Page 33 of 62 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 929

Thread: Free speech.

  1. #481
    Join Date
    20th January 2010 - 14:41
    Bike
    husaberg
    Location
    The Wild Wild West
    Posts
    12,157
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    So why is there a Congressional hearing on it?

    Or is that just a conspiracy too?

    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.
    From what i have seen it looks like the Web based media has finally come under the broadcasting standards of the countries the outlets operate in
    Ie before you could set up a youtube channel and pretty much say what ever you wish but if you did the ssame on Prime or TVNZ or Sky you would be held to account of broadcasting standards of having to provide factual balanced information.
    Anyone who has watch a few seconds of Infowars can attest its a echo chamber of conspiracy theories that is presented as being factual.



    Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken

  2. #482
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Graystone View Post
    What a load of unsupported garbage.
    Yeah... I'd give that retort some credence, if you hadn't already proved my point with your "The system works" rejoicing...

    But seeing as you asked https://pastebin.com/4ceVFHqS.

    How's the system working out for those accounts?
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  3. #483
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by husaberg View Post
    From what i have seen it looks like the Web based media has finally come under the broadcasting standards of the countries the outlets operate in
    Ie before you could set up a youtube channel and pretty much say what ever you wish but if you did the ssame on Prime or TVNZ or Sky you would be held to account f broadcasting standards of having to provide factual information.
    Can you show me where that bit of legislation was passed?

    I think you are missing the point of that debate:

    If Twitter/Facebook etc. are going to have an editorial oversight (whether explicitly or an internal department that performs the same function) then they can be liable for the content posted on their platforms like other more traditional media outlets have.

    This is key because the traditional defense of these companies has been "We just provide the platform, we don't have any control over the usage", but the actions taken by Silicon Valley look more and more like editing, which means they no longer have that defence. Which opens them up for lawsuits and legal action.

    Quote Originally Posted by husaberg View Post
    Anyone who has watch a few seconds of Infowars can attest its a echo chamber of conspiracy theories that is presented as being factual.
    Entirely irrelevant. I can't stand Alex and his content, however 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 those big Organizations all decide to ban him within 8 hours of each other...

    Talk about vindicating a nut job...

    Whereas the correct response should have been to steadfastly and vocally defend Alex Jones as having a right to be on the platform - whilst stating a disagreement with his message - which would disprove his claim.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  4. #484
    Join Date
    20th January 2010 - 14:41
    Bike
    husaberg
    Location
    The Wild Wild West
    Posts
    12,157
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Can you show me where that bit of legislation was passed?

    I think you are missing the point of that debate:

    If Twitter/Facebook etc. are going to have an editorial oversight (whether explicitly or an internal department that performs the same function) then they can be liable for the content posted on their platforms like other more traditional media outlets have.

    This is key because the traditional defense of these companies has been "We just provide the platform, we don't have any control over the usage", but the actions taken by Silicon Valley look more and more like editing, which means they no longer have that defence. Which opens them up for lawsuits and legal action.



    Entirely irrelevant. I can't stand Alex and his content, however 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 those big Organizations all decide to ban him within 8 hours of each other...

    Talk about vindicating a nut job...

    Whereas the correct response should have been to steadfastly and vocally defend Alex Jones as having a right to be on the platform - whilst stating a disagreement with his message - which would disprove his claim.
    I dont think its in our legislation or anyone persay i thing the legal teams have noted there is a threat to the businesses.
    After YouTube drew controversy for giving top billing to videos promoting when people did breaking-news queries during the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, YouTube changed its algorithm to give greater prominence to mainstream media sources.
    In 2017, it was revealed that advertisements were being placed on extremist videos, including videos by rape apologists, anti-Semites and hate preachers who received ad payouts.[278] After firms started to stop advertising on YouTube in the wake of this reporting, YouTube apologized and said that it would give firms greater control over where ads got placed
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-you...ers-1518020478
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/soci...t-content.html
    https://www.socialmedialawbulletin.c...terrorism-act/
    https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/1...ism-may-macron
    Also the courts in Multiple countries have reconised social media is Media (ie AKA's posting on FB breaching court orders)
    Youtube has put a lot of work into controlling what goes on their site.
    They have pretty clear rules regarding hate speech etc.
    Over here we have had the whole megauploads crap and its been the legal process that has made people who own sites are accountable for what happens on them.
    As for jones vs whoever the other one is i think it comes down to who is attracting the complaints.
    Jones has a long history on twitter for breaching the sites rules.
    The sites are businesses that rely on advertising if a person is bad for business they tend to get removed.



    Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken

  5. #485
    Join Date
    28th September 2017 - 18:48
    Bike
    R6
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Yeah... I'd give that retort some credence, if you hadn't already proved my point with your "The system works" rejoicing...

    But seeing as you asked https://pastebin.com/4ceVFHqS.

    How's the system working out for those accounts?
    Actually, what I implicitly asked for was you to support your previous post. The most 'detail' you provided in that was the banning of one muppet but not another...

    The system works because Alex was banned for his drivelous and hate filling invective, not his political stance. Please stop making the false equivalence that these are the same.

  6. #486
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Graystone View Post
    Actually, what I implicitly asked for was you to support your previous post. The most 'detail' you provided in that was the banning of one muppet but not another...

    The system works because Alex was banned for his drivelous and hate filling invective, not his political stance. Please stop making the false equivalence that these are the same.
    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.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  7. #487
    Join Date
    28th September 2017 - 18:48
    Bike
    R6
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    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.
    Perhaps you should start by identifying the actual reason Alex was banned, rather than jumping to conclusions...

  8. #488
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Graystone View Post
    Perhaps you should start by identifying the actual reason Alex was banned, rather than jumping to conclusions...
    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.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  9. #489
    Join Date
    28th September 2017 - 18:48
    Bike
    R6
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    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.
    Isn't it your point, that others were not banned yet they did they same thing as the guy that was? Seems to me it only logical to compare what they did. Not from your perspective and your interpretation of the ToS but from the company's interpretation. Unless of course they didn't do the same thing...

  10. #490
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Graystone View Post
    Not from your perspective and your interpretation of the ToS but from the company's interpretation.
    Thank you for entirely proving my point.

    Couldn't have described it more succinctly.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  11. #491
    Join Date
    20th January 2010 - 14:41
    Bike
    husaberg
    Location
    The Wild Wild West
    Posts
    12,157
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    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.

    https://variety.com/2018/digital/new...an-1202896074/
    https://twitter.com/slpng_giants?ref...-1202896074%2F
    https://www.recode.net/2018/9/3/1781...decode-podcast
    clever



    Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken

  12. #492
    Join Date
    28th September 2017 - 18:48
    Bike
    R6
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Thank you for entirely proving my point.

    Couldn't have described it more succinctly.
    Now that, is dodging the point! The fact remains that the list of other muppets you listed that still have their accounts have not violated the ToS to the same extent as Alex Jones, thus your original point is well and truly dickered.

  13. #493
    Join Date
    20th January 2010 - 14:41
    Bike
    husaberg
    Location
    The Wild Wild West
    Posts
    12,157
    To be clear, Facebook, Spotify, YouTube, and Apple are all private companies, and legally have the right to ban any entity from their platforms, including Jones. As Marissa Lang wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle in August 2016:
    As private companies, social networks are not required to adhere to the First Amendment. They set their own rules and retain the right to moderate content, routinely screening it for instances of gratuitous violence, harassment, profanity and other offensive material.

    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.
    Jones and his various sites are leading purveyors of violent and sometimes racist (and anti-Semitic) conspiracy theories. The tech companies say they blocked Infowars not because of the conspiracy theories, but because, in Spotify’s words, Infowars “expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics.”
    Facebook said they were shutting down several of Jones’s pages 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.”
    Apple said in a statement to BuzzFeed News, “Apple 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,” adding, “podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory.”



    Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken

  14. #494
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Graystone View Post
    Now that, is dodging the point! The fact remains that the list of other muppets you listed that still have their accounts have not violated the ToS to the same extent as Alex Jones, thus your original point is well and truly dickered.
    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...
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  15. #495
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by husaberg View Post
    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.

    https://variety.com/2018/digital/new...an-1202896074/
    https://twitter.com/slpng_giants?ref...-1202896074%2F
    https://www.recode.net/2018/9/3/1781...decode-podcast
    clever
    Is it a breach of the ToS if one person complains?
    Or 10?
    Or 100?
    Or 1000?
    Or is it a breach of the ToS if it's a breach of the ToS?

    And for the record - that list has been viewed by Twitter (since they temporarily suspended the account bluecheckwatch then re-instated it, which most likely requires a manual intervention).

    Again - If the ruleset was being applied equally to all, then we wouldn't have an issue.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •