resorted to rational discussion as I always do, not my problem you can't keep up!

I know words mean things, which is why you are trying to manipulate them to hide away your racism and sexism.

But lets not take your word for it - Let's refer to "Encyclopedia of Gender and Society" And I doth quote:


Another helpful metaphor for the ubiquitous nature of male privilege is the imperceptible "wind at the back" of all males

Now, since I'm clearly "an uneducated moron" - I'd like you to explain how "Ubiquitous" doesn't mean "found everywhere" and how "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" (cause that would be sexist, right?).

Oh and for bonus points in that chapter - the "proof" they use to justify the existence of Privilege is.....

The wage Gap! (that would be the same wage gap that is wholly dishonest statistically and has been debunked by anyone with even a cursory glance at Economics)

[Graystone]

No, I think you were confused and talking shit.



It's got a legal definition, that would seem to be fairly absolute. However, I want to again draw a distinction between those who do not think the concept exists (which is not an argument against the definition per se), those who think it should not be criminalised (which is not an argument against the definition, but an argument against it's application), and those who think it should be criminalised.

None of those groups are really arguing about the Definition, so where exactly is this debate? It seems like you are trying to bolster your argument with some imaginary disagreement...



Then how can you assert my statements on them are wrong...



I know words mean things, which is why you are trying to manipulate them to hide away your racism and sexism.

But lets not take your word for it - Let's refer to "Encyclopedia of Gender and Society" And I doth quote:



Now, since I'm clearly "an uneducated moron" - I'd like you to explain how "Ubiquitous" doesn't mean "found everywhere" and how "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" (cause that would be sexist, right?).

Oh and for bonus points in that chapter - the "proof" they use to justify the existence of Privilege is.....

The wage Gap! (that would be the same wage gap that is wholly dishonest statistically and has been debunked by anyone with even a cursory glance at Economics)

Anything you need to believe to fit your narrative eh :facepalm:

Seems open to interpretation, and certainly open to discretion; and a media soundbyte doesn't supercede the ToS by the way, where discretion is there, despite you claiming otherwise.

For the first, you removal of the context around "lefty bias' "quote" completely changes the meaning of what was said, so you are most certainly wrong there.

For the studies, you historical precedent of being wrong (see above), and absence of evidence. You cannot claim to be right, while withholding/hiding the evidence such a conclusion relies on; your attempts to do so show your transition to Katman is going well though.

Why do we refer to the encyclopedia? The simple fact you had to create a false equivalence by inserting the word 'are' to change the definitions, shows you are wrong in your assertions. I'd also wonder why you referred to it, instead of citing it, is it another quote taken out of context perhaps? :laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

Seems open to interpretation, and certainly open to discretion; and a media soundbyte doesn't supercede the ToS by the way, where discretion is there, despite you claiming otherwise.

Exactly how is the Definition (not the application) open to interpretation...

It's not a Media Sound byte, it's the word of the CEO, you know, the person that is on record as actually signing off the banning...


For the first, you removal of the context around "lefty bias' "quote" completely changes the meaning of what was said, so you are most certainly wrong there.

Not at all, The context was contradicted by his statements. Twitter is a written platform, the only way to gauge behavior is via viewing and interpreting the Content. Furthermore, the interpretation of Behavior is subject to political bias, which the CEO has openly conceded.


For the studies, you historical precedent of being wrong (see above), and absence of evidence. You cannot claim to be right, while withholding/hiding the evidence such a conclusion relies on; your attempts to do so show your transition to Katman is going well though.

So, that's just your misguided prejudice then? Right. Glad we cleared that up. Now, if you'd like to put down the ad hominems and try some honesty in the discussion, that would be a refreshing change.


Why do we refer to the encyclopedia? The simple fact you had to create a false equivalence by inserting the word 'are' to change the definitions, shows you are wrong in your assertions. I'd also wonder why you referred to it, instead of citing it, is it another quote taken out of context perhaps? :laugh:

Or, I actually understood the concept of "White Male Privilege" better than you did.

Interestingly enough - where's the explanation of why "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" - it seems to be curiously lacking....

Now, I'm sure one of such esteemed intelligence as yours would EASILY be able to explain the difference to us mere mortals unless, of course, you were wrong all this time and it's a racist and sexist concept (as proved by your definition of Racism and the definition pulled from a scholarly encyclopedia providing a definition for it).

[jasonu]

What about in the USA - the highest average earners aren't even White

.

If that is true then who are they?

[Voltaire]

I've been working for a US multi national who contracts to another US Multinational they are both going thru major changes with upper management, agile, diversity and so on.
I'm finding being the only male at some meetings interesting..... #dodo.

We might not be seeing AI taking over any time soon but millennials are disrupting things.

[oldrider]

If that is true then who are they?

Akzle? - Akzle? - paging Mr Akzle please take the stand! - Where is Akzle this is your moment in the sun. - :wait: - Wot no Akzle! :confused:

[jasonu]

Akzle? - Akzle? - paging Mr Akzle please take the stand! - Where is Akzle this is your moment in the sun. - :wait: - Wot no Akzle! :confused:

If you are referring to Joos I lump them in with the rest of us white mother fuckers.

[Graystone]

Exactly how is the Definition (not the application) open to interpretation...

It's not a Media Sound byte, it's the word of the CEO, you know, the person that is on record as actually signing off the banning...



Not at all, The context was contradicted by his statements. Twitter is a written platform, the only way to gauge behavior is via viewing and interpreting the Content. Furthermore, the interpretation of Behavior is subject to political bias, which the CEO has openly conceded.



So, that's just your misguided prejudice then? Right. Glad we cleared that up. Now, if you'd like to put down the ad hominems and try some honesty in the discussion, that would be a refreshing change.



Or, I actually understood the concept of "White Male Privilege" better than you did.

Interestingly enough - where's the explanation of why "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" - it seems to be curiously lacking....

Now, I'm sure one of such esteemed intelligence as yours would EASILY be able to explain the difference to us mere mortals unless, of course, you were wrong all this time and it's a racist and sexist concept (as proved by your definition of Racism and the definition pulled from a scholarly encyclopedia providing a definition for it).

Well it's the application we are interested in, surely.

Still a media soundbyte, still doesn't trump the ToS.

The context gives his intent, and gives lie to the way you portrayed his words.

You should know it is irrational to withhold evidence and claim you are right anyway, and least you used to know this...

Then why the false equivalence? If you knew the meaning better you would not need to add words which changed it.

[husaberg]

They are (by their own admission) biased to the Left...

The problem is you look at the comments "Not content, but behavior" - by what metric do they judge behavior (and let's put aside for the moment that on Twitter, your behavior can only be monitored by Content...), well, it's a Left leaning bias. And when we look at high profile accounts, we see that those who say things, that are a breach of the ToS, but in line with Left-wing ideals aren't censured, whereas if someone on the right *cough* Candace Owens *cough* posts the exact same thing, they do get Censured.


Making out that twitter has a left bias (by their own CEO's admission) but leaving out that this has nothing to do with how they run their business is rather stupid.

Dorsey said his "Twitter has a responsibility to be open about its political viewpoints, but to operate without bias when applying content policies to users."
"We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is ... is more left-leaning," Dorsey says.
"But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," he added.
Dorsey went on to insist that "Twitter only polices behavior on the platform, not content."
AS is using Twiiter left bias to support your theory as that why jones was booted.
for that to be plausible you would have to ignore all of Jones antics that breached the TOS and ignore the fact that the one company you say has that bias was practically the last to boot him out.

https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-...ones-infowars/
Professional tragedy troll Alex Jones went to Washington Wednesday to claw back the attention he's lost since Facebook, Apple, YouTube, Spotify, and other tech giants booted him from their services last month. He stalked behind Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey as they testified to the Senate, accosted senator Marco Rubio during a post-hearing interview, berated a CNN reporter as he stood in the hallways, and broadcast it all on Twitter, the last platform that would have him.

And it backfired.
On Thursday, just a day after Jones brought his circus to Capitol Hill, Twitter announced it was finally banning Jones and his conspiracy site InfoWars, citing "new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy." That policy prohibits "excessively aggressive insults that target an individual, including content that contains slurs or similar language." Dorsey had previously defended Twitter's decision to allow Jones to continue operating on the platform, saying Jones hadn't violated Twitter's policies.
But in early August, CNN reporter Oliver Darcy publicly pointed out a number of instances in which Jones had, in fact, violated those policies, leading Jones—or someone on his team—to delete the tweets in question. Days later, Twitter forced Jones to delete another offending tweet and put his account in read-only mode for a week. The time-out lifted, and Jones' account lived on.


Ironically, it was the initial CNN story—or rather, Jones' unhinged response to it—that proved his eventual undoing. On Wednesday, just before Dorsey was set to testify at his second congressional hearing of the day, Jones approached Darcy as he waited in line with media colleagues to be let into the hearing room. Jones, flanked by his entourage, cornered Darcy, jabbed a phone in his face, and harassed the reporter for more than 10 minutes about his work, his employer, and his looks, saying he has the "eyes of a rat." The entire ordeal streamed on Periscope, which is owned by Twitter
That this particular broadside was the last straw for Twitter seems curious. Yes, Twitter had plenty of reason to suspend Jones on Thursday. But it had just as many reasons a week ago and the week before that, and in early August when all of its contemporaries jumped ship. Compared to Jones' long trail of misdeeds on Twitter—claiming that no one was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting, and comparing Parkland shooting survivors to Nazis, to name a few—his rant against Darcy seems tame. Certainly a CNN reporter who covers Jones for a living is better equipped to handle his ravings than a mass shooting victim would be, and insulting a person's looks hardly compares to claiming a parent's dead child never really existed.
But ultimately, the tirade against Darcy was too public for Twitter to ignore. Standing there, in the halls of Congress, outside the room where Twitter's CEO sat, and in front of nearly every tech reporter in the industry, Jones tested the limits of what he could get away with until suddenly he couldn't get away with it anymore.
As for Twitter, taking this action was likely only a matter of time. Ever since the company broke with its peers to stand beside Jones, all eyes have been on the @realalexjones account, waiting for even the slightest infraction. And it was a relatively slight infraction, for Jones at least, that did it.

The fact you have to ignore credible supported evidence and leave out parts of statements to attempt to make your theory look remotely plausible, logically this is only done because you know your theory is not actually plausible in the first place.

[oldrider]

If you are referring to Joos I lump them in with the rest of us white mother fuckers.

Two references actually - how he (Akzle) would normally react and where he actually is these days? :confused:

[TheDemonLord]

If you are referring to Joos I lump them in with the rest of us white mother fuckers.

It's actually the Asians...

[TheDemonLord]

Well it's the application we are interested in, surely.

Then why were you quibbling about the Definition?


Still a media soundbyte, still doesn't trump the ToS.

The context gives his intent, and gives lie to the way you portrayed his words.

"It's just a Media Soundbyte" - except it's from the person that:

A: Runs the company.
B: Personally signed off on the Ban.

Let me put it another way, He could have declined to sign off on the Ban - and Alex Jones would not have been banned. Therefore what He says happens to be VERY relevant.

As for the context, he contradicted himself, so I left that part out.


You should know it is irrational to withhold evidence and claim you are right anyway, and least you used to know this...

It's also irrational to be deliberately dishonest in a debate and continually trying to strawman your opponent. It's funny how that works.

If you want to honestly engage and stop feigning ignorance then I might bother to post some evidence...


Then why the false equivalence? If you knew the meaning better you would not need to add words which changed it.

2 points:

1: It's not a false equivalence
2: Where is your explanation as to why "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" - I've read and re-read your post, it's curiously absent. What is also curiously absent is a retraction of your statements about "White Male Privilege".

We are in the interesting position where, according to your own clearly worded definition, you subscribe to a Racist, Sexist concept, yet you refuse to accept reality.




Remember earlier in the exchange I made the comment that the only people who wish to re-define the use of words are the people who are now getting caught out by the definitions they helped create? This is a textbook example.

[Graystone]

Then why were you quibbling about the Definition?



"It's just a Media Soundbyte" - except it's from the person that:

A: Runs the company.
B: Personally signed off on the Ban.

Let me put it another way, He could have declined to sign off on the Ban - and Alex Jones would not have been banned. Therefore what He says happens to be VERY relevant.

As for the context, he contradicted himself, so I left that part out.



It's also irrational to be deliberately dishonest in a debate and continually trying to strawman your opponent. It's funny how that works.

If you want to honestly engage and stop feigning ignorance then I might bother to post some evidence...



2 points:

1: It's not a false equivalence
2: Where is your explanation as to why "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" - I've read and re-read your post, it's curiously absent. What is also curiously absent is a retraction of your statements about "White Male Privilege".

We are in the interesting position where, according to your own clearly worded definition, you subscribe to a Racist, Sexist concept, yet you refuse to accept reality.




Remember earlier in the exchange I made the comment that the only people who wish to re-define the use of words are the people who are now getting caught out by the definitions they helped create? This is a textbook example.

I was saying the definition is open to interpretation, ie, it can be interpreted with discretion.

His words are not policy, they're likely just to justify the ban, and discourage hate speech from the platform. They are not policy. How is this difficult for you to understand?

There was no contradiction in his intent. What you left out was his intended meaning, which is very disingenuous, and gives lie to your argument.

Its is, which is why I do not do that. How about you pick up you game, get on my level, and post some citations instead of further descent down to join katman...

It is a false equivalence, as "Maori crime", and "Maori are criminals" mean very different things. Again, how can you not understand this? Once you understand basic english, I may address the other definition you supplied, but let's not gish gallop down another path until you understand that false equivalence you keep making eh!

[TheDemonLord]

Making out that twitter has a left bias (by their own CEO's admission) but leaving out that this has nothing to do with how they run their business is rather stupid.

Not at all, he acknowledges his Bias (which even without an admission, could be quantified objectively), but when he says it doesn't affect the way they run the company - he's curiously light on details.

You're forgetting as well that the reason he was hauled up on this was due to several well known republicans noticing that messages weren't being received by their audience in the same manner that they used to.


AS is using Twiiter left bias to support your theory as that why jones was booted.
for that to be plausible you would have to ignore all of Jones antics that breached the TOS and ignore the fact that the one company you say has that bias was practically the last to boot him out.

All of the big Social Media companies have a left wing bias. But again, you bring up what Jones as if it's a retort to some point I've made. You are still trying desperately to setup this Strawman.

I'll make it simple: There are open Antifa Twitter accounts.

Antifa is considered a Domestic Terrorist organization. They are also part of the Extreme left wing. What they do is not just a breach of Twitters' ToS, but also US Federal Law. Yet, they still exist (and not particularly difficult to find)

Let's assume that the ToS is being applied without prejudice: Then there is no way (short of a catastrophic failure) that those accounts should still be active. And yet, they are.
The fact that they are, means that the ToS is not being applied without prejudice.

Now lets dig further into this - Let's discuss some technology - when you are training any type of Filter (Spam, Content etc. etc.) you need a degree of Human input initially to help the system know what is "Good" and what is "bad".

Pick an issue in the US (Abortion, Gun Control, Hate Speech etc.) where those with a Left wing perspective hold that opposition (ie Right Wing) to their PoV is Immoral or "Bad" - Run through those statements and the only possibly conclusion is because of the Companies Left-wing bias, that is going to come through in their filters.


The fact you have to ignore credible supported evidence and leave out parts of statements to attempt to make your theory look remotely plausible, logically this is only done because you know your theory is not actually plausible in the first place.

I left them out because they contradicted themselves - on Twitter, the only way to understand behavior is by understanding content. You know this to be a self-evident truth, based on the structure of the platform and the mode of interaction.

[TheDemonLord]

I was saying the definition is open to interpretation, ie, it can be interpreted with discretion.

Ah, I see, we are moving the Goal posts now.


His words are not policy, they're likely just to justify the ban, and discourage hate speech from the platform. They are not policy. How is this difficult for you to understand?

If you are the one with final sign-off authority, then your word IS Policy.


There was no contradiction in his intent. What you left out was his intended meaning, which is very disingenuous, and gives lie to your argument.

Okay answer this - without analyzing Content, how can you determine behavior on Twitter?


Its is, which is why I do not do that. How about you pick up you game, get on my level, and post some citations instead of further descent down to join katman...

See Below:


It is a false equivalence, as "Maori crime", and "Maori are criminals" mean very different things. Again, how can you not understand this? Once you understand basic english, I may address the other definition you supplied, but let's not gish gallop down another path until you understand that false equivalence you keep making eh!

I'm gonna keep this real simple:

You need to explain why All Males doesn't mean All Males.

If it does, indeed mean All Males - then you (by your own definition) are a Sexist and a Racist.

Edit - It should be a simple answer, a couple of sentences.

[Graystone]

Ah, I see, we are moving the Goal posts now.



If you are the one with final sign-off authority, then your word IS Policy.



Okay answer this - without analyzing Content, how can you determine behavior on Twitter?



See Below:



I'm gonna keep this real simple:

You need to explain why All Males doesn't mean All Males.

If it does, indeed mean All Males - then you (by your own definition) are a Sexist and a Racist.

Edit - It should be a simple answer, a couple of sentences.

Not at all, it has always been about the interpretation.

Go back to the legal definition site you were pissing on about before, see if you can find where written policy is superceded by CEO's soundbytes... No? Didn't think so.

Irrelevant, the context was that Twitter know's their staff are bias'd towards the left, so are making a conscious effort to ensure their ToS discretion is not based on political leanings.

That is not covered in below at all, you said that the conclusions from a whole topic within a field were inadmissible due to corruption of the peer review process, and have since evaded this topic and failed to back yourself up.

Sorry, that's the gish gallop you are trying to go off on, I've said nothing about how all males does not equal all males; it's clearly a strawman. However you have created a false equivalence between "Maori crime" and "Maori are criminals" which you now refuse to discuss as you've noticed your error but refuse to own it.

[husaberg]

Not at all, he acknowledges his Bias (which even without an admission, could be quantified objectively), but when he says it doesn't affect the way they run the company - he's curiously light on details.

You're forgetting as well that the reason he was hauled up on this was due to several well known republicans noticing that messages weren't being received by their audience in the same manner that they used to.



All of the big Social Media companies have a left wing bias. But again, you bring up what Jones as if it's a retort to some point I've made. You are still trying desperately to setup this Strawman.

I'll make it simple: There are open Antifa Twitter accounts.

Antifa is considered a Domestic Terrorist organization. They are also part of the Extreme left wing. What they do is not just a breach of Twitters' ToS, but also US Federal Law. Yet, they still exist (and not particularly difficult to find)

Let's assume that the ToS is being applied without prejudice: Then there is no way (short of a catastrophic failure) that those accounts should still be active. And yet, they are.
The fact that they are, means that the ToS is not being applied without prejudice.

Now lets dig further into this - Let's discuss some technology - when you are training any type of Filter (Spam, Content etc. etc.) you need a degree of Human input initially to help the system know what is "Good" and what is "bad".

Pick an issue in the US (Abortion, Gun Control, Hate Speech etc.) where those with a Left wing perspective hold that opposition (ie Right Wing) to their PoV is Immoral or "Bad" - Run through those statements and the only possibly conclusion is because of the Companies Left-wing bias, that is going to come through in their filters.



I left them out because they contradicted themselves - on Twitter, the only way to understand behavior is by understanding content. You know this to be a self-evident truth, based on the structure of the platform and the mode of interaction.



To you at least though its not only plausible its likely to have occurred, its just you have no evidence and all the evidence available, not only doesn't support your assertion, it actually supports something else altogrther.
So no mater what the contrary evidence suggest or how far fetched your theory is.....
oh really wait..........................................











i just actually seen your logic fly out of the window.

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all, it has always been about the interpretation.


Well it's the application we are interested in, surely.

Why don't you take 5 minutes to try and get your story straight.


Go back to the legal definition site you were pissing on about before, see if you can find where written policy is superceded by CEO's soundbytes... No? Didn't think so.

So why was his approval required for the banning? Afterall if the Policy was absolute, there's no need to involve the CEO...


Irrelevant, the context was that Twitter know's their staff are bias'd towards the left, so are making a conscious effort to ensure their ToS discretion is not based on political leanings.

No, it was not. It was about the contradictions in the statement.

And curiously, his details as to how they guard against bias is very scant... One might almost say "non-existent"


That is not covered in below at all, you said that the conclusions from a whole topic within a field were inadmissible due to corruption of the peer review process, and have since evaded this topic and failed to back yourself up.

Not at all, you see - you asserted (initially) that "White Male Privilege" wasn't racist and sexist because it did not encompass the entirety of the groups:


A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members within that group

And yet, when presented with the definition (that fulfills YOUR definition of Racism and Sexism) you've now resorted to avoiding the question and further mental Gymnastics - which is exactly the Corruption that I critiqued.


Sorry, that's the gish gallop you are trying to go off on, I've said nothing about how all males does not equal all males; it's clearly a strawman. However you have created a false equivalence between "Maori crime" and "Maori are criminals" which you now refuse to discuss as you've noticed your error but refuse to own it.

I know you haven't said anything about how All Males does not equal all Males - that's the point....

I've not created a False Equivalence, I'll break it down really simple like:

You agree with me that the statement "Maori are Criminals" is definitely Racist. Because we are saying ALL of a group (whose membership is a protected characteristic) have a negative attribute.

Your defense of "White Male Privilege" not being racist was because "A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members".

So, I posted the description of "White Male Privilege" from a scholarly source, were it clearly articulated that it was in fact applying the attribute to ALL members of a group (whose membership is a protected characteristic).

You now have a problem: The definition of "White Male Privilege" is clear that is meant in the same way that "Maori are Criminals" - since it states explicitly that all Men have it. You are arguing one is Racist and one is not.

The means by which you argue this is to try and redefine and twist language - because you know you've been hoisted by your own petard.

[TheDemonLord]

To you at least though its not only plausible its likely to have occurred, its just you have no evidence and all the evidence available, not only doesn't support your assertion, it actually supports something else altogrther.

Except you know, the existence of Antifa Twitter Accounts, Sarah Jeong vs Candace Owens, being called before Congress to answer for discrepancies found by Right wing Politicians and their audience.

Yeah, that's totally no evidence... Which btw, you've not addressed...


i just actually seen your logic fly out of the window.

I think what you've actually seen is your grasp on written English go flying out....

[husaberg]

Except you know, the existence of Antifa Twitter Accounts, Sarah Jeong vs Candace Owens, being called before Congress to answer for discrepancies found by Right wing Politicians and their audience.

Yeah, that's totally no evidence... Which btw, you've not addressed...



I think what you've actually seen is your grasp on written English go flying out....
Its not evidence as to why Jones was thrown off social media,Unless you can show everyone these people or their actions are the reason Jones was banned or even contributed in any way to him being banned...........:yawn:

[TheDemonLord]

Its not evidence as to why Jones was thrown off social media,Unless you can show everyone these people or their actions are the reason Jones was banned or even contributed in any way to him being banned...........:yawn:

What that is evidence of, is Twitter having a much stricter interpretation of their ToS if you are on the Right Wing vs if you are on the Left. Which has been my sole point. It's not what you are repeatedly trying to twist it into.

Alex Jones happened to be on the Right. And he's been banned.

Antifa (again, a Domestic Terrorist organization) they are on the Left and they are still on Twitter...

[husaberg]

What that is evidence of, is Twitter having a much stricter interpretation of their ToS if you are on the Right Wing vs if you are on the Left. Which has been my sole point. It's not what you are repeatedly trying to twist it into.

Alex Jones happened to be on the Right. And he's been banned.

Antifa (again, a Domestic Terrorist organization) they are on the Left and they are still on Twitter...

All this is your suposition the facts are as given by twitter and the others Jones was banned for breaking TOS
We also have ample evidence that jones broke the TOS of these platforms, this is irrefutable.
You are attempting to turn it into something else , the only way you can do this is by refusing to acknowledge these facts, you do so as they don't suit your own theory what actually happened.

[Drew]

So, I posted the description of "White Male Privilege" from a scholarly source, were it clearly articulated that it was in fact applying the attribute to ALL members of a group (whose membership is a protected characteristic).

You now have a problem: The definition of "White Male Privilege" is clear that is meant in the same way that "Maori are Criminals" - since it states explicitly that all Men have it. You are arguing one is Racist and one is not.

The means by which you argue this is to try and redefine and twist language - because you know you've been hoisted by your own petard.
The privilage of white males is evidence of racist and sexist. I dunno that it's the same as saying Maori are criminals.

[jasonu]

The privilage of white males is evidence of racist and sexist. I dunno that it's the same as saying Maori are criminals.

Yeah it's the same where ever you go. Rag on whitey as much as you want but don't dare say anything negative about colored folk because 338997

[Ocean1]

The privilage of white males is evidence of racist and sexist. I dunno that it's the same as saying Maori are criminals.

The "privilege" of white males is a myth perpetrated by the radical left to justify yet more income redistribution, to make things "equitable".

And yes, saying Maori are criminals is exactly the same as saying white males are privileged. Worse, it's racists AND sexist.

That there's any doubt about that is an indication that the decades long socialist indoctrination via academia and the media has been effective in redefining a watertight, logically pure definition to pure hyperbole, at least for those gender fluid fuckwits a little under the IQ mean who are envious of the rich white prick meme.

All clear?

[husaberg]

What that is evidence of, is Twitter having a much stricter interpretation of their ToS if you are on the Right Wing vs if you are on the Left. Which has been my sole point. It's not what you are repeatedly trying to twist it into.

Alex Jones happened to be on the Right. And he's been banned.

Antifa (again, a Domestic Terrorist organization) they are on the Left and they are still on Twitter...

Here we go again, you are still trying to make jhat happened into something else.
If you are going to attempt to refute what i said start with the beginning
Did twiiter ban Jones Y/N
Did twiiter give a reason for banning jones Y/N
was the reason that jones was banned in the TOS Y/N
did the reason for banning jones match what jones had done Y/N
Did the platform recieve an overwhelming amount of complaints about jones Y/N
Was Jones warned by the platforms that his behavior was in breach of TOS Y/N
if it yes to all of this its no to your conspiracy that he was kicked of for other different reasons, doesn't hold water.

[pritch]

I'm sure some will be delighted, but somebody is bringing a group of "right thinking" speakers down under. Included, among others, are: Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopolis, and... drum roll... Tommy Robinson.

Enjoy. :whistle:

[TheDemonLord]

Here we go again, you are still trying to make jhat happened into something else.
If you are going to attempt to refute what i said start with the beginning
Did twiiter ban Jones Y/N
Did twiiter give a reason for banning jones Y/N
was the reason that jones was banned in the TOS Y/N
did the reason for banning jones match what jones had done Y/N
Did the platform recieve an overwhelming amount of complaints about jones Y/N
Was Jones warned by the platforms that his behavior was in breach of TOS Y/N
if it yes to all of this its no to your conspiracy that he was kicked of for other different reasons, doesn't hold water.

An irrelevant chain of logic to the point I am and have been making.

You just keep setting up that strawman though...

[TheDemonLord]

The privilage of white males is evidence of racist and sexist. I dunno that it's the same as saying Maori are criminals.

Okay Drew - Consider the following premises:

We all agree that the statement "All Members of this Group are Negative attribute" is an example of Prejudice.

For example - it's prejudicial to say "All Motorcyclists are bad motorists"

We all also agree that when the group membership is based off of a protected characteristic (which for reference are "age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity") - that is discrimination - we have placeholder names such as Racism, Sexism, Ableism etc. etc. to describe the discrimination.

For example - it's racist to say "All Maori are Criminals" or it's Sexist to say "All Women can't drive"

Finally - the definition of "White Male Privilege" has made it clear, that it applies to All White Men. And that Privilege in this instance is a negative attribute - namely that they are getting something that they have not earned and that should go to someone else.

If it is Racist to say "All Maori are criminals", why is it not equally Racist to say "All White Men are privileged"? If it is sexist to say that "All Women can't drive", why is not it not equally Sexist to say "All White Men are privileged".

Now, there are people on the radical left that have realised this. Which is why they are trying to redefine Racism as "Power + Privilege" so that they can state "You can't be racist to a White person".

I happen to hold the belief that the way to a Less racist society is to have less Racism...

[husaberg]

An irrelevant chain of logic to the point I am and have been making.

You just keep setting up that strawman though...
Your claim is not logical orr supported by any facts.
You are not making a point either, you are using a series of false equivalents to try make out you can somehow add weight to prove conspiracy theory you have.
you are failing because you can prove something occurred with a series of false equivalents.
Suggesting i are proving a straw-man argument is ridiculous as all the facts i have produced are 100% related to the suggestions you have made.
The fact that you claim they are not relevant points to the total lack of evidence you have top support your claims.

I will give you a hint you cant claim that a murder didn't occur if you have evidence that shows a murder did occur and who done it, by attempting to use the basis that other people had not been charged with other murders.
Nor can you conversly suggest because there is evidence that others are in your eyes murderers, that somehow suggests that there is a conspiracy against a person where there is ample evidence to prove their guilt as a murderer. just becuase the other people are not yet convicted of murder.
Logic dictates you judge individual cases on its merit.
proof is not made on the absence of information its made on the present of information.

[husaberg]

I'm sure some will be delighted, but somebody is bringing a group of "right thinking" speakers down under. Included, among others, are: Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopolis, and... drum roll... Tommy Robinson.

Enjoy. :whistle:
I cant see robinson AKA getting in considering he has a conviction for passport fraud and he has been denied entry to other countries.

[TheDemonLord]

Your claim is not logical orr supported by any facts.
You are not making a point either, you are using a series of false equivalents to try make out you can somehow add weight to prove conspiracy theory you have.
you are failing because you can prove something occurred with a series of false equivalents.
Suggesting i are proving a straw-man argument is ridiculous as all the facts i have produced are 100% related to the suggestions you have made.
The fact that you claim they are not relevant points to the total lack of evidence you have top support your claims.

I will give you a hint you cant claim that a murder didn't occur if you have evidence that shows a murder did occur and who done it, by attempting to use the basis that other people had not been charged with other murders.
Nor can you conversly suggest because there is evidence that others are in your eyes murderers, that somehow suggests that there is a conspiracy against a person where there is ample evidence to prove their guilt as a murderer. just becuase the other people are not yet convicted of murder.
Logic dictates you judge individual cases on its merit.
proof is not made on the absence of information its made on the present of information.

That post is just proof of how badly (either deliberately or via Ignorance) you are interpreting the point I'm making.

To use your analogy: I'm not making any claim as to whether a specific Murder was or was not committed. Once you can understand that point (despite it's the umpteenth time I've pointed it out to you) - then we can try and progress. Until then, you can either keep on spouting poorly written twaddle or you can get thee hence.

[pritch]

I cant see robinson AKA getting in considering he has a conviction for passport fraud and he has been denied entry to other countries.

The person who posted what I saw thought it was optimistic too.

[TheDemonLord]

I cant see robinson AKA getting in considering he has a conviction for passport fraud and he has been denied entry to other countries.

Mortgage fraud.

[husaberg]

Mortgage fraud.
he has that as well as passport fraud do keep up

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-20935502

EDL leader Stephen Lennon jailed for false passport offence
The leader of the English Defence League has been jailed for 10 months for using someone else's passport to travel to the USA.
Stephen Lennon, 30, from Luton, admitted possession of a false identity document with improper intention.
Lennon used a passport in the name of Andrew McMaster to board a Virgin Atlantic flight from Heathrow to New York, Southwark Crown Court was told.
He entered the US illegally then used his own passport to return to the UK.
Lennon had previously been refused entry to the US and used a friend's passport to travel to the country in September.
He used a self check-in kiosk to board the flight at Heathrow and was allowed through when the document was checked in the bag-drop area.
But when Lennon arrived at New York's JFK Airport, customs officials took his fingerprints and realised he was not travelling on his own passport.
Lennon was asked to attend a second interview but managed to leave the airport, entering the US illegally.

Previous convictions
He stayed one night and travelled back to the UK the following day using his own legitimate passport, which bears the name of Paul Harris.
Judge Alistair McCreath told him: "I am going to sentence you under the name of Stephen Lennon although I suspect that is not actually your true name, in the sense that it is not the name that appears on your passport.
"What I have to deal with you for is clear enough. You knew perfectly well that you were not welcome in the United States.
"You knew that because you tried before and you had not got in, and you knew the reason for that - because, rightly or wrongly, the US authorities do not welcome people in their country who have convictions of the kind that you have.
"With that full knowledge, you equipped yourself with a passport. I am told that it was given you by way of a loan from your friend Andrew McMaster, to which you bore, I am told, some resemblance."
The judge added: "What you did went absolutely to the heart of the immigration controls that the United States are entitled to have.
"It's not in any sense trivial."
In mitigation, Lennon's barrister Giles Cockings told the court the passport was not stolen and his client had only used it for a day.
Lennon was jailed for assault in 2005 and also has convictions for drugs offences and public order offences, the court heard.


April 2005 conviction for assaulting an off-duty police officer
June 2011 arrest for brawling
July 2011 arrest for brawling
October 2012 arrest for false passport
November 2013 arrest for mortgage fraud. He had conspired with a crooked mortgage broker, Deborah Rothschild, and others, to obtain mortgages under false pretences. Robinson obtained £160,000 over a period of 6 months; Rothschild helped her co-conspirators obtain a total of £640,000 and she was also jailed for 18 months
May 2017 arrest for contempt of court

[husaberg]

That post is just proof of how badly (either deliberately or via Ignorance) you are interpreting the point I'm making.

To use your analogy: I'm not making any claim as to whether a specific Murder was or was not committed. Once you can understand that point (despite it's the umpteenth time I've pointed it out to you) - then we can try and progress. Until then, you can either keep on spouting poorly written twaddle or you can get thee hence.
You have no valid points or any evidence to support the point you claim, Which is why you avoid the fact that he was removed for breach of TOS
on the other hand i have heaps of evidence the is guilty of breach tos and that is why he was removed.
As for claiming i am ignorant i am not the one that is being ignorant, you are ignoring the facts that he was removed for breach of TOS.

You are claiming he was removed because he was right wing yet this is not backed by facts in any way shape or means


Alex Jones happened to be on the Right. And he's been banned..
Your claim is not backed by facts Yet what is backed by facts, is that he was removed for breaching the sites TOS. But you claim this is irrelevant:clap:.

[husaberg]

The person who posted what I saw thought it was optimistic too.
Especially considering hes currently on bail awaiting another hearing for contempt of court (which he will likely be found guilty of, because he is clearly guilty and ignorance is not a defense)

[TheDemonLord]

You have no valid points or any evidence to support the point you claim, on the other hand i have heaps of evidence the is guilty of breach tos and that is why he was removed.

You are claiming he was removed because he was right wing this is not backed by facts.

Your claim is not backed by facts Yet what is backed by facts, is that he was removed for breaching the sites TOS

How about you try and understand what my claim was - you're about 50% of the way there.

[husaberg]

How about you try and understand what my claim was - you're about 50% of the way there.
No one will support your claim without evidence unless they are a conspiracy theorist.
Tell you what, How about you post some actual evidence.
Because I'm 100% aware of your current lack of evidence thus far.
I am also 100% aware you your failure to counter the evidence that proves your claim to be wrong also.
PS evidence is factual that would stand up in court not rumours or claims about others conduct.
Next thing you will be claiming that AKA is not allowed in NZ as hes ALt right while totally ignoring he has a passport fraud conviction.

[TheDemonLord]

No one will support your claim without evidence unless they are a conspiracy theorist.
Tell you what, How about you post some actual evidence.
Because I'm 100% aware of your current lack of evidence thus far.
I am also 100% aware you your failure to counter the evidence that proves your claim to be wrong also.
PS evidence is factual that would stand up in court not rumours or claims about others conduct.
Next thing you will be claiming that AKA is not allowed in NZ as hes ALt right while totally ignoring he has a passport fraud conviction.

So I'll take that as "I'm sorry, I'm incapable of understanding the point"

Also - Tommy isn't Alt-right...

[husaberg]

So I'll take that as "I'm sorry, I'm incapable of understanding the point"
..
Take it the same way Tommy likely did in prison for all i care.

I am just pointing out your the total lack of evidence you have presented and comparing it with the vast amount of evidence that Jones was banned for breach of tos.
I am still awaiting for your evidence that supports your claims that Jones was banned for is non left wing views.






Also - Tommy isn't Alt-right...

Gish gallop away.......
So AKA's not alt right you better tell the alt right sites they seem to have claimed him
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/06/how-tommy-robinson-became-folk-hero-global-alt-right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5as6HEXBA
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/30/tommy-robinson-alt-right-tactics-uk-contempt-laws
https://www.ft.com/content/f8f2b174-6409-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56

[TheDemonLord]

Take it the same way Tommy likely did in prison for all i care.

I am just pointing out your the total lack of evidence you have presented and comparing it with the vast amount of evidence that Jones was banned for breach of tos.
I am still awaiting for your evidence that supports your claims that Jones was banned for is non left wing views.

And you'll keep waiting, since you fundamentally don't understand the point that was made.

As for your sources - Since when did the Guardian become Alt-right? Or the Financial Times?

Do you even know what the Alt-right is? Because when you compare what is claimed as alt-right by the Media (especially places like the Guardian) and what is actually Alt-right, they are 2 vastly different Magisteria.

To the Media, everyone to the right of Marx and mildly popular is Alt-Right....

[husaberg]

And you'll keep waiting, since you fundamentally don't understand the point that was made.

As for your sources - Since when did the Guardian become Alt-right? Or the Financial Times?

Do you even know what the Alt-right is? Because when you compare what is claimed as alt-right by the Media (especially places like the Guardian) and what is actually Alt-right, they are 2 vastly different Magisteria.

To the Media, everyone to the right of Marx and mildly popular is Alt-Right....

Who could ever understand your point, as its pointless to try and have a discussion with anyone when they, like you, refuse to present any actual evidence to support your views.
Sourse i just googled the wold alt right and aka and came uo with thousands of links.
alt right covers all the alternative right fringe group nutters to which AKA firmly belongs.
he is covered by the definition of white nationalist.
Shatman and oldjewspam would get in also on account of their own antisemitic views their neo nazi fixations and holocaust denial.

[TheDemonLord]

You could ever understand your point as its pointless to try and have a discussion with anyone when they like you refuse to present any actual evidence to support your views.

Could you try again, this time in English? Although that outburst might explain why you are having such trouble understanding the point I was making.


Sourse i just googled the wold alt right and aka and came uo with thousands of links.

Argumentum ad Google.


alt right covers all the alternative right fringe group nutters to which AKA firmly belongs.

No it doesn't. It refers to a specific set of ideas. Of which, Tommy does not espouse.


he is covered by the definition of white nationalist.

No he's not.


Shatman and oldjewspam would get in also on account of their own antisemitic views their neo nazi fixations and holocaust denial.

I've never seen Katman or Oldrider argue in favor of White Ethno-state. Which would make them not Alt-right.

You are committing the very thing I accused the media of doing: Everything that is to the right of Marx is "Alt-right"

[oldrider]

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time except for husaberg he appears to be the one person fooled most of the time! - :rolleyes:

[husaberg]

Could you try again, this time in English? Although that outburst might explain why you are having such trouble understanding the point I was making.



Argumentum ad Google.



No it doesn't. It refers to a specific set of ideas. Of which, Tommy does not espouse.



No he's not.



I've never seen Katman or Oldrider argue in favor of White Ethno-state. Which would make them not Alt-right.

You are committing the very thing I accused the media of doing: Everything that is to the right of Marx is "Alt-right"

Congratulations you have reinvented the common definitions of terms now to suit yourself. Anything alternative to the norm of right is alt right.

Richard B. Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism according to the Associated Press, he did so to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazis
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
I wll give you a hint AKA is an alt right nutjob
if you want to argue hes not provide some evidence he is not a white nationalist
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
As for oldracist and shatspam.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right

The Holocaust is in many ways a natural frontier for the alt-right whose modus operandi is the casting into doubt of objective truth. Holocaust denial, once an end of level boss for conspiracy theorists and truthers, is now a starting point.
Convince people to question Auschwitz and what else can’t you challenge?
What’s scariest though, as a Jew and as a liberal, is that Holocaust denial is now where extreme left and right meet. The language, gestures and agendas might differ but what both amount to is a deliberate attempt to diminish the victimhood of a people who have faced massacre or expulsion on average every hundred years for the last two thousand
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-anti-semitism-modern-holocaust-denial-british-jews-scared-a8484806.html


Unless you are going to say neo nazis are just normal right wing, they by default fall under ALT right, as much as you find it uncomfortable the alt right has made a bed and all the kooks choose to lie in it.

[Graystone]

Why don't you take 5 minutes to try and get your story straight.



So why was his approval required for the banning? Afterall if the Policy was absolute, there's no need to involve the CEO...



No, it was not. It was about the contradictions in the statement.

And curiously, his details as to how they guard against bias is very scant... One might almost say "non-existent"



Not at all, you see - you asserted (initially) that "White Male Privilege" wasn't racist and sexist because it did not encompass the entirety of the groups:



And yet, when presented with the definition (that fulfills YOUR definition of Racism and Sexism) you've now resorted to avoiding the question and further mental Gymnastics - which is exactly the Corruption that I critiqued.



I know you haven't said anything about how All Males does not equal all Males - that's the point....

I've not created a False Equivalence, I'll break it down really simple like:

You agree with me that the statement "Maori are Criminals" is definitely Racist. Because we are saying ALL of a group (whose membership is a protected characteristic) have a negative attribute.

Your defense of "White Male Privilege" not being racist was because "A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members".

So, I posted the description of "White Male Privilege" from a scholarly source, were it clearly articulated that it was in fact applying the attribute to ALL members of a group (whose membership is a protected characteristic).

You now have a problem: The definition of "White Male Privilege" is clear that is meant in the same way that "Maori are Criminals" - since it states explicitly that all Men have it. You are arguing one is Racist and one is not.

The means by which you argue this is to try and redefine and twist language - because you know you've been hoisted by your own petard.

How it is applied is the interpretation, surely...

High profile, gotta get everyone on the same page. You let me know when you turn up that legal definition though eh!

His context, not yours.

And it doesn't encompass the entirety of the groups, that's why you had to create the false equivalence which used the word 'are'. "White male privileged" does not mean the same as "White males are privileged", in the same way "Maori crime" does not mean the same as "maori are criminals" you can tell since the words are different. Finding some obscure, definition you can't even be bothered citing doesn't change basic English.

[TheDemonLord]

How it is applied is the interpretation, surely...

If only we had 2 separate words for each concept. One for Application and One for Definition.... If only...


High profile, gotta get everyone on the same page. You let me know when you turn up that legal definition though eh!

So? If it's as clear a breach as you claim, then there is no need to get the CEO's sign off. I've disabled numerous accounts for breach of my Companies ToS - never bothered the CEO about any of them.


His context, not yours.

I see, off to dismiss the clear contradiction of his statements....


And it doesn't encompass the entirety of the groups, that's why you had to create the false equivalence which used the word 'are'. "White male privileged" does not mean the same as "White males are privileged", in the same way "Maori crime" does not mean the same as "maori are criminals" you can tell since the words are different. Finding some obscure, definition you can't even be bothered citing doesn't change basic English.

So you are trying to claim that "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" - could you explain how that is?

I'll simply remind you - the concept of "White Male Privilege" is clear that it encompasses all White Men. Which means my expansion of the phrase is entirely correct.

And it's not an obscure definition, it's from a Scholarly source - I posted the name of the resource, it's written by a PHD holder in Gender Studies - Funny how, in order to maintain your narrative, you've got to dismiss it as "Obscure".

[TheDemonLord]

Congratulations you have reinvented the common definitions of terms now to suit yourself. Anything alternative to the norm of right is alt right.

Are you being Mental? You've even posted the correct definition - you see the key part "White Nationalism" - so anything that does have that at it's core isn't Alt-right.


I wll give you a hint AKA is an alt right nutjob
if you want to argue hes not provide some evidence he is not a white nationalist

No, burden of proof is on you - can you link to a Tommy Robinson Speech/Quote where he has called for a White Ethno-State.

His main problem is with Radical Islam and it's effects on British Working class communities. He's critiqued immigrants from countries that have views and opinions that are IMO incompatible with British, Western Values.

None of which makes him a Member, figurehead or luminary of the Alt-right. Unless of course you are the left-wing media, in which case, everything that is to the right of Marx is Alt-right these days.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
As for oldracist and shatspam.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right

I'm just quoting this as it's clear that the Cognitive Dissonance is starting to have a real-world impact...


Unless you are going to say neo nazis are just normal right wing, they by default fall under ALT right, as much as you find it uncomfortable the alt right has made a bed and all the kooks choose to lie in it.

Consider this - the Alt-Right have a degree of respect for Israel, it's pretty close to what they would consider an Ethno-State, it's also a place for the Jews to go that is not where the Alt-right live. Which means that it's a little more complex and nuanced than you are trying to make it out to be.

[Graystone]

If only we had 2 separate words for each concept. One for Application and One for Definition.... If only...



So? If it's as clear a breach as you claim, then there is no need to get the CEO's sign off. I've disabled numerous accounts for breach of my Companies ToS - never bothered the CEO about any of them.



I see, off to dismiss the clear contradiction of his statements....



So you are trying to claim that "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" - could you explain how that is?

I'll simply remind you - the concept of "White Male Privilege" is clear that it encompasses all White Men. Which means my expansion of the phrase is entirely correct.

And it's not an obscure definition, it's from a Scholarly source - I posted the name of the resource, it's written by a PHD holder in Gender Studies - Funny how, in order to maintain your narrative, you've got to dismiss it as "Obscure".

Or one that covers both, like interpretation...

Of course there is no need for the CEO to sign off, he only did so due to the profile of the case.

The contradiction was not present in the quote you made which I pulled you up on for taking it completely out of context. So there is nothing to dismiss since you didn't even post it :laugh:

By that logic, you are trying to claim "White male privilege" means the same as "White males are privileged", and that "Maori crime" means the same as "maori are criminals", right?
We both know you refuse to post this citation, just as you refuse to post the myriad of others, because in the correct context, it does not show what you would like to portray it does. A 'helpful metaphor' as you quoted is not the sort of thing used in a definition. You've gone and cherry picked some bullshit form some obscure source (wtf is a scholarly source anyway? is it a journal article? or just some bullshit with a name that appear scholarly to the scientifically illiterate?), just like you always do. Get an education and stop making a fool of yourself.

[husaberg]

blather
So as well as you claiming to know more than a US federal court judge about the law you now know more than three dictionaries about what words mean
You also attempt to claim that separate parts that get thrown into the alt right, somehow must share the same attributes.
But in reality being alternative right wing and a kook is all it needs to meet the common definition of alt right.
Cognitive Dissonance well, its even more funny when you use it than when Yokel used to:2thumbsup
You remember Yokel and what views he espoused.

[TheDemonLord]

Or one that covers both, like interpretation...

Or not. Since you know - they are different words and all...

How about we stick to Application, as it's the only thing that has any semblance of relevance.


Of course there is no need for the CEO to sign off, he only did so due to the profile of the case.

So, you are agreeing that he could have declined to sign off on the banning, due to the profile of the case? That is the implication of that statement, that only the CEO can make those kind of Executive decisions.

Which means your comment "There is no need for the CEO to Sign off" is actually BS.


The contradiction was not present in the quote you made which I pulled you up on for taking it completely out of context. So there is nothing to dismiss since you didn't even post it :laugh:

Except we all know the quote, none of us are disputing the content of the quote, only the interpretation - I'll ask again - how can you profile behavior on a platform like Twitter without monitoring Content?



By that logic, you are trying to claim "White male privilege" means the same as "White males are privileged", and that "Maori crime" means the same as "maori are criminals", right?

So close, You've got the first part right, however - the second part is a red herring, to draw attention away from the fact that you can't dispute that "All Males" means "All Males". Namely because "Maori Crime" doesn't have an academic definition.


We both know you refuse to post this citation, just as you refuse to post the myriad of others, because in the correct context, it does not show what you would like to portray it does.

Again, it's a Direct quote, you've got the name of the resource. You could try a little honest here, but you aren't. And we both know it's because you've no-doubt read the resource, if it had a context that you thought was favorable, you'd post it up, with much fanfare and aplomb. Yet you are curiously silent...

Here's another Direct Quote (said in reference to Peggy McIntosh's 'work')


...Describes it as an "Invisible backpack" of rights and privileges that ALL MEN carry

(there's those 2 pesky words again)


A 'helpful metaphor' as you quoted is not the sort of thing used in a definition.

And yet, it was explicitly clear that it applies to "All Males" - Metaphor or not. See Above.


You've gone and cherry picked some bullshit form some obscure source (wtf is a scholarly source anyway? is it a journal article? or just some bullshit with a name that appear scholarly to the scientifically illiterate?), just like you always do. Get an education and stop making a fool of yourself.

Well let's start with definitions (seeing as you are having great trouble with them)

Scholarly: involving or relating to serious academic study.

So since I've provided the name of the resource, lets see if it is considered any good and whats this?


2009 RUSA Outstanding Reference
CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title for 2009


That would tend to indicate that it's not an "Obscure" definition, but something that has rather a lot of Academic merit.

However, I'm loving how much you are painting yourself into a corner.

[TheDemonLord]

So as well as you claiming to know more than a US federal court judge about the law you now know more than three dictionaries about what words mean
You also attempt to claim that separate parts that get thrown into the alt right, somehow must share the same attributes.
But in reality being alternative right wing and a kook is all it needs to meet the common definition of alt right.
Cognitive Dissonance well, its even more funny when you use it than when Yokel used to:2thumbsup

Right - so basically we have some Ad Hominems, I notice you've declined to provide anything to backup your statements about Tommy (I'll help you out here, you haven't, cause they don't exist), you are trying to bait-and-switch the actual definition in with "The common definition" - which as I've pointed out, is everyone to the right of Marx. Jordan Peterson is supposedly Alt-right (classical Liberal, speaks out against any form of Identity Politics), Sam Harris is supposedly Alt-right (despite being a self-declared lefty), Ben Shapiro is Alt-right (he's a Jew and has been the biggest recipient of abuse from the actual alt-right).

But do keep on trying.

You've basically resorted to shitting on the chessboard and strutting around like you've won...

[husaberg]

Right - so basically we have some Ad Hominems, I notice you've declined to provide anything to backup your statements about Tommy (I'll help you out here, you haven't, cause they don't exist), you are trying to bait-and-switch the actual definition in with "The common definition" - which as I've pointed out, is everyone to the right of Marx. Jordan Peterson is supposedly Alt-right (classical Liberal, speaks out against any form of Identity Politics), Sam Harris is supposedly Alt-right (despite being a self-declared lefty), Ben Shapiro is Alt-right (he's a Jew and has been the biggest recipient of abuse from the actual alt-right).

But do keep on trying.

You've basically resorted to shitting on the chessboard and strutting around like you've won...
AKA fits the bill to a tee that why the Alt right has championed his cause.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/06/how-tommy-robinson-became-folk-hero-global-alt-right
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/tommy-robinson-british-anti-islam-activist-and-darling-of-the-u-s-alt-right-freed-on-bail
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/14/far-right-nazi-tommy-robinson-racist-movements-donald-trump
https://www.bigissue.com/latest/a-guilty-tommy-robinson-has-conjured-the-savvy-alt-right-to-britain/
As i said you dont have to share all the same views to be deemed alt right or you need to be is a kook and right wing.

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of white supremacists/white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, and other far-right fringe hate groups
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/09/explained-alt-alt-light-militias-170924084455057.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/sunday/what-the-alt-right-really-means.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/alt-left-alt-right-glossary.html
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alt-right

The Alternative Right is a term coined in 2008 by Richard Bertrand Spencer, who heads the white nationalist think tank known as the National Policy Institute, to describe a loose set of far-right ideals centered on “white identity” and the preservation of “Western civilization.”
Gish gallop away horsey

[TheDemonLord]

AKA fits the bill to a tee that why the Alt right has championed his cause.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/06/how-tommy-robinson-became-folk-hero-global-alt-right
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/tommy-robinson-british-anti-islam-activist-and-darling-of-the-u-s-alt-right-freed-on-bail
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/14/far-right-nazi-tommy-robinson-racist-movements-donald-trump
https://www.bigissue.com/latest/a-guilty-tommy-robinson-has-conjured-the-savvy-alt-right-to-britain/
As i said you dont have to share all the same views to be deemed alt right or you need to be is a kook and right wing.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/09/explained-alt-alt-light-militias-170924084455057.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/sunday/what-the-alt-right-really-means.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/alt-left-alt-right-glossary.html
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alt-right

Gish gallop away horsey

I'll give you a hint - all of your sources, they all have a bit of a left-wing bias.... They have a vested interested in labelling anyone who isn't them "Alt-right"...

It's even funnier cause you've actually included the real definition of the Alt-right (namely White nationalism and an Ethno-state - as defined by Richard Spencer) the rest is waffle, conjured up by a Media that has consistently mislabeled people they disagree with as "alt right"


Edit: And bonus points - linking to multiple articles in an attempt to avoid actual debate - there's only one person attempting a Gish Gallop here Sonny, and I'm quoting them.

[avgas]

I love how this whole thing is now about what is alt-right and why not to let them speak...... rather than who would hear and why its bad.

Freedom of speech is dead but more importantly - we are scared for stupid people and their numbers are increasing apparently.

We should be educating people to be smart enough so that their brains can interpret what their ears hear. Not try to silence the noise of the world.

Don't do an America, you can do better New Zealand.

[husaberg]

I'll give you a hint - all of your sources, they all have a bit of a left-wing bias.... They have a vested interested in labelling anyone who isn't them "Alt-right"...

It's even funnier cause you've actually included the real definition of the Alt-right (namely White nationalism and an Ethno-state - as defined by Richard Spencer) the rest is waffle, conjured up by a Media that has consistently mislabeled people they disagree with as "alt right"


Edit: And bonus points - linking to multiple articles in an attempt to avoid actual debate - there's only one person attempting a Gish Gallop here Sonny, and I'm quoting them.

So anyone including dixtionaries and wikipedia and the whole of the media doesn't agree with you but you are right.
Really...................................Must be fake news.:laugh:
so its all the lefts medias fault.
That must be because they are the enemy of the state,:laugh:
So the media make up stuff just to make the alt right look bad. sure that must be that fake news.:laugh:
I will give you a hint the alt right is not a huge part of the population
it doesn't receive popular support.
it gets unsophisticated people tp follow it by using racial and radical propaganda to divide people by playing on their fears and insecurities.
Most of this stuff is made up which is why people such as you are all of a sudden getting wound up over "free speech"
the media cover and represent a diverse range of people and political affiliations, if the media was not saying what the people were they would simply swap channels.

[TheDemonLord]

So anyone including dixtionaries and wikipedia and the whole of the media doesn't agree with you but you are right.
Really...................................Must be fake news.:laugh:
so its all the lefts medias fault.
That must be because they are the enemy of the state,:laugh:
So the media make up stuff just to make the alt right look bad. sure that must be that fake news.:laugh:
I will give you a hint the alt right is not a huge part of the population
it doesn't receive popular support.
it gets unsophisticated people tp follow it by using racial and radical propaganda to divide people by playing on their fears and insecurities.
Most of this stuff is made up which is why people such as you are all of a sudden getting wound up over "free speech"
the media cover and represent a diverse range of people and political affiliations, if the media was not saying what the people were they would simply swap channels.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=sam+harris+alt+right&oq=sam+harris+alt+right&aqs=chrome..69i57.2894j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

There is the usual culprits: the Guardian, Vice, Vox, The Atlantic etc. all claiming Sam Harris is Alt-right or somehow a gateway to the Alt-right.

It's really simple - you need to believe in several things to be Alt-right: One is White Nationalism and the other is the Ethno-State - That's from Richard Spencer (you know, the guy that created the Alt-right). Yet the Media routinely label anyone who is either critical of the Left or simply on the Right Wing as "Alt-right" despite them never espousing the above views.

I want, however to draw your attention to this quote - because it's ever so slightly off:


So the media make up stuff just to make the alt right look bad

People know the Alt-right is bad. The correct quote is:


So the media make up stuff just to make those it doesn't like look like Alt-right

You've got Peterson, Rogan, Harris, Shapiro, Crowder, DaMore, Molyneux, Murray, Sargon, Yiannopoulos etc. etc. and the list goes on and on as to who is "Alt-right" - and yet, you correctly pointed out, it's a small (actually tiny) part of the population.

JBP has made an excellent observation on this - which is that it is in their best interest to cast their detractors as Alt-right. It's like a modern twist on Godwins Law but more importantly, it's an attempt to poison the well so that they never have to try and rebut anything that they say, they can just dismiss it as by being cast as alt-right, they are pretty much Nazis and the Nazis were bad therefore anything they say is bad.

[Katman]

JBP has made an excellent observation on this - which is that it is in their best interest to cast their detractors as Alt-right. It's like a modern twist on Godwins Law but more importantly, it's an attempt to poison the well so that they never have to try and rebut anything that they say, they can just dismiss it as by being cast as alt-right, they are pretty much Nazis and the Nazis were bad therefore anything they say is bad.

It's really no different to the use of the word anti-semitism.

It's a word used in the hope that it will somehow shame people into silence.

[oldrider]

Warnings to the Jews! Premonitions of the Holocaust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo1seqLiA5Q for those that may be interested in the subject matter. :confused:

<iframe width="922" height="519" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Uo1seqLiA5Q" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[husaberg]

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=sam+harris+alt+right&oq=sam+harris+alt+right&aqs=chrome..69i57.2894j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

There is the usual culprits: the Guardian, Vice, Vox, The Atlantic etc. all claiming Sam Harris is Alt-right or somehow a gateway to the Alt-right.

It's really simple - you need to believe in several things to be Alt-right: One is White Nationalism and the other is the Ethno-State - That's from Richard Spencer (you know, the guy that created the Alt-right). Yet the Media routinely label anyone who is either critical of the Left or simply on the Right Wing as "Alt-right" despite them never espousing the above views.

I want, however to draw your attention to this quote - because it's ever so slightly off:



People know the Alt-right is bad. The correct quote is:



You've got Peterson, Rogan, Harris, Shapiro, Crowder, DaMore, Molyneux, Murray, Sargon, Yiannopoulos etc. etc. and the list goes on and on as to who is "Alt-right" - and yet, you correctly pointed out, it's a small (actually tiny) part of the population.

JBP has made an excellent observation on this - which is that it is in their best interest to cast their detractors as Alt-right. It's like a modern twist on Godwins Law but more importantly, it's an attempt to poison the well so that they never have to try and rebut anything that they say, they can just dismiss it as by being cast as alt-right, they are pretty much Nazis and the Nazis were bad therefore anything they say is bad.
There you go again trying to sell off another conspiracy without evidence.
The media bunch them all together for a reason It just so happens by pure co-incidence that practically all people that identify With the art right are kooks, conspiracy theorists, racists antisemites and right wing nutters.
the term alt right was only coined to try and avoid the negative connotations its sub-members attract.
all it is is spin a rebranding
All you are trying to do now is distance the group from the ideals that most of the members hold, that society as deemed to be stupid, racist and abhorrent.
Its is the alt right that attempts to distort the media not the other way around.
As for never having to answer what the alt right says it doesn't say anything coherent, it simply makes out they are being conspired against by some malevolent left wing force.
If you sincerely wanted it to be taken seriously it would have to distance itself from the kooks, conspiracy theorists, racists, antisemites and far right wing nutters. but that will never happen as that is what its primary support base consists of.
As evidenced by the posts above.


It's really no different to the use of the word anti-semitism.

It's a word used in the hope that it will somehow shame people into silence.

Feel free to have what ever thoughts you wish, but go deluding yourself for a minute that they wont be challenged and that you are in a majority believing such rubbish or that you wont be held accountable for attempting to sell of your crap as being factual rather than the rehashed neo nazi bullshit and stupid conspiracy theories that it is.

Also dont be surprised when a sites remove it as its their right to do so, if your opinions are deemed not to be within their site rules.

[Katman]

Feel free to have what ever thoughts you wish, but go deluding yourself for a minute that they wont be challenged and that you are in a majority believing such rubbish or that you wont be held accountable for attempting to sell of your crap as being factual rather than the rehashed neo nazi bullshit and stupid conspiracy theories that it is.

The only thing challenged here is your intellect.

Severely challenged.

[TheDemonLord]

There you go again trying to sell off another conspiracy without evidence.

What conspiracy? Is Sam Harris a Member of the Alt-right? (he's left wing...)


The media bunch them all together for a reason It just so happens by pure co-incidence that piratically all people that identify With the art right are kooks, conspiracy theorists, racists antisemites and right wing nutters.

Is Sam Harris a Kook, Conspiracy theorist, Racist, Anti-Semite or a Right Wing Nutter? If so, where is your proof of this (and no, simply pointing to a media article that dishonestly labels him as such isn't proof - I'll accept actual statements from the man himself)

At some point, you'll eventually get to the 2 possibilities:

Option 1: He's alt-right - in which case you can provide me the proof.
Option 2: The Media that portray him (and others) as such are lieing.


the term alt right was only coined to try and avoid the negative connotations its sub-mmbers attract.
all it is is spin a rebranding

Correct, initially.


All you are trying to do now is distance the group from the ideals that most of the members hold, that society as deemed to be stupid, racist and abhorrent.

Not at all, I've stated what the actual ideals of the Alt-right are. Problem is that many people called alt-right do not hold those ideals.


Its is the alt right that attempts to distort the media not the other way around.

Wrong - the Alt-Right love the media attention they get and the Media love the Alt-right as a Boogeyman.


As for never having to answer what the alt right says it doesn't say anything coherent, it simply makes out they are being conspired against by some malevolent left wing force.

Not at all, that's where you are absolutely wrong. Alt Right is all about White Nationalism and an Ethno-State. End of.

As for your last line - do you think there is not some Malevolent Left Wing Force? Was it 100 Million or 200 Million Dead Communists?


If you sincerely wanted it to be taken seriously it would have to distance itself from the kooks, conspiracy theorists, racists, antisemites and far right wing nutters. but that will never happen as that is what its primary support base consists of.

I've got no support or love for the Alt-right.

Can you point to where I've advocated for White Nationalism or an Ethno-State?

[husaberg]

What conspiracy? Is Sam Harris a Member of the Alt-right? (he's left wing...)



Is Sam Harris a Kook, Conspiracy theorist, Racist, Anti-Semite or a Right Wing Nutter? If so, where is your proof of this (and no, simply pointing to a media article that dishonestly labels him as such isn't proof - I'll accept actual statements from the man himself)

At some point, you'll eventually get to the 2 possibilities:

Option 1: He's alt-right - in which case you can provide me the proof.
Option 2: The Media that portray him (and others) as such are lieing.



Correct, initially.



Not at all, I've stated what the actual ideals of the Alt-right are. Problem is that many people called alt-right do not hold those ideals.



Wrong - the Alt-Right love the media attention they get and the Media love the Alt-right as a Boogeyman.



Not at all, that's where you are absolutely wrong. Alt Right is all about White Nationalism and an Ethno-State. End of.

As for your last line - do you think there is not some Malevolent Left Wing Force? Was it 100 Million or 200 Million Dead Communists?



I've got no support or love for the Alt-right.

Can you point to where I've advocated for White Nationalism or an Ethno-State?
you may wish to go back and actually respond to what is written.

[TheDemonLord]

you may wish to go back and actually respond to what is written.

And there you have it - when challenged to prove your case, you shy away.

[husaberg]

And there you have it - when challenged to prove your case, you shy away.

No you are suggesting i said stuff or make suggestions i never have
I never said all alt rights are conspiracy theorist etc i said practically all are. (Although auto correct f-ed it up)
I never suggested the alt right doesn't want media attention i said they attempt to manipulate media use the term alt right in an attempt to hide from what the predominate support base consists of.
I never suggested all alt right were all of one trait i didn't make generalizations like that. I said predominately those that identify with it were a loose collection of nut-jobs that practically all consisted of of those things, not that each and all all had those single attributes
I never suggested you were alt right either. that siad you have showed considerable support for Akas brand of white nationalism, you continually seek to minimalise his actions and agenda even to the point that you attempt to post crap that he cant be racist as he shock hands with someone of a race he attempts to radicalise people against or he claims to have freinds of that race.
etc etc etc
that's without your rant about communists that was out of left field and nothing to do with what i posted.
I noter you removed one part about the suppport base as evidenced by the posts above rather telling you wish to avoid that.
But case in point who wants to admit they have oldjewspam and shatman support.

[Graystone]

Or not. Since you know - they are different words and all...

How about we stick to Application, as it's the only thing that has any semblance of relevance.



So, you are agreeing that he could have declined to sign off on the banning, due to the profile of the case? That is the implication of that statement, that only the CEO can make those kind of Executive decisions.

Which means your comment "There is no need for the CEO to Sign off" is actually BS.



Except we all know the quote, none of us are disputing the content of the quote, only the interpretation - I'll ask again - how can you profile behavior on a platform like Twitter without monitoring Content?




So close, You've got the first part right, however - the second part is a red herring, to draw attention away from the fact that you can't dispute that "All Males" means "All Males". Namely because "Maori Crime" doesn't have an academic definition.



Again, it's a Direct quote, you've got the name of the resource. You could try a little honest here, but you aren't. And we both know it's because you've no-doubt read the resource, if it had a context that you thought was favorable, you'd post it up, with much fanfare and aplomb. Yet you are curiously silent...

Here's another Direct Quote (said in reference to Peggy McIntosh's 'work')



(there's those 2 pesky words again)



And yet, it was explicitly clear that it applies to "All Males" - Metaphor or not. See Above.



Well let's start with definitions (seeing as you are having great trouble with them)

Scholarly: involving or relating to serious academic study.

So since I've provided the name of the resource, lets see if it is considered any good and whats this?



That would tend to indicate that it's not an "Obscure" definition, but something that has rather a lot of Academic merit.

However, I'm loving how much you are painting yourself into a corner.

I guess that's your interpretation!

He didn't have to sign off on it, but due to the profile he did, perhaps to show support for those that made the call to apply the ban. I'm not sure how that contradict my comment that there is no need for the CEO to sign off on it...

We did not all know the quote's context at the time you posted it in such a misleading way, nor did what you post relate to the point you are now trying to make from it.

You were the one who brought up Maori Crime as an example, since I corrected you on it, you now want to dismiss it? For shame. The maori example uses the same written form, so the meaning of the statements should be very similar if you are applying basic english in the same way, but you've once again inserted a special exception to the rule...

The source doesn't even mention "White Male Privilege", so it doesn't back up your point at all, that's why you refuse to post the correct citation. Nor is it worded as a definition at all, it is stated that Peggy McIntosh describes it as... Do you know what that is? It's her interpretation. Both awards are from the same ALA source, libraries are containers for a lot of peer reviewed scientific articles and the like, but they are not the authority on them.

[TheDemonLord]

I guess that's your interpretation!

And you wonder why I ridicule you for being disingenuous.... Especially after all the quibbling you are doing about Language...


He didn't have to sign off on it, but due to the profile he did, perhaps to show support for those that made the call to apply the ban. I'm not sure how that contradict my comment that there is no need for the CEO to sign off on it...

Right - He didn't have to sign off, in fact he could have Veto'd the Ban. And Alex Jones would not have been banned. That's the part you are ignoring. Which means that your claim that "ToS means ToS" is fundamentally incorrect.

If there is no need for a CEO to sign off on something, then guess what - the CEO doesn't get bothered asking for it to be signed off.


We did not all know the quote's context at the time you posted it in such a misleading way, nor did what you post relate to the point you are now trying to make from it.

More disingenuous avoidance.


You were the one who brought up Maori Crime as an example, since I corrected you on it, you now want to dismiss it? For shame. The maori example uses the same written form, so the meaning of the statements should be very similar if you are applying basic english in the same way, but you've once again inserted a special exception to the rule...

Except one has a pre-existing definition. The purpose of Maori Crime was to get you to admit to what the Standard of Racism is.


The source doesn't even mention "White Male Privilege", so it doesn't back up your point at all, that's why you refuse to post the correct citation. Nor is it worded as a definition at all, it is stated that Peggy McIntosh describes it as... Do you know what that is? It's her interpretation. Both awards are from the same ALA source, libraries are containers for a lot of peer reviewed scientific articles and the like, but they are not the authority on them.

So, you DO have a bit of honesty - Then seeing as we can dispense with your pretense of "citations" - Do you acknowledge the following 2 statements:

1: That it was from an Academic and Scholarly definition of Male Privilege
2: That the quotes were lifted Verbatim

If so - you need to Answer then why "All Males" does not mean "All Males".

Furthermore, Since "White Male Privilege" is born out of the same 'Theory' as "Male Privilege" I am applying the same criteria from one to the other:

If "All Males" have "Male Privilege", then it must be true (as per the definition) that "All White Males" have "White Male Privilege". Which (thanks to your prior acknowledgement) would make it a Racist and Sexist term. And anyone who subscribes to it is (by your definition) a Racist and Sexist.

As for Peggy McIntosh - she's the one that came up with the theory, so it's not her interpretation, it's her Definition. Seems like you need a bit more of that "Basic English" you keep harping on about.

[TheDemonLord]

No you are suggesting i said stuff or make suggestions i never have
I never said all alt rights are conspiracy theorist etc i said practically all are. (Although auto correct f-ed it up)

I presented you with someone who (by the sources you cite) has been labelled Alt-right. I asked you whether you could find anything from the person himself to prove that he was Alt-Right.

This leaves us with a binary scenario:

1: Sam Harris is Alt-Right and you can post the proof.
2: The house of Cards that you constructed falls down.

And considering point 2 - it means all your claims fall down with it.


I never suggested the alt right doesn't want media attention i said they attempt to manipulate media use the term alt right in an attempt to hide from what the predominate support base consists of.

No, the alt-right has been pretty clear on what it wants - A White country for White People (White Nationalism and an Ethno-State).


I never suggested all alt right were all of one trait i didn't make generalizations like that. I said predominately those that identify with it were a loose collection of nut-jobs that practically all consisted of of those things, not that each and all all had those single attributes

And I pointed out that you are wrong here - There is a core belief required to be Alt-right - see above.


I never suggested you were alt right either. that siad you have showed considerable support for Akas brand of white nationalism, you continually seek to minimalise his actions and agenda even to the point that you attempt to post crap that he cant be racist as he shock hands with someone of a race he attempts to radicalise people against or he claims to have freinds of that race.
etc etc etc

"I never said, but I'll insinuate"

Here's Tommy's Agenda: 1: Stop the importation of those who believe in a fundamentalist view of Islam. 2: Have the Politicians, Police etc. properly investigate and deal to crimes committed by Muslims, without being paralyzed by fears of being racist. 3: deport Muslims who advocate for fundamentalist positions, acts of Terror, Sharia Law etc. etc. 4: Have governments take a harsher line with Saudi Arabia and their love of Wahabist schools of Islamic thought.

That's about it. You'll notice, there is nothing about Race in there. Now as for the handshake - Real Racists don't have friends of the races that they don't like (it's kinda one of the requirements for Racism - to hate everyone of a Race) So, if you've got multiple friends from different races it means you don't hate them because of their race. You might have other prejudicial ideas why you hate them, or you might hate them for they have done or what they advocate but these are not the same.



that's without your rant about communists that was out of left field and nothing to do with what i posted.

Okay - I smiled at the pun - well played.

Your exact line was
conspired against by some malevolent left wing force.

And there's a hint of hyperbole there - My point is to remind you that there is most DEFINITELY a Malevolent Left Wing Force. We know what it is (well some of us) and we know what it can do. There is nothing hyperbolic at all.


I noter you removed one part about the suppport base as evidenced by the posts above rather telling you wish to avoid that.
But case in point who wants to admit they have oldjewspam and shatman support.

I ignored it because as above - the Media you cling to has a habit of labelling everyone alt-right.

[Graystone]

And you wonder why I ridicule you for being disingenuous.... Especially after all the quibbling you are doing about Language...



Right - He didn't have to sign off, in fact he could have Veto'd the Ban. And Alex Jones would not have been banned. That's the part you are ignoring. Which means that your claim that "ToS means ToS" is fundamentally incorrect.

If there is no need for a CEO to sign off on something, then guess what - the CEO doesn't get bothered asking for it to be signed off.



More disingenuous avoidance.



Except one has a pre-existing definition. The purpose of Maori Crime was to get you to admit to what the Standard of Racism is.



So, you DO have a bit of honesty - Then seeing as we can dispense with your pretense of "citations" - Do you acknowledge the following 2 statements:

1: That it was from an Academic and Scholarly definition of Male Privilege
2: That the quotes were lifted Verbatim

If so - you need to Answer then why "All Males" does not mean "All Males".

Furthermore, Since "White Male Privilege" is born out of the same 'Theory' as "Male Privilege" I am applying the same criteria from one to the other:

If "All Males" have "Male Privilege", then it must be true (as per the definition) that "All White Males" have "White Male Privilege". Which (thanks to your prior acknowledgement) would make it a Racist and Sexist term. And anyone who subscribes to it is (by your definition) a Racist and Sexist.

As for Peggy McIntosh - she's the one that came up with the theory, so it's not her interpretation, it's her Definition. Seems like you need a bit more of that "Basic English" you keep harping on about.

Yeh, course he could have veto'd it, you did read the bit in the ToS about reserving the right didn't you? Does the CEO sign off on all the bans? If not, then there is clearly no need for the CEO to sign off on the bans. You should be able to understand that.

Are you denying your original quote removed all context and instead tried to show left bias at 'face value'?

To admit to something I already clearly explained? If you say so :laugh:

1) No, it is not from a scholarly definition of Male Privilege, much less the White Male Privilege this discussion is about. You are trying to set up a special exemption where the common word use is superseded by some 'definition' you can scrounge up, so you most certainly need to scrounge on up for the exact term, given you are attempting to overturn how words work.
2) Verbatim but with important context removed

Peggy defines the term in the paragraph above, the first sentence reads "Male privilege is a special status conferred on males in societies where male supremacy is the central social organizing feature"
So unless you believe male supremacy is the case, then her definition does not apply.
This was also a work published in the late 2000s, the term white privilege had been used far before that (growing in popularity from 1970) so it most certainly is her interpretation of the term, it was not created in this work.

[husaberg]

I presented you with someone who (by the sources you cite) has been labelled Alt-right. I asked you whether you could find anything from the person himself to prove that he was Alt-Right.
This leaves us with a binary scenario:
1: Sam Harris is Alt-Right and you can post the proof.
2: The house of Cards that you constructed falls down.
And considering point 2 - it means all your claims fall down with it.

Or point 3 which is i never entered any dialogue at all about sam harris and that means you are barking up the wrong tree.

No, the alt-right has been pretty clear on what it wants - A White country for White People (White Nationalism and an Ethno-State).
Same as the racists nutjobs and the anti semites you mean that are also well represented by conpiracy theorists

And I pointed out that you are wrong here - There is a core belief required to be Alt-right - see above.
See my answer above i dont believe i am nor it appears do the majority of journalists and the people , we all know majority rules.........


Here's Tommy's Agenda: 1: Stop the importation of those who believe in a fundamentalist view of Islam. 2: Have the Politicians, Police etc. properly investigate and deal to crimes committed by Muslims, without being paralyzed by fears of being racist. 3: deport Muslims who advocate for fundamentalist positions, acts of Terror, Sharia Law etc. etc. 4: Have governments take a harsher line with Saudi Arabia and their love of Wahabist schools of Islamic thought.

That's about it. You'll notice, there is nothing about Race in there. Now as for the handshake - Real Racists don't have friends of the races that they don't like (it's kinda one of the requirements for Racism - to hate everyone of a Race) So, if you've got multiple friends from different races it means you don't hate them because of their race. You might have other prejudicial ideas why you hate them, or you might hate them for they have done or what they advocate but these are not the same.
Your defense of AKA is simplistic as was your posting of the reasons you believe hes not racist.
By the sum of his actions his words ,plus his core beliefs he is.
No amount of rhetoric regarding his latest re-incarnation is going to change that, all hes done is hes just toned it down a fraction to try to appeal to a wider audience.
Tommys agenda is to create a racial divide


And there's a hint of hyperbole there - My point is to remind you that there is most DEFINITELY a Malevolent Left Wing Force. We know what it is (well some of us) and we know what it can do. There is nothing hyperbolic at all.
So if there def a malevolent left controlling the media who are they the owners are not left wing, All prior data and most conspiracy theorist support there are right wing capitalist owned and operated.
If you are going to make statements like that show some evidence.


I ignored it because as above - the Media you cling to has a habit of labelling everyone alt-right.
You ignored it because no one wants the racist and the conspiracy theory nutters on their side.

[TheDemonLord]

Or point 3 which is i never entered any dialogue at all about sam harris and that means you are barking up the wrong tree.

I never said you did, but you DID hold up the Media as the arbiters of what is and is not Alt-right. My point being that they are not only slightly wrong, but so drastically wrong on so many occasions as to not be worthy as a source.

So - is Sam Harris Alt-right?


Same as the racists nutjobs and the anti semites you mean that are also well represented by conpiracy theorists

Not really, there's quite a divide, you're trying a guilt by association.


See my answer above i dont believe i am nor it appears do the majority of journalists and the people , we all know majority rules.........

Argumentum ad populum.


Your defense of AKA is simplistic as was your posting of the reasons you believe hes not racist.
By the sum of his actions his words ,plus his core beliefs he is.

What sum of his actions? You mean protesting against Islam? You know that Islam isn't a race... If you mean to say he protests against people from certain 3rd world countries who bring certain 3rd world ideas with them (that it's okay to Rape western women) - you know that the objection isn't made on the colour of their skin, but by the ideas that they hold.

I've listened to quite a bit of Tommy, I'd wager more than you.


Tommys agenda is to create a racial divide

That presupposes there was no division before Tommy - Need I remind you how long the Rotherham rapes went un-prosecuted?


So if there def a malevolent left controlling the media who are they the owners are not left wing,

You misunderstand - The point is that there IS a Malevolent Left Wing. It Exists. As for Controlling, I think JBP answered this best - Left Wing types don't like borders and like to be all-inclusive, which means they have a hard time kicking people out who go too far.

I'm reminded of a BBC interview where the interviewee said "I'm literally a Communist" - ask yourself this, if there is not a Left-Wing Bias, would that be acceptable? Would the reaction been the same if they said "I'm literally a Neo-Nazi".

You could argue that this is one discrete datapoint, but I'd counter with it's one of many.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeh, course he could have veto'd it, you did read the bit in the ToS about reserving the right didn't you? Does the CEO sign off on all the bans? If not, then there is clearly no need for the CEO to sign off on the bans. You should be able to understand that.

So you agree then, It is not the case that "ToS means ToS" - And therefore the CEOs (and the wider companies) biases (self-confessed as you agree) have relevance.


Are you denying your original quote removed all context and instead tried to show left bias at 'face value'?

The context was contradictory - You've yet to explain how you can monitor behavior on a platform like Twitter without monitoring Content. If you can do that, then I might be inclined to put the additional statements in.

But you can't, because you know it's impossible. Therefore, I left it out.


To admit to something I already clearly explained? If you say so :laugh:

No, because I knew you'd play word games once you were trapped in a corner.


1) No, it is not from a scholarly definition of Male Privilege, much less the White Male Privilege this discussion is about. You are trying to set up a special exemption where the common word use is superseded by some 'definition' you can scrounge up, so you most certainly need to scrounge on up for the exact term, given you are attempting to overturn how words work.

So you are denying it's validity, based on what exactly? You know (as do I) that the concept of "White Male Privilege" was born out of the concept of "Male Privilege" and so using the definition of the latter is entirely appropriate. You've claimed it's not a scholarly work, and yet it's written by a PHD holder in the field in question and has received awards from Academia (despite your attempt to downplay them)

You know that in Academia there are specific words (or phrases) that have very clearly defined meanings that are different from the common usage of those words and phrases. For example - the word Theory.


2) Verbatim but with important context removed

See below - as to how well you've interpreted that "Important context" - Maybe you are need of some ESOL lessons, it seems basic English is too taxing for you.


Peggy defines the term in the paragraph above, the first sentence reads "Male privilege is a special status conferred on males in societies where male supremacy is the central social organizing feature"
So unless you believe male supremacy is the case, then her definition does not apply.
This was also a work published in the late 2000s, the term white privilege had been used far before that (growing in popularity from 1970) so it most certainly is her interpretation of the term, it was not created in this work.

Wrong, on multiple accounts - since it wasn't Peggy that wrote the book...

it was referencing her work. Which would be her 1988 (not 2000s) essay "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies" which is where the 2 concepts "White Privilege" and "Male Privilege" were discussed together as being analogous - It's the start of the idea of "White Male Privilege" and since Peggy was first to create the concept, her definition applies.

However, the material is clear - although not all Males benefit to the same degree, it explicitly states (twice) that "Male Privilege" applies to "All Males" - which fits your criteria for being Sexist.

You are quite correct on one count - you DO need to believe in Male Supremacy to believe such nonsense - which is why I don't believe it, however I challenge you to find anyone within the Gender/Womens studies part of Academia that also doesn't believe in that (or a variant - such as Patriarchy or the Wage Gap) and is still accepted by their peers.

[husaberg]

I never said you did, but you DID hold up the Media as the arbiters of what is and is not Alt-right.
Not really, there's quite a divide, you're trying a guilt by association.
You attempt to say you know better than vast numbers of other people not just journalists when it comes to pigeon holing kooks.
They are guilty by association, thats why they get grouped together they share ideals and so much common ground and supporters

Argumentum ad populum.
As above especially sconsidering why the term was coined an attempt in itself to make out they were different from the other kooks when they were not.

What sum of his actions? You mean protesting against Islam? You know that Islam isn't a race... If you mean to say he protests against people from certain 3rd world countries who bring certain 3rd world ideas with them (that it's okay to Rape western women) - you know that the objection isn't made on the colour of their skin, but by the ideas that they hold.
Here you go tring to turn a comment about AKA's and make it more palatable.
there is nothing in the culture or religion that makes this okay. just as there is nothing in the culture or religion of Catholicism to do the same and commit sexual abuse.
The individuals are accountable for their actions not the religion. You seem to be not able to separate that.


I've listened to quite a bit of Tommy, I'd wager more than you.
Id wager you sure have i only read and watched enough that it took to form a balanced opinion on him.

That presupposes there was no division before Tommy - Need I remind you how long the Rotherham rapes went un-prosecuted?.
I need to remind you that aka's focus was solely on rapes carried out by people of the Indian subcontinent, he not interested in anything unless its a platform to increase racial tension.
I also need to remind you most sexual abuse is not carried out by people from the Indian subcontinent at all. its carried out by people like AKA.
How long has it taken for the clergy to be held accountable for that.

You misunderstand - The point is that there IS a Malevolent Left Wing. It Exists. As for Controlling, I think JBP answered this best - Left Wing types don't like borders and like to be all-inclusive, which means they have a hard time kicking people out who go too far.
Coool so you will be able to back that up with evidence as i have asked you to multiple times, you will also need t counter who actually owns most of the media and who they are aligned with left or right.

I'm reminded of a BBC interview where the interviewee said "I'm literally a Communist" - ask yourself this, if there is not a Left-Wing Bias, would that be acceptable? Would the reaction been the same if they said "I'm literally a Neo-Nazi".
He was open about his views hes also one person one swallow does not make a spring

You could argue that this is one discrete datapoint, but I'd counter with it's one of many.
Its multiple datapoints when it comes to katman.

[Katman]

i only read and watched enough that it took to form a balanced opinion on him.

:killingme

[husaberg]

:killingme
That's how adults work they don't need to read and watch every thing they ever said and wrote. They watch and observe enough information to form a balanced view.
Then using reasoning skills they make a judgement based on all the data they have viewed. single data set.
While on the other hand conspiracy theorist like you, look for only single pieces of information, that suit their preconceived adgenda then take it out of context and manipulate it to suit.
They then say look what i found all the while totally ignoring Any data that completely contradicts their original preconceived notion.

[Katman]

Thats how adults work

Even retarded ones?

[Katman]

That's how adults work they don't need to read and watch every thing they ever said and wrote. They watch and observe enough information to form a balanced view. Then using reasoning skills they make a judgement based on all the data they have viewed.
They then say look what i found while totally ignoring Any data that completely contradicts their original preconceived notion.

You've edited that post rather poorly.

[husaberg]

Even retarded ones?
Youre covered in the second part.

That's how adults work they don't need to read and watch every thing they ever said and wrote. They watch and observe enough information to form a balanced view.
Then using reasoning skills they make a judgement based on all the data they have viewed. single data set.
While on the other hand conspiracy theorist like you, look for only single pieces of information, that suit their preconceived adgenda then take it out of context and manipulate it to suit.
They then say "look what i found" all the while totally ignoring Any data that completely contradicts their original preconceived notion.

PS thanks for so elegantly proving my point about you ya total egg.

[Katman]

You edited it you alway never reply to complete posts.


Really? 339015

[husaberg]

Really?
Really thats not what your original post was now was it.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/185771-Free-speech?p=1131111508#post1131111508