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:

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

Post by Admin » 6 months ago

So after Patreon banning Sargon of Akkad, Facebook and Instagram just banned Tommy Robinson.

The purge continues.

FB_IMG_1551199841508.jpg
FB_IMG_1551199841508.jpg (36.21 KiB) Viewed 884 times

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 » 6 months ago

Admin wrote:
6 months ago
So after Patreon banning Sargon of Akkad, Facebook and Instagram just banned Tommy Robinson.

The purge continues.


Facebook_IMG_1551199841508.jpg
You know I've heard people criticize PJW for being too "alt-lite" but it's clear to me, especially with that last, very accurate part about "muh free market", that he is rapidly coming over to alt-right. The BS of clown world is getting impossible to downplay even a little.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1395
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1954

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

Post by blackg » 6 months 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.
All those people you mentioned being banned by Wolf Pack have one thing in common. They were the most problematic members of the old forum.

So the bans really had nothing to do with Wolf Pack's behavior as an administrator. They had more to do with the bad character of traits those you just mentioned.

To your main point: Alex Jones is mostly an insufferable paranoid fantasist.
He gives me a headache.
Don't kneel because you feel

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 » 6 months ago

Does your mouth ever get sore from constantly sucking off Wolf Pack?

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1395
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1954

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

Post by blackg » 6 months ago

That Guy wrote:
6 months ago
Does your mouth ever get sore from constantly sucking off Wolf Pack?
I've told you guys before: Wolf Pack is a gentle lover. He knows his way around the sheets.
Don't kneel because you feel

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 » 6 months ago

I was expecting to be upset by what I would see in this documentary but not so much:



After seeing that, I don't know how one could trust any mainstream media source ever again.

Tommy Robinson really is one of the most courageous warriors of the culture war.

Man the threats, deceit and the lengths those mainstream journalists are willing to go to just to destroy a man's life for daring to speak the truth.

All with the help of far-left activists. But of course, not even this will be the end of it.

User avatar
C4L
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 200
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 305
Norwood: NW3.5
Regimen: none

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

Post by C4L » 6 months ago

Admin wrote:
6 months ago
I was expecting to be upset by what I would see in this documentary but not so much:



After seeing that, I don't know how one could trust any mainstream media source ever again.

Tommy Robinson really is one of the most courageous warriors of the culture war.

Man the threats, deceit and the lengths those mainstream journalists are willing to go to just to destroy a man's life for daring to speak the truth.

All with the help of far-left activists. But of course, not even this will be the end of it.
fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.
Russians must save Europe from the racist liberal elite.

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 » 2 months ago

https://www.rt.com/news/463796-facebook ... ts-watson/

This is probably illegal but thank God, Facebook is a muh private company.

User avatar
SmootheSailing
Hair Loss Newbie
Hair Loss Newbie
Posts: 21
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 50
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: minoxidil + Nizoral
Location: Ireland
Age: 27

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

Post by SmootheSailing » 2 months ago

Use the free speech alternatives, don't go crying to the government. No one should want the government meddling with the internet.

In saying that, it's sad to see it happen. I mean reddit was once pretty much completely free speech, there was controversy when /r/jailbait was first removed, people talking about a slippery slope. Turns out they were right.

And YouTube has such influence, I can understand them not wanting to monetize whatever they choose not to, but they shouldn't' be banning legal content, besides porn I guess.


Facebook and Twitter are trash anyway.

Added in 2 minutes 51 seconds:
Admin wrote:
6 months ago
I was expecting to be upset by what I would see in this documentary but not so much:



After seeing that, I don't know how one could trust any mainstream media source ever again.

Tommy Robinson really is one of the most courageous warriors of the culture war.

Man the threats, deceit and the lengths those mainstream journalists are willing to go to just to destroy a man's life for daring to speak the truth.

All with the help of far-left activists. But of course, not even this will be the end of it.

The UK's attitude towards Tommy is despicable.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1578
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 » 2 months ago

Can someone recommend a good summary article on the Tommy Robinson situation?

Added in 2 minutes 3 seconds:
SmootheSailing wrote:
2 months ago
Use the free speech alternatives, don't go crying to the government. No one should want the government meddling with the internet.

In saying that, it's sad to see it happen. I mean reddit was once pretty much completely free speech, there was controversy when /r/jailbait was first removed, people talking about a slippery slope. Turns out they were right.

And YouTube has such influence, I can understand them not wanting to monetize whatever they choose not to, but they shouldn't' be banning legal content, besides porn I guess.


Facebook and Twitter are trash anyway.

Added in 2 minutes 51 seconds:



The UK's attitude towards Tommy is despicable.
Part if the reason that I reject the libertarian public/private dichotomy in this area is that a lot of these companies are integrated with the government. You can't legitimately dichotomize things that are not separate and independent from one another.

User avatar
SmootheSailing
Hair Loss Newbie
Hair Loss Newbie
Posts: 21
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 50
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: minoxidil + Nizoral
Location: Ireland
Age: 27

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

Post by SmootheSailing » 2 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
2 months ago
Can someone recommend a good summary article on the Tommy Robinson situation?

Added in 2 minutes 3 seconds:


Part if the reason that I reject the libertarian public/private dichotomy in this area is that a lot of these companies are integrated with the government. You can't legitimately dichotomize things that are not separate and independent from one another.


It's long but worth watching.

A quick summary would be this. He grew up in Luton, one of the most multicularist towns in Europe. There are a certain amount of very conservative and religious Muslims in Luton. He grew up in schools where there was usually a split not along racial lines but along non Muslim/Muslim lines.


He's working class, not particularly intelligent, and a bit of a idiot. He got in trouble for fighting at a football match for example.

After 911 there were Muslims in Luton openly celebrating it, many of the Islamic terroist attack in the UK were carried out by people from Luton.

Tommy formed a group after the 7/7 attacks in London. His main aim was to bring awareness to the authorities of extremist Muslims and mosques in Luton.

He called out the grooming ganges years before the stories broke, and was demonized and called a racist for it. If you're not aware there's a huge number of these scandals across the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham ... on_scandal


"The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations;"


Afterwards he has continually spoken about Islam and it's detrimental affects on his community, and many other communities throughout Britain.

He's committed a number of stupid crimes, which got him some jail time. Although in jail he was treated abhorrently and left in confinement for much longer than is allowed by the law, they got around this by moving him from prison to prison. This is all because the media and the justice system hate Tommy, as he calls them out on their lack of coverage on these Islam cases, and the police on their lack of action.


Ever since then this has continued, and they are continually trying to get him for something. This more recent charge is basically a farce, no one has ever gone to prison for contempt of court in the UK before, and it's extremely debatable whether he actually breached contempt of court laws. I'd argue he didn't.


"Part if the reason that I reject the libertarian public/private dichotomy in this area is that a lot of these companies are integrated with the government. You can't legitimately dichotomize things that are not separate and independent from one another."


What do you mean? It's completely your choice to use these services, it's completely withing anyone's ability to use a different service, or to simply host their own content from their own pc if it's that important. The internet is currently extremely free, I think giving the government control of it, even in the name of making it more free, is a mistake.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1578
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 » 2 months ago

SmootheSailing wrote:
2 months ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQ94jFg_4A


It's long but worth watching.

A quick summary would be this. He grew up in Luton, one of the most multicularist towns in Europe. There are a certain amount of very conservative and religious Muslims in Luton. He grew up in schools where there was usually a split not along racial lines but along non Muslim/ Non Muslim lines.


He's working class, not particularly intelligent, and a bit of a idiot. He got in trouble for fighting at a football match for example.

After 911 there were Muslims in Luton openly celebrating it, many of the Islamic terroist attack in the UK were carried out by people from Luton.

Tommy formed a group after the 7/7 attacks in London. His main aim was to bring awareness to the authorities of extremist Muslims and mosques in Luton.

He called out the grooming ganges years before the stories broke, and was demonized and called a racist for it. If you're not aware there's a huge number of these scandals across the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham ... on_scandal


"The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations;"


Afterwards he has continually spoken about Islam and it's detrimental affects on his community, and many other communities throughout Britain.

He's committed a number of stupid crimes, which got him some jail time. Although in jail he was treated abhorrently and left in confinement for much longer than is allowed by the law, they got around this by moving him from prison to prison. This is all because the media and the justice system hate Tommy, as he calls them out on their lack of coverage on these Islam cases, and the police on their lack of action.


Ever since then this has continued, and they are continually trying to get him for something. This more recent charge is basically a farce, no one has ever gone to prison for contempt of court in the UK before, and it's extremely debatable whether he actually breached contempt of court laws. I'd argue he didn't.


"Part if the reason that I reject the libertarian public/private dichotomy in this area is that a lot of these companies are integrated with the government. You can't legitimately dichotomize things that are not separate and independent from one another."


What do you mean? It's completely your choice to use these services, it's completely withing anyone's ability to use a different service, or to simply host their own content from their own pc if it's that important. The internet is currently extremely free, I think giving the government control of it, even in the name of making it more free, is a mistake.
First of all,thanks for the explanation, I'll watch the YouTube later.

Second, I'll argue that choice is limited here. I'll give some miscellany examples:

- Amazon is slowly wiping out brick and mortar retail. At a certain point, it becomes harder and harder to live a middle class life without using them.
- Amazon is dependent on government infrastructure and government trade policies.
- Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc are each dependent on the US sponsoring a lot if h1-b visas to bring in skilled workers from India, etc.
- It's harder and harder to live a life without a cell phone. For example, I could not get dates without one. People use them for all sorts of things. If you're not using one company in the oligopoly, you're using another, whatever.
- A lot of businesses absolutely need social media to market. If you start a business you need to market, and that starts with email, social media, etc. I recently met a woman who works as a wedding planner -- she keeps an Instagram with photos of many of the weddings that she organizes. It's not technically necessary, but let's be honest, it's necessary.

Going off the grid is simply not feasible for most people.

User avatar
SmootheSailing
Hair Loss Newbie
Hair Loss Newbie
Posts: 21
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 50
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: minoxidil + Nizoral
Location: Ireland
Age: 27

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

Post by SmootheSailing » 2 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
2 months ago
First of all,thanks for the explanation, I'll watch the YouTube later.

Second, I'll argue that choice is limited here. I'll give some miscellany examples:

- Amazon is slowly wiping out brick and mortar retail. At a certain point, it becomes harder and harder to live a middle class life without using them.
- Amazon is dependent on government infrastructure and government trade policies.
- Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc are each dependent on the US sponsoring a lot if h1-b visas to bring in skilled workers from India, etc.
- It's harder and harder to live a life without a cell phone. For example, I could not get dates without one. People use them for all sorts of things. If you're not using one company in the oligopoly, you're using another, whatever.
- A lot of businesses absolutely need social media to market. If you start a business you need to market, and that starts with email, social media, etc. I recently met a woman who works as a wedding planner -- she keeps an Instagram with photos of many of the weddings that she organizes. It's not technically necessary, but let's be honest, it's necessary.

Going off the grid is simply not feasible for most people.
But I'm not arguing anyone should go off the grid.

I agree with all your points. But I don't think it overrides my point. Which is that you have the choice to use an alternative. The only reason these companies are powerful is because of your choice. It's just a sad fact that most people don't care about privacy, or care about censorship unless they themselves are being censored. They are not monopolies in the traditional use of the word, as there are viable alternatives out there.

Although your last point is a good one. There are businesses that have to go where the people are. So if all the big services kick you off then you're left in a shitty place. I guess I'd argue that the free market should stop this, as in if Instagram kicked her off, then there's clearly a gap in the market, and Google or something should fill that gap.


I think you're likely correct that the libertarian approach to this will bring a host of problems, I'd argue that getting the government involved will bring even more problems. There may come a time when I change my mind on this, but so far there doesn't seem to be enough of an issue that I think government involvement is necessary. I can pretty much say whatever I like on reddit and YouTube, and for whoever is kicked off I can still access their content through the alternatives.

"you're not using one company in the oligopoly, you're using another, whatever. "


Well the point would be that if one company has a tos that you dislike, then you use the other which you like. But Google and Facebook are smart, they just censor to the point that they know a significant amount of people won't leave their service.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests