Free speech.

[FJRider]

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.

Case in point ... Kiwibiker.

[TheDemonLord]

[INDENT]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:[INDENT]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.

That's not so clear cut - as Trumps Twitter account was declared a public space, which meant he's no longer able to block people on Twitter (as this would violate "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

Secondly, you have the issue of their defense against being held accountable for the content on their platform - which is they aren't editorializing it. However, applying the rules to one group (or set of groups) whilst not applying it to another is Editorializing.

Thirdly, these companies have at multiple times, declared their support for Free Speech - as this is inline with American principles and ideals, yet their actions have a bias.

Finally, these technologies present emergent problems - Trumps Twitter is perhaps the best example of this - he has a direct line to the voters, unfiltered, unsanitized. Amongst these companies is a large amount of political discourse happening, especially with the younger generation - it is fulfilling the modern day equivalent of Speakers Corner. Which now leaves us with a quandary - if these ubiquitous Internet services are the place where political discussion is being had, then it should be protected against censorship. We then have to weigh that against the principle that a Company should be free to conduct it's affairs (so long as they are lawful) however it sees fit. We do have precedents were standards have been mandated by the Government on industries, but these must be carefully considered, discussed and debated.

[husaberg]

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.

you never answered my question..........
You cant say its not be applied the same if you cant answer the question

[husaberg]

That's not so clear cut - as Trumps Twitter account was declared a public space, which meant he's no longer able to block people on Twitter (as this would violate "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

Secondly, you have the issue of their defense against being held accountable for the content on their platform - which is they aren't editorializing it. However, applying the rules to one group (or set of groups) whilst not applying it to another is Editorializing.

Thirdly, these companies have at multiple times, declared their support for Free Speech - as this is inline with American principles and ideals, yet their actions have a bias.

Finally, these technologies present emergent problems - Trumps Twitter is perhaps the best example of this - he has a direct line to the voters, unfiltered, unsanitized. Amongst these companies is a large amount of political discourse happening, especially with the younger generation - it is fulfilling the modern day equivalent of Speakers Corner. Which now leaves us with a quandary - if these ubiquitous Internet services are the place where political discussion is being had, then it should be protected against censorship. We then have to weigh that against the principle that a Company should be free to conduct it's affairs (so long as they are lawful) however it sees fit. We do have precedents were standards have been mandated by the Government on industries, but these must be carefully considered, discussed and debated.

Its very clear cut its their site, if they deem someone is not in their best interests to have as a member, its is within their right to remove them.

s 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.

Nothing you can do or say can change that............
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.

[TheDemonLord]

you never answered my question..........
You cant say its not be applied the same if you cant answer the question

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?

[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 ... 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...