Free speech.

[jasonu]

Akzle? - Akzle? - paging Mr Akzle please take the stand! - Where is Akzle this is your moment in the sun. - - Wot no Akzle!

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?

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

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

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...