Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1762
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3859
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

Somehow this reminded me of when Wolf Pack banned @Rudiger , and by that I don't mean that Rudiger is as batshit crazy as Alex Jones of course :p.

It was Rudiger himself who said that to Wolf Pack, his ban was just a test, to see if he could get away with permanently banning one of the most prolific posters. It started with him, he waited for the outrage to die out and then it was my turn. And then it was @rclark, with no one batting an eye anymore, because well, this place exists. And of course before all this, there was the ban of @Hairblues which was justified with lies.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/6/17655658/a ... y-theories

I see the same tactics that Wolf Pack used against me to justify my ban: Alex Jones makes up racist conspiracy theories. Yep that was also one of the accusations that Wolf laid against me: "He was a racist", but here's what's common here: they never provide any specific examples. The best they can do is "well he likes Trump and he even talked to him once! See? Racist! Ban!"

Now Alex Jones may be a nut job or an actor playing a role, but the idea of big tech companies banning him and taking away his voice on the biggest social media platforms on the internet doesn't sit right with me. You have the libertarian and conservative speakers calling out Apple, Facebook and Google and then there are the little weasels on the left and even part of the republicans that are like "Good! He was annoying and crazy!" not really realizing what they're doing.

They're not thinking through what that ban actually means. They don't understand that there is a very god chance that those big tech corporations are now looking at other conservative, libertarian and even centrist news sources thinking: "Your're next!".

I know it's a bit of a reach, but I really wonder if what happened on HairlossTalk and what's happening to the alternative media are the same thing happening on different scales. And if we want to push the comparison further, we have already seen what is going to happen once they ban one too many speakers or news outlets.

There is a huge market out there for thought-provoking ideas and discussions, or just platforms that are free of censorship and I believe alternatives to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are going to flourish because of that. I've witnessed the same in TV shows recently, well in one TV show in particular: Cobra Kai. It is packed with politically incorrect and triggering jokes. And look at that, people actually loved it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7221388/

I like to believe that Movie, TV and video game producers are still after making money, and sooner or later, they're going to realize what the general public really wants at the moment, especially after they've seen that forcing politically correct and SJW content in their productions not only didn't work but very often backfired.

Anyway back to the censorship on Facebook/YouTube/Twitter issue: if they keep on doing that, all those social media are going to become sterile and boring as fuck, just like HairlossTalk these days, and more and more people are just going to lose interest and leave, hopefully to other platforms that are going to be developed as a result.

User avatar
JasonStatham
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 915
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2025
Norwood: NW3.5

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by JasonStatham » 1 year ago

Admin wrote:
1 year ago


There is a huge market out there for thought-provoking ideas and discussions, or just platforms that are free of censorship and I believe alternatives to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are going to flourish because of that. I've witnessed the same in TV shows recently, well in one TV show in particular: Cobra Kai. It is packed with politically incorrect and triggering jokes. And look at that, people actually loved it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7221388/

Cobra Kai is so fucking Red Pill it's beyond me how youtube hosted this series. Maybe they are so far up into their own soy filled coffee ass, and busy banning everything but lefties, that they couldn't see that Cobra Kai does have a lot of messages that the manosphere, red pill and Trump is preaching.


(spoiler)
The best thing about Cobra Kai for me was, that they showed how much of a pussy the main character was because he was raised by a single overprotective "just be yourself" mother. It reminded me a lot of myself and did A LOT of damage on me and millions of other men that haven't got a father role to look up to (or in my case the father was more a shell of a man). After giving him a male "role model" and kicking his ass, he basically prevented this young guy to become full Eliot Rodgers. The question would be for the anti-family and "you go, girl, you need no man", how would this young guy ended if no one taught him the way? Maybe Elliot Rodger is a bit too extreme but he would for sure avoided a lot in his life and ended with a sexless life on an incel Forum (or worse MGTOW).

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 969
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1739
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Hairblues » 1 year ago

I’m not sure why republicans conservatives libertarians would be upset that a company decides someone is not in line with their own values and therefore Takes away his right to use their platforms.

This has always been the republican mantra. Companies are people too and have the right to refuse services.

A gay couple want a cake. It’s against the bakers religeon and they say no. The republican support the baker. Okay fair enoug
Ales Jones says atrocious things against the majority of people’s moral fiber (republican and Democrats) and some are losing thei shit.

Why? Because he has no other platform? Eh he can find one he has plenty of money. His followers can buy more products.

Amazon with indie authors and filmmakers for years has very haphazard banning rules. They give authors very little guidance and it is kind of hit or miss and has nothing to do with politics it’s more thei own sense of what’s objectionable (usually sexual and violence).
No one on the right has lost their shit over artists not haveiing crate Blanche to express themselves.
Again Facebook for years is very haphazard on their banning of profiles, advertisements, postings for years.
Where has the outrage on the right been? Silent except when it effects people they are lined up with

I’m sorry I still remember it was republicans who wrote letters to advertisers to try and ban Married with Children and who protested Robert Mapplethorpe photo exhibits and again stand by the baker who didn’t serve the gay couple.

The outrage seems super selective and nothing to do with the policy except when it negatively effects one of their own.

What is the alternative? Govt interference? Lol

Also free speech is very misunderstood by a lot of people. You have the right to speak. A company does not owe that person a place to voice it.

So what’s the issue then? It’s a monopoly? He can create pod casts and sell them on his own website ..again monopolies are not something that In this country people on the right have not had a huge issue with compared to the left with judges they support and policies they vote on.
Last edited by Hairblues 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1762
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3859
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 year ago
I’m not sure why republicans conservatives libertarians would be upset that a company decides someone is not in line with their own values and therefore Takes away his right to use their platforms.

This has always been the republican mantra. Companies are people too and have the right to refuse services.

A gay couple want a cake. It’s against the bakers religeon and they say no. The republican support the baker. Okay fair enoug
Ales Jones says atrocious things against the majority of people’s moral fiber (republican and Democrats) and some are loading thei shit.

Why? Because he has no other platform? Eh he can find one he has plenty of money. His followers can buy more products.

Amazon with indie authors and filmmakers for years has very haphazard banning rules. They give authors very little guidance and it is kind of hit or miss and has nothing to do with politics it’s more thei own sense of what’s objectionable (usually sexual and violence).
No one on the right has lost their shit over artists not haveiing crate Blanche to express themselves.
Again Facebook for years is very haphazard on their banning of profiles, advertisements, postings for years.
Where has the outrage on the right been? Silent except when it effects people they are lined us with

I’m sorry I still remember it was republicans who wrote letters to advertisers to try and ban Married with Children and who protested Robert Mapplethorpe photo exhibits and again stand by the baker who didn’t serve the gay couple.

The outrage seems super selective and nothing to do ugh the policy except when it negatively effects one of their own.

What is the alternative? Govt interference? Lol

Also free speech is very misunderstood by a lot of people. You have the right to speak. A company does not owe that person a place to voice it.

So what’s the issue then? It’s a monopoly? He can create pod casts and sell them on his own website ..again monopolies are not something that In this country people on the right have not had a huge issue withcompared to the left with judges they support and policies they vote on.
I believe there's a huge difference between a baker not baking a cake for gay people and entities likes Facebook and Google which are bigger than the biggest governments in the world put together censoring free speech and banning a quite popular news outlet, even if part of it is about conspiracy theories.

If there is one right that shouldn't be taken away, it's the right to be stupid and to say stupid things that aren't true, otherwise we would all end up in jail. And the idea that people should be protected from "fake news" is quite worrisome, it's insulting people's intelligence and infantilizing them. As if the vast majority of people didn't know that they should take Infowars' articles with a grain of salt.

Every time they censor free speech, it's another step towards authoritarianism and possibly totalitarianism in the future. It's time the US government imposes a free speech policy in accordance with the first amendment on the behemoths that are Google, Facebook and Apple.

Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc. are not just platforms anymore, they basically are the internet, and what I see happening right now is quite Orwellian, making a news outlet or a person disappear from the internet (basically, even LinkedIn deleted Alex Jones) should terrify us.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 969
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1739
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Hairblues » 1 year ago

Admin wrote:
1 year ago
I believe there's a huge difference between a baker not baking a cake for gay people and entities likes Facebook and Google which are bigger than the biggest governments in the world put together.

Every time they censor free speech, it's another step towards authoritarianism and possibly totalitarianism in the future. It's time the governments impose a free speech policy in accordance with the first amendment on the behemoths that are Google, Facebook and Apple.
What you are proposing is actually anti-first amendment.

Here is the amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What you are suggesting is forcing The tech companies on their platforms to allow people to express what they want to. That is actually fucking with their own free speech.
Remember the right leaning Supreme Court rules that corporations are people too...and the right to NOT saying something (in this case booting Jones) is the same as the right to say something.

If you use Facebook to post photos of yourself in a sec party and your boss sees the pics he/she has a right to fire you (in the USA) what you suggest opens the door for the employee not being able to fire someone for their free speech.

Again Jones has free speech. But so does YouTube.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1762
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3859
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 year ago
What you are proposing is actually anti-first amendment.

Here is the amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What you are suggesting is forcing The tech companies on their platforms to allow people to express what they want to. That is actually fucking with their own free speech.
Remember the right leaning Supreme Court rules that corporations are people too...and the right to NOT saying something (in this case booting Jones) is the same as the right to say something.

If you use Facebook to post photos of yourself in a sec party and your boss sees the pics he/she has a right to fire you (in the USA) what you suggest opens the door for the employee not being able to fire someone for their free speech.

Again Jones has free speech. But so does YouTube.
Again, companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and Twitter are exceptions to the rule, they are not like other corporations. It's already been shown that manipulating Facebook's content can shift the result of an election, and they're already doing it. As far as I'm concerned, there is little difference between interacting on Facebook or YouTube and the real world, once those companies regulate what you can and cannot say, we've entered the realm of authoritarianism. And we're already there to some extent.

Those companies are much bigger than the government, and they have a much bigger influence. Letting them impose their agenda and censor everyone they don't agree with is going to have dire consequences. But as I've said, what one could hope for is that alternative platforms that put an emphasis on free speech see the light of day and thrive. So yeah, the free market could do the job here, but still, it's quite scary to witness.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 969
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1739
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Hairblues » 1 year ago

Admin wrote:
1 year ago
Again, companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and Twitter are exceptions to a rule, they are not like other corporations. It's already been shown that manipulating Facebook's content can shift the result of an election, and they're already doing it. As far as I'm concerned, there is little difference between interacting on Facebook or YouTube and the real world, once those companies regulate what you can and cannot say, we've entered the realm of authoritarianism. And we're already there to some extent.

Those companies are much bigger than the government, and they have a much bigger influence. Letting them impose their agenda and censor everyone they don't agree with is going to have dire consequences. But as I've said, what one could hope for is that alternative platforms that put an emphasis on free speech see the light of day and thrive. So yeah, the free market could do the job here, but still, it's quite scary to witness.

The same can be said through out time with newspapers magazines books and film..(off top of my head).I don’t think anyone forced them via a law to publish or print things they didn’t want to. (If anything it’s been opposite in history with obscenity laws)
I’m sure at the time people felt same way you do about those platforms.

What you propose in my opinion is actually unconstitutional.

Like I said earlier amazon and Facebook has been cherry picking for years what people can put on their platforms you are only noticing now because it’s someone who is infamous and for whatever reason the right is rallying around him. I’m not sure why they want to claim Jones but so be it. I wouldn’t consider Jones a voice on the right. I consider him a dangerous nut job.

Your take on this would have given someone like David Koiresh an unfettered platform.

Basically if someone is potentially dangerous I don’t have an issue if tech companies use good judgment to purge them.

Can it get out of hand? Sure if they start banning people like Sean Hannity(who I disagree with and I think he lies constantly) I will get concerned. Alex Jones? No I don’t consider that an abuse of power.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1762
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3859
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 year ago
The same can be said through out time with newspapers magazines books and film..(off top of my head).I don’t think anyone forced them via a law to publish or print things they didn’t want to. (If anything it’s been opposite in history with obscenity laws)
I’m sure at the time people felt same way you do about those platforms.

What you propose in my opinion is actually unconstitutional.

Like I said earlier amazon and Facebook has been cherry picking for years what people can put on their platforms you are only noticing now because it’s someone who is infamous and for whatever reason the right is rallying around him. I’m not sure why they want to claim Jones but so be it. I wouldn’t consider Jones a voice on the right. I consider him a dangerous nut job.

You take on this would have given someone like David Koiresh an unfettered platform.

Basically if someone is potentially dangerous I don’t have an issue if tech companies use good judgment to purge them.

Can it get out of hand? Sure if they start banning people like Sean Hannity(who I disagree with and I think he lies constantly) I will get concerned. Alex Jones? No I don’t consider that an abuse of power.
How is Alex Jones dangerous? As I've said, 99% of people know he's a nutjob / an actor playing a role.

Conspiracy theories can be a form of entertainment and they need to exist, as well as the people who are stupid enough to believe in them.

The problem is that this is where they start. Alex Jones, because they knew that the general public wouldn't necessarily defend him, and most of them aren't, but I believe they're not paying attention.

And to address your first point, again, there's a big difference between a magazine of the 90's and a platform that has 1 billion people. It is not the same. Free speech on platforms like Facebook and YouTube is actually more important and in need of protection than free speech in the now mostly corrupted and dying mainstream media and in your private and public life.

Those companies currently have the power to make someone and their business disappear on a whim. If you're not on Facebook or YouTube as a news outlet or a public person these days, you basically don't exist. Still not afraid? Ah well I did my best :p.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 969
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1739
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Hairblues » 1 year ago

Admin wrote:
1 year ago
How is Alex Jones dangerous? As I've said, 99% of people know he's a nutjob / an actor playing a role.

Conspiracy theories can be a form of entertainment and they need to exist, as well as the people who are stupid enough to believe in them.

The problem is that this is where they start. Alex Jones, because they knew that the general public wouldn't necessarily defend him, and most of them aren't, but I believe they're not paying attention.

And to address your first point, again, there's a big difference between a magazine of the 90's and a platform that has 1 billion people. It is not the same. Free speech on Facebook and YouTube is actually more important and in need of protection than free speech in the now mostly corrupted and dying mainstream media and in your private and public life.

Those companies currently have the power to make someone and their business disappear on a whim. If you're not on Facebook or YouTube as a news outlet or a public person these days, you basically don't exist. Still not afraid? Ah well I did my best :p.
I get your fear on this and your view point I just don’t see it the same way. And I think the principal is very conveniently cherry picking from the rights perspective. That’s not democratic. To cherry pick what my personal principles are based on if it is or isn’t working for me.

If Jones was a Muslim actor or conspiracy theorist would you feel the same way? I think you would feel scared (reasonably e so) and feel upset if these platforms allowed him to continue.

If you have congress and senate write a law (which I don’t think they even can as the first amendment in my opinion states they can’t) that’s signed into law then that would apply to EVERYONE including people you would NOT want to have that carte blanch. Like Muslim conspiracy theorists.

Do you feel someone on the left who is comparable with Jones whose not being purged?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1762
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3859
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 year ago
I get your fear on this and your view point I just don’t see it the same way. And I think the principal is very conveniently cherry picking from the rights perspective. That’s not democratic. To cherry pick what my personal principles are based on if it is or isn’t working for me.

If Jones was a Muslim actor or conspiracy theorist would you feel the same way? I think you would feel scared (reasonably e so) and feel upset if these platforms allowed him to continue.

If you have congress and senate write a law (which I don’t think they even can as the first amendment in my opinion states they can’t) that’s signed into law then that would apply to EVERYONE including people you would NOT want to have that carte blanch. Like Muslim conspiracy theorists.

Do you feel someone on the left who is comparable with Jones whose not being purged?
Antifa (radical left) calls to violence and is not being purged. Same with radical Muslims being allowed on Twitter.

Huge double-standard there, they can't even be compared to Alex Jones. Infowars never called to violence. That's a line which should not be crossed to me, yet they are keeping their platforms.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1159
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2148
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by That Guy » 1 year ago

A guy who shits on globalists daily is, in 24 hours, banned from almost every globalist platform for the always popular, always vague reason of "hate speech". One of the defining features of Marxists is that they engage in character assassination whenever someone has a bit too much to think and says something unfavorable to the cause (doesn't matter if it's true or not). In the 30s-50s you were anti-semetic, in the 90s-2000s they'd say you were just a homophobe; today, you're a transphobe or islamophobe — any label to discredit you.

Fact is, if he'd been shitting on straight, white, Christian males (like so many other YouTube channels) he'd still be here and you know it.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1762
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3859
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

That Guy wrote:
1 year ago
Fact is, if he'd been shitting on straight, white, Christian males (like so many other YouTube channels) he'd still be here and you know it.
Or he'd have been hired at the New York Times:

https://tpo.nl/2018/08/04/this-is-sarah ... ite-males/

jeong-768x406.jpg
jeong-768x406.jpg (54.03 KiB) Viewed 1449 times

One of the last nails int he New York Times' coffin.

Strange times we live in.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1577
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3852
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

That Guy wrote:
1 year ago
A guy who shits on globalists daily is, in 24 hours, banned from almost every globalist platform for the always popular, always vague reason of "hate speech". One of the defining features of Marxists is that they engage in character assassination whenever someone has a bit too much to think and says something unfavorable to the cause (doesn't matter if it's true or not). In the 30s-50s you were anti-semetic, in the 90s-2000s they'd say you were just a homophobe; today, you're a transphobe or islamophobe — any label to discredit you.

Fact is, if he'd been shitting on straight, white, Christian males (like so many other YouTube channels) he'd still be here and you know it.
I'm not sure if you're actually that delusional, but racism, bigotry, and prejudice play significant roles in the history of the West.

In the 30s-50s you were anti-semetic,
There was this thing called the Holocaust in Europe, where they sent 6 million Jews to be killed off in various ways. Most in gas chambers, but many were simply shot at bloodbaths like Babi Yar. It was the culmination of thousands of years of anti-semitic bigotry in Europe. Though you don't know it, the word "ghetto" is originally a European term for a Jewish neighborhood.
Within the USA, Jews faced quotas in Universities. African Americans were sent to different schools, and Japanese-Americans were held in internet camps, and later used as cannon fodder in Europe.

in the 90s-2000s they'd say you were just a homophobe;
HIV and AIDS were ignored by the health authorities up to and until they hit the heterosexual population. At first the disease was called "GRID", gay-related immune deficiency. It was widely celebrated.
Teenagers and young adults who came out as gay would lose their friends and get beaten up.
Gay couples were not allowed to set up joint wills.

you're a transphobe or islamophobe
There's this Indian restaurant that I used to go to in Ohio. After 9/11, people randomly attacked the owners. So they planted a large American flag in order to be left alone. The USA invaded Iraq (leading to ~1 million deaths) on a public campaign that linked Hussein to Bin Ladin, spoiler alert: they had nothing to do with one another.

Yes -- all of the people who engaged in any of that disgusting behaviour should be discredited.
Last edited by Afro_Vacancy 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1577
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3852
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 year ago
I’m not sure why republicans conservatives libertarians would be upset that a company decides someone is not in line with their own values and therefore Takes away his right to use their platforms.

This has always been the republican mantra. Companies are people too and have the right to refuse services.

A gay couple want a cake. It’s against the bakers religeon and they say no. The republican support the baker. Okay fair enoug
Ales Jones says atrocious things against the majority of people’s moral fiber (republican and Democrats) and some are losing thei shit.

Why? Because he has no other platform? Eh he can find one he has plenty of money. His followers can buy more products.

Amazon with indie authors and filmmakers for years has very haphazard banning rules. They give authors very little guidance and it is kind of hit or miss and has nothing to do with politics it’s more thei own sense of what’s objectionable (usually sexual and violence).
No one on the right has lost their shit over artists not haveiing crate Blanche to express themselves.
Again Facebook for years is very haphazard on their banning of profiles, advertisements, postings for years.
Where has the outrage on the right been? Silent except when it effects people they are lined up with

I’m sorry I still remember it was republicans who wrote letters to advertisers to try and ban Married with Children and who protested Robert Mapplethorpe photo exhibits and again stand by the baker who didn’t serve the gay couple.

The outrage seems super selective and nothing to do with the policy except when it negatively effects one of their own.

What is the alternative? Govt interference? Lol

Also free speech is very misunderstood by a lot of people. You have the right to speak. A company does not owe that person a place to voice it.

So what’s the issue then? It’s a monopoly? He can create pod casts and sell them on his own website ..again monopolies are not something that In this country people on the right have not had a huge issue with compared to the left with judges they support and policies they vote on.
It's certainly the case that right-wingers can be hypocrites at times. However, if they're contradicting themselves then they're probably not wrong in both instances.

I think that it's sensible to say that the big tech companies should be treated like utilities, as they're natural monopolies, and thus held to a higher standard of regulations.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1577
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3852
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Big tech companies banning people they don't like

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

Admin wrote:
1 year ago
Somehow this reminded me of when Wolf Pack banned @Rudiger , and by that I don't mean that Rudiger is as batshit crazy as Alex Jones of course :p.

It was Rudiger himself who said that to Wolf Pack, his ban was just a test, to see if he could get away with permanently banning one of the most prolific posters. It started with him, he waited for the outrage to die out and then it was my turn. And then it was @rclark, with no one batting an eye anymore, because well, this place exists. And of course before all this, there was the ban of @Hairblues which was justified with lies.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/6/17655658/a ... y-theories

I see the same tactics that Wolf Pack used against me to justify my ban: Alex Jones makes up racist conspiracy theories. Yep that was also one of the accusations that Wolf laid against me: "He was a racist", but here's what's common here: they never provide any specific examples. The best they can do is "well he likes Trump and he even talked to him once! See? Racist! Ban!"

Now Alex Jones may be a nut job or an actor playing a role, but the idea of big tech companies banning him and taking away his voice on the biggest social media platforms on the internet doesn't sit right with me. You have the libertarian and conservative speakers calling out Apple, Facebook and Google and then there are the little weasels on the left and even part of the republicans that are like "Good! He was annoying and crazy!" not really realizing what they're doing.

They're not thinking through what that ban actually means. They don't understand that there is a very god chance that those big tech corporations are now looking at other conservative, libertarian and even centrist news sources thinking: "Your're next!".

I know it's a bit of a reach, but I really wonder if what happened on HairlossTalk and what's happening to the alternative media are the same thing happening on different scales. And if we want to push the comparison further, we have already seen what is going to happen once they ban one too many speakers or news outlets.

There is a huge market out there for thought-provoking ideas and discussions, or just platforms that are free of censorship and I believe alternatives to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are going to flourish because of that. I've witnessed the same in TV shows recently, well in one TV show in particular: Cobra Kai. It is packed with politically incorrect and triggering jokes. And look at that, people actually loved it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7221388/

I like to believe that Movie, TV and video game producers are still after making money, and sooner or later, they're going to realize what the general public really wants at the moment, especially after they've seen that forcing politically correct and SJW content in their productions not only didn't work but very often backfired.

Anyway back to the censorship on Facebook/YouTube/Twitter issue: if they keep on doing that, all those social media are going to become sterile and boring as fuck, just like HairlossTalk these days, and more and more people are just going to lose interest and leave, hopefully to other platforms that are going to be developed as a result.
I think that the move to regulate/censor Jones is an indicator of weakness. In a healthier society, there would be no need to regulate him as people would just reject sandy hook conspiracies, etc. In a healthier society, people would trust the mainstream news media, largely on the basis that in a healthier society the mainstream news media would actually be more trustworthy.

There's a rising anti-intellectuality in part due to the fact that many people feel that they have been lied to. We feel that way because we have been lied to, about so much. It is ... extremely difficult to know who to trust, impossible for most people. As such, it's inevitable that many people who want answers will turn to alternative news media, and Jones has managed to take a lead in that market.

Now, this is likely getting out of control. In the 2016 election we had people literally believe that a pizza shop in Washington was running a pedophilia ring co-administered by Hillary Clinton. That's ridiculous, but it's an consequence of general damage to the system.

The move to shut down alternative voices is thus rational, regardless of whether or not it's moral (which nobody in power actually cares about). Their hope is that by shutting these down there can be a more streamlined public narrative. It's a nice idea. I prefer to believe that restoring honesty is the best way to restoring truth, but I'm not in charge. We'll see what happens.

*****

I didn't know that about Cobra Kai.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests