Free speech.

[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........
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........
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