Free speech.

[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.
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?

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?

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.