NO. You have issues. You are classicly brainwashed. You cannot seem to understand that the right to hurt other people's feelings, go hand in hand, with the right to free speech.
Your faux outrage and indignant does constitute an argument against the right to freedom of speech.
> "subsequently emboldening the people "
Alex Jones did not call for people to harrass the Sandy Hook victims. He cannot control other people.
As for your 'platform' argument, yes he does, once that platform reaches a certain size, it should be treated by a different set of rules. Moderation should be 100% transparent and enforced equally, only intervening to filter out spam and DIRECT threats to other people's PHYSICAL safety.
> "Using other people’s platforms to host your speech is a privilege, not a right. "
Yes, this is a classic monopolistic argument used throughout history. Twitter & YouTube gained their market dominance through combinations of fraud and 'free' services promising freedom of speech, only to then impose Kafkaesque extremist corporate social progressivism, behind the scenes, using shadow bans to hide their activities.
There is no court ruling yet. This is about ethics and principles. Something your legalist literal arguments have yet to grasp properly.
Now tell me about how censorship, only applies to the government, to complete your hackneyed rehashed drivel.
Blacks are a protected class on Twitter, not because of policy, but because of the stupid left wing indoctrination these dupes were taught in college.
Most of the 'moderation team' are young low wage college grads who are all group think nazi's taught that 'blacks can't be racist' etc etc etc
If you happen to be black, and don't want to be in the protected class, unfortunatly, outside of sticking pubic hair on a can of coke, there is no procedure to formally exclude yourself.
It also doesn't matter that Louis Farakhan is clown who nobody above a certain IQ takes seriously, because the same could be said of Alex Jones.
Yes. Everyone wants to seem smart, and have a 'mature' opinion on subjects being discussed.
The 'mature' anarcho-libertarian approved opinion, is that if someone misused the term "censorship" and applies it in a broader context which includes large corporations, because, there is no alternative terminology in our language, then the correct "educated, mature, approved" response to either:
A. Make a witty low-iq reddit-esque quip about the topic.
B. "Educate" the people about how censorship ONLY applies to governments, therefore, removing the terminology necessary to discuss the issue.
C. If all else fails, claim there is no issue, no evidence, and cite some obscure graduate students 'study' as proof.
The sad thing, is that you responded to this, now, childish immature one liner, about the indefensibility of Alex Jones.
Alex Jones did nothing wrong. He deserves the same right to express himself on that platform as anyone else. If he wants to talk about frogs being turned gay, and lizard people, that's his right, and he should not be stopped in the darkness, by corporate two faced crooks like Tim Cook.
Big Government AND Big Business, operate and have virtually the same access to abuse of power. Therefore Big Business should be regulated just like Big Government, by guaranteeing freedom of speech on their platforms.
If you don't like what someone is saying, you can just use the block feature.
Louis Farakhan compared Jews to insects, yet remains on Twitter, because Black people are allowed to be racist.
This is the latest and most well known example of corporate-leftist bias in social media moderation.
Twitter was a platform which sold itself on absolute freedom of speech. Now, like any monopoly, since there is no more competition left, it was all but a joke you see, they never said that.
ME: "Yes IT IS CENSORSHIP." MIKE: "Nah, dawg. Just spam filter being a bit aggressive." ME: "You are in effect, inventing and creating fake news." MIKE:" Get over yourself."
I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the "Social Media Giants" like Facebook, Twitter, & Google.
Because they are so large, and contain such a large of volume of the public discourse.
Their censorship of "certain ideas" and "certain ways of talking" is just as, if not more dangerous than the now outdated concept of government censorship.
I'm sure some legal maggot will point out somewhere in the itunes terms of service a passage where it makes it legal to do this, and this is exactly the problem here.
This is due to a lack of regulation protecting consumers.
They are still very in the burning books game. After all, what do you expect from a sociopath like Jeff Bezos? He has simply decided to take a slower approach to $hitting all over you stupid imbeciles and your rights.
They now just police books the 'left' says are misogynist.
SEP 11, 2018, 11:11 AM Virulent misogynist gets his books removed by Amazon (ThinkProgress)
Next we can expect Amazon to 'partner' with the Southern Poverty Law Center, in identifying books with "hate" speech.
This entire circus will of course include the usual "mistakes"
These will be a couple of books "accidentally" banned. People will become 'outraged' as usual. Amazon will 'apologize' and bring back the books which were accidentally banned, meanwhile the gullible rubes will forget all about the larger issue of a corporate sociopath deciding what books you can read.
This same tried and true method are being used right now to ban Alex Jones, and it's been very effective.
What you see on the surface, are bizarre incidents of police seizing money from 'innocent' people, but beneath the surface, the police clearly got a tip from our friends at the NSA.
Police are getting so lazy these days that they are forgetting to create a legitimate cover story.
This is exactly the same as police officers confiscating cars and cash for no reason. They, in this case the greedy parasitic corporate leaches, will continue to do this as long as no law stops them from doing it.
People are too short sighted and stupid to act in their own best interests.
Government needs to step in and make a damn law forbidding this type of despicable theft. NO, a 20 page fine print legalize disclaimer is not appropriate, nor should it be legal for citizens to give away their rights prior to making a purchase.
If you buy a creative work, you should hold the right to own and play that creative work, on not only the device you purchased it on, but every and any future device.
>"My job is not to worry about those people,” Mitt Romney
This breakthrough, go-getter attitude, is exactly why Romney is a successful wealthy role model, and you are just some dude posting nasty messages on the Internet.
...and let's not forget that the ACA is just 'RomneyCare' with 'Obamacare' branding on top.
Even when he 'lost' it seems that Romney still came out a winner!
Re:
NO. You have issues. You are classicly brainwashed. You cannot seem to understand that the right to hurt other people's feelings, go hand in hand, with the right to free speech.
Your faux outrage and indignant does constitute an argument against the right to freedom of speech.
> "subsequently emboldening the people "
Alex Jones did not call for people to harrass the Sandy Hook victims. He cannot control other people.
As for your 'platform' argument, yes he does, once that platform reaches a certain size, it should be treated by a different set of rules. Moderation should be 100% transparent and enforced equally, only intervening to filter out spam and DIRECT threats to other people's PHYSICAL safety.
> "Using other people’s platforms to host your speech is a privilege, not a right. "
Yes, this is a classic monopolistic argument used throughout history. Twitter & YouTube gained their market dominance through combinations of fraud and 'free' services promising freedom of speech, only to then impose Kafkaesque extremist corporate social progressivism, behind the scenes, using shadow bans to hide their activities.
There is no court ruling yet. This is about ethics and principles. Something your legalist literal arguments have yet to grasp properly.
Now tell me about how censorship, only applies to the government, to complete your hackneyed rehashed drivel.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blacks are a protected class on Twitter, not because of policy, but because of the stupid left wing indoctrination these dupes were taught in college.
Most of the 'moderation team' are young low wage college grads who are all group think nazi's taught that 'blacks can't be racist' etc etc etc
If you happen to be black, and don't want to be in the protected class, unfortunatly, outside of sticking pubic hair on a can of coke, there is no procedure to formally exclude yourself.
It also doesn't matter that Louis Farakhan is clown who nobody above a certain IQ takes seriously, because the same could be said of Alex Jones.
Re:
Yet you willingly lap up Tim Cook's juvenile lies about not coordinating the deplatforming of Alex Jones and infowars.
Yup it just happened coincidentally all at the same time.
What vile hypocrites you people are.
Re: Re:
In this cultural context, Google is being a "good censor" for the people of Vietnam.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Everyone wants to seem smart, and have a 'mature' opinion on subjects being discussed.
The 'mature' anarcho-libertarian approved opinion, is that if someone misused the term "censorship" and applies it in a broader context which includes large corporations, because, there is no alternative terminology in our language, then the correct "educated, mature, approved" response to either:
A. Make a witty low-iq reddit-esque quip about the topic.
B. "Educate" the people about how censorship ONLY applies to governments, therefore, removing the terminology necessary to discuss the issue.
C. If all else fails, claim there is no issue, no evidence, and cite some obscure graduate students 'study' as proof.
Re: Re: Re:
The sad thing, is that you responded to this, now, childish immature one liner, about the indefensibility of Alex Jones.
Alex Jones did nothing wrong. He deserves the same right to express himself on that platform as anyone else. If he wants to talk about frogs being turned gay, and lizard people, that's his right, and he should not be stopped in the darkness, by corporate two faced crooks like Tim Cook.
....and their useful idiots, like you and Mike.
Re: Re:
Big Government AND Big Business, operate and have virtually the same access to abuse of power. Therefore Big Business should be regulated just like Big Government, by guaranteeing freedom of speech on their platforms.
If you don't like what someone is saying, you can just use the block feature.
Re: Re: Re:
Louis Farakhan compared Jews to insects, yet remains on Twitter, because Black people are allowed to be racist.
This is the latest and most well known example of corporate-leftist bias in social media moderation.
Twitter was a platform which sold itself on absolute freedom of speech. Now, like any monopoly, since there is no more competition left, it was all but a joke you see, they never said that.
Re:
Wow, talk about a circle jerk. Have you no shame sir?
We get it, you want absolute freedom for your sociopath corporate friends, to continue shadow banning and censoring speech.
Don't bother responding with your irritatingly derivative "there is no evidence of bias" virtue signalling drivel.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh Mike.....
ME: "Yes IT IS CENSORSHIP."
MIKE: "Nah, dawg. Just spam filter being a bit aggressive."
ME: "You are in effect, inventing and creating fake news."
MIKE:" Get over yourself."
I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the "Social Media Giants" like Facebook, Twitter, & Google.
Because they are so large, and contain such a large of volume of the public discourse.
Their censorship of "certain ideas" and "certain ways of talking" is just as, if not more dangerous than the now outdated concept of government censorship.
Re: Re: Re: I Want to Know Which Movies Were Removed
You're right! Maggots are just the larval form of flies.
I meant to say legal parasites.
Re: I Want to Know Which Movies Were Removed
I'm sure some legal maggot will point out somewhere in the itunes terms of service a passage where it makes it legal to do this, and this is exactly the problem here.
This is due to a lack of regulation protecting consumers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost
If you are computer literate, you probably already have, however, the issue is that YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS!
Re: When Windows XP first required activation...
Jesus Mother of Bethlehem, you people and your defense of the free-swindler-market never cease to amaze me.
Speaking of Amazon...
They are still very in the burning books game. After all, what do you expect from a sociopath like Jeff Bezos? He has simply decided to take a slower approach to $hitting all over you stupid imbeciles and your rights.
They now just police books the 'left' says are misogynist.
SEP 11, 2018, 11:11 AM
Virulent misogynist gets his books removed by Amazon (ThinkProgress)
https://thinkprogress.org/amazon-removes-books-by-self-published-misogynist-and-rape-apologist-e896078a41ab/
Next we can expect Amazon to 'partner' with the Southern Poverty Law Center, in identifying books with "hate" speech.
This entire circus will of course include the usual "mistakes"
These will be a couple of books "accidentally" banned. People will become 'outraged' as usual. Amazon will 'apologize' and bring back the books which were accidentally banned, meanwhile the gullible rubes will forget all about the larger issue of a corporate sociopath deciding what books you can read.
This same tried and true method are being used right now to ban Alex Jones, and it's been very effective.
Parallel Construction for Lazy People.
What you see on the surface, are bizarre incidents of police seizing money from 'innocent' people, but beneath the surface, the police clearly got a tip from our friends at the NSA.
Police are getting so lazy these days that they are forgetting to create a legitimate cover story.
The gravy train continues.
It's called Corporate Asset Forfeiture.
Your Libertarian Paradise is a Hellhole.
This is exactly the same as police officers confiscating cars and cash for no reason. They, in this case the greedy parasitic corporate leaches, will continue to do this as long as no law stops them from doing it.
People are too short sighted and stupid to act in their own best interests.
Government needs to step in and make a damn law forbidding this type of despicable theft. NO, a 20 page fine print legalize disclaimer is not appropriate, nor should it be legal for citizens to give away their rights prior to making a purchase.
If you buy a creative work, you should hold the right to own and play that creative work, on not only the device you purchased it on, but every and any future device.
Re: Re: "Few in the press ever really bother to fact-check AT&T's math."
posted @ 7:46am Saturday Morning?
Are you posting this from Bangalore or Mumbai?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: what facts
Through magical libertarian thinking. Anarcho-Capitalism is just like any religion, complete with it's own dogma and belief system.
NOTHING you say can ever convince these people that their system of government/economics only exists as a fantasy.