« prev   random   next »

6
1

Oligarch Techs Collude Against Infowars

By TwoScoopsOfWompWomp following x   2018 Aug 6, 11:36am 1,592 views   213 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


Within Hours of each other, Infowars was banned from Apple, Spotify, and most pages taken down on Facebook.

Now Youtube has eliminated Infowars.

Love seeing Liberals who are like "Always let dissident voices be heard" making the "It's a business, so..." argument. That doesn't mean they're wrong.

But I do enjoy the same people who bitch about "Net Neutrality" claiming that ISPs can censor or at least speed or delay speech that they like or dislike, defend content platforms censoring speech (and not in a transparent, objective way).

Note that Louis Farrakhan still up. I personally checked for Infowars Newstream and it's been banned for "Violating Community Standards". However, Young Turks is still up.

« First    « Previous    Comments 174 - 213 of 213    Last »

174   Aphroman   ignore (7)   2018 Aug 9, 10:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
Goran_K says
Collectivism is the base ideology for socialism/communism/democrats


If we cant agree on this then we are speaking different languages.


That’s the FakeNews language everyone keeps talking about
175   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 10:29am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
You are missing his point. Everyone is tribal by nature, just like everyone is violent by nature.

Libertarian values of individualism over collectivism is the only viable solution.


When you talk of Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, these were systems that had private enterprises as a form of organization. They were not collectivists. Collectivism is a form of organization that removes private ownership, and Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan SIMPLY DID NOT DO THAT.

You are right that Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, insisted on the importance of the group, and their superiority as a group, which is tribalism, not collectivism. Words matter.
176   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 10:29am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

@Aphroman, @Heraclitusstudent, knock it off with the ad hom attacks.

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

Just like you can't go into a McDonalds swinging your dick around, you can't swing your dick around here either. Make sense guys? Let's debate ideas, not engage in ad homs to satisfy your egos and I will do the same. Thanks!
177   Aphroman   ignore (7)   2018 Aug 9, 10:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
@Aphroman, @Heraclitusstudent, knock it off with the ad hom attacks.

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

Just like you can't go into a McDonalds swinging your dick around, you can't swing your dick around here either. Make sense guys? Let's debate ideas, not engage in ad homs to satisfy your egos and I will do the same. Thanks!


Nobody is engaging in ad homs

Relax

Facts shouldn’t trigger people
178   Aphroman   ignore (7)   2018 Aug 9, 10:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Free Speech is being censored at Patnet

Is this the goal @Patrick?
179   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 10:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

As far as your ideology of Libertarianism: the idea that people should be pure individuals and totally free is pure hypocrisy as far as I can tell. People always do some things in common. And when you live in a city, almost everything is in common: sewers, roads, transportation, laws, cops, justice, insurance, education, etc, etc... Your freedom ends, where the freedom of the next guy starts, which is in front of your nose.
When there is a plague, people get together and organize better sewers.
When there are barbarians at your gate, people get together and fight them.
When there is a flood, people who are unaffected help the others.
The way humans organize their lives is always in a top down system, that then has to leave sufficient scope for bottom up individual initiatives.
This has been the pattern for all of human civilizations.
The only exception was probably people living on a wild frontier. Some Americans apparently still think they are on one.
180   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 10:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

The censorship rules of a private forum.
181   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Aug 9, 11:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Goran_K says
This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

The censorship rules of a private forum.


Aphroman says
Free Speech is being censored at Patnet

Is this the goal @Patrick?


Guess what, Patrick said he'd give you guys server space and you both can form your own FREE SPEECH forums of your own. Go take him up on his offer..

But then you'll have nothing to bitch about when you're in charge.
182   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Nazi Germany
Heraclitusstudent says
were not collectivists


Literally every academic disagrees w you. I dont know how to argue that up actually means up and down actually means down.

Nazi germany and Soviet Russia and socialist Venezuela failed for the same collectivist reasons. A collectivist society always tends towards more and more centralized power eventually ending in a tyrant rule. Collectivist society will necessarily oppress individuals, ban free speech from wrongthinkers, and eventually murder these troublesome dissidents.

Libertarian individualism is the solution.
183   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 11:18am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Aphroman says
Nobody is engaging in ad homs

Relax

Facts shouldn’t trigger people


I'm starting to like the aphroman.
184   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 11:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
the idea that people should be pure individuals


noone said the ever. You are arguing w the straw man in your head.

I said libertarian personality types tend away from groups. I'm not sure how professor haidt measured this, so yes I am repeating it blindly but it seems to make sense.

Legally speaking, ibertarian values are enshrined in the constitution. We choose to believe that rights are inherent to the individual, we allow govt to rule us on the agreement that the constitutional republic will be upheld. Therefore a mob isnt supposed to be able to vote away the rights of an indivual.

A constitutional republic is the best protection against collectivist tyrants. It would be a travesty to embrace UK/canada anti-hate speech laws.

I'm not typically active in politics, but destruction of our first amendment would be worth fighting for.
185   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 11:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
As far as your ideology of Libertarianism: the idea that people should be pure individuals and totally free is pure hypocrisy as far as I can tell. People always do some things in common. And when you live in a city, almost everything is in common: sewers, roads, transportation, laws, cops, justice, insurance, education, etc, etc... Your freedom ends, where the freedom of the next guy starts, which is in front of your nose.
When there is a plague, people get together and organize better sewers.
When there are barbarians at your gate, people get together and fight them.
When there is a flood, people who are unaffected help the others.
The way humans organize their lives is always in a top down system, that then has to leave sufficient scope for bottom up individual initiatives.
This has been the pattern for all of human civilizations.
The only exception was probably people living on a wild frontier. Some Americans apparently still think they are on one.


That's a misunderstanding of libertarianism, completely. Libertarianism is about personal autonomy, not anarchy. So yes libertarians do believe in a police force and, yes, a military, because part of personal autonomy is being in a safe environment where its even possible. So anything to preserve the ability of society to provide personal autonomy is okay when given to the state.

Now, libertarians don't believe in "gun control" or "healthcare for all" because those are not necessary to preserve personal autonomy. If someone is being violent, or breaking the law, you punish the person, not society as a whole which is how collectivist handle the problem of public safety. Collectivist push the cost of negative externalities to the public which is a terrible way to address an issue in society (as history has shown).

Like I said, people should read more, and talk less. Read the Federalist papers, understand the difference between collectivism vs individualism. Read more about Paul Goodman to learn the libertarian ethos. Because right now, the way some are describing things, the way people in this thread are trying to present an opposing idea shows that they really haven't put enough research into the topic to seriously discuss it IMO.
186   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 11:31am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
The censorship rules of a private forum.


Which is fine, it's patrick's right to do so. But at least he's not doing it to silence dissenting viewpoints from his own, he's applying the rules evenly across the board which shows that he's being philosophically consistent. Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.
187   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 11:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
Literally every academic disagrees w you. I dont know how to argue that up actually means up and down actually means down.

Nazi germany and Soviet Russia and socialist Venezuela failed for the same collectivist reasons.


This is patently false.

Germany and Japan failed because they were both crushed militarily after attacking Russia (in the case of Germany) and the US.

Venezuela and the Soviet Union on the other hand failed economically, because of the economic organization you decry.

On what planet is that the same? I don't know.
188   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 11:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Libertarianism is about personal autonomy, not anarchy. So yes libertarians do believe in a police force and, yes, a military, because part of personal autonomy is being in a safe environment where its even possible. So anything to preserve the ability of society to provide personal autonomy is okay when given to the state.

Exactly, and when some private cartel extort you economically you expect the government to help you and preserve your autonomy, just like you expect it to help you physically when you are attacked by a gang.
It's called regulation.
That's libertarians roll on the floor convulsing.
189   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 11:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Germany and Japan failed because they were both crushed militarily after attacking Russia (in the case of Germany) and the US.

Venezuela and the Soviet Union on the other hand failed economically, because of the economic organization you decry.

On what planet is that the same? I don't know.


Germany and Japan were crushed militarily, but it was collectivism that caused them to engage in conflict in the first place. Hitler dehumanized non-aryans and used pro aryan collectivist propaganda to launch his invasion of non-aryan lands. Japan used a similar strategy. Non-Germans (especially Jews) and Non-Japanese (especially Chinese and Koreans) suffered immensely in occupied lands, citizen or not.

There's a reason why that hasn't worked in the U.S, because the constitution is a great barrier to dehumanizing certain groups of citizens in the country. The Democrats were successful for a time of imposing slavery upon blacks, but luckily the Republicans were able to kick Democrat ass and restore freedoms to slaves that were wrongly taken by Democrats in the South.
190   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 11:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Which is fine, it's patrick's right to do so. But at least he's not doing it to silence dissenting viewpoints from his own, he's applying the rules evenly across the board which shows that he's being philosophically consistent.


Ah... here we go.
So you don't believe in an absolute right to free speech. Is that right?
191   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 11:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says

So you don't believe in an absolute right to free speech. Is that right?


Of course not. A 50 year old man can't go to a 7 year old and start talking sexually, they should be thrown into prison, but that's not what I'm debating.

I've said it's fine to have rules (you even quoted me), but if you're using "rules" to simply silence opposing viewpoints and being philosophically inconsistent based on personal beliefs, then you're not a free speech proponent, no matter how you try to wriggle and twist words to claim you are.
192   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 11:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says


Germany and Japan were crushed militarily, but it was collectivism that caused them to engage in conflict in the first place. Hitler dehumanized non-aryans and used pro aryan collectivist propaganda to launch his invasion of non-aryan lands. Japan used a similar strategy.


Nope it wasn't collectivism. Collectivism is an economic organization. Strong nationalistic and racial tribalism led them to conflict. Tribalism is characterized by:
1 - in-group / out-group thinking (the nation vs enemies, the Aryan race vs Jews, etc...)
2 - reverence of the leader (prophet, fuhrer, emperor, etc...)
3 - strong common, dogmatic narratives for the group, often underlined by specific terminology ("bourgeois mentality", "collectivism")
4 - common goal (vital space, dominance, paradise, etc...)
5... etc....

Tribalism can be political (communism), it can be nationalistic (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are excellent examples of that), or it can be religious (cults and Islam are excellent examples).
Almost any human groups: family, company, military, church, etc... have tribal components to various degrees.
193   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 12:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

This is a moral panic.

When a group is under stress, needs to find itself more legitimacy, or is scared of a sea-change, they exaggerate a problem to create a moral panic.

From Elvis' Pelvis, to Hippies, to SATANIC METAL, to Child Daycare Abuse.

This is no different. Oh, and by the way, it's "Always different this time... Rock Promoters/Satanists/Communists are REALLY taking advantage of FREE SPEECH this time. We have to censor it in order to save the First Amendment!"

Be careful, backing the censorship by Big Tech on behalf of Legacy Media is going to make you look like a dopey flipped out Satanic Panic Mom from 1989 looks today.

Don't be a Tipper Gore!
194   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 12:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Strong nationalistic and racial tribalism


Just weasel words to try and disassociate the end product from collectivism. Smarter people won't be fooled though.
195   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 12:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Aphroman says
Sandy Hook was a hoax!

The parents of the “dead” children are just crisis actors coming to take your guns!

Fact Check Infowars style: true


Did you hear Prince's "Darling Nikki"?

This isn't the same as Elvis' Pelvis Shaking!

It's really gonna make our kids into filthy whores and pimps!

We gotta ban it! Don't you see, idiot! It's different this time (tm)(R)!
196   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 12:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
I steel manned your argument with my example of propaganda run by nazi Americans during a war against nazi.


Heraclitusstudent says
All I said is foreign enemy propaganda should typically be proscribed.


But we're not in a war. BTW, the same excuse was used with the Dixie Chicks, but at least then we had 100k's of boots on the ground in Iraq.

We don't have a quarter of a million troops deployed in the Ukraine.

There is no consensus that there is an "Enemy".

Indeed, just a few years ago, Obama told Medved to hang loose until after the Election, when he'd have more "Flexibility" and told Mitt Romney "The 80s called... want their foreign policy back." The same people who are "MUH RUSSIA" today were "Russia isn't a problem" just a few years ago.

Absent any major actual fighting between US and Russia, the best explanation is making Political Hay rather than anything Legit.

Historically, Saber Rattling is more of a problem.
197   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 12:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
You want to equate this to some sort of "Baghdad Bob"?... hummm just a little bit disingenuous.


Today I heard that the Greens AND the Russians cost the Dems a victory in Ohio. Apparently everybody there is watching Sputnik and/or RT.

Also heard that the Russians are in control of Florida Elections.

Of course the point of the latter is to dismiss the result when Scott wins and the state stays mostly red.
198   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 12:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Which is fine, it's patrick's right to do so. But at least he's not doing it to silence dissenting viewpoints from his own, he's applying the rules evenly across the board which shows that he's being philosophically consistent. Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.


Free Speech is MORE than just the 1st Amendment.

It's a societal standard and deeply part of American Culture.

We're being told that Employees, on the clock, while actually in the process of performing their job, can make political statements on their boss' time.
But Content Aggregators should act as censors on Popular Channels with 2.5M+ subscribers, that have been around for years and years, really since the beginning of the internet, and are more popular than the NYT, MSNBC, and other Legacy Media Internet Channels. Apparently the customer is wrong?

If one can't see the hypocrisy in that stance, I don't know what else there is to say.
199   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 12:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

But we're not in a war. BTW, the same excuse was used with the Dixie Chicks, but at least then we had 100k's of boots on the ground in Iraq.

We don't have a quarter of a million troops deployed in the Ukraine.

There is no consensus that there is an "Enemy".


Well how many troops do we have in Poland and what do Russians think of such NATO expansion?
Enemy is relative: it's the guy on the other side. At the very least in a geopolitical competition.
There is little doubt that Russia will do what it can to try to undermine the US: just look at their help to Syria (what is the goal outside opposing the US?).
Just listen RT or read zerohedge (often quoted by people here): these are not friendly to US institutions.
200   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 12:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Well how many troops do we have in Poland and what do Russians think of such NATO expansion?
Enemy is relative: it's the guy on the other side. At the very least in a geopolitical competition.
There is little doubt that Russia will do what it can to try to undermine the US: just look at their help to Syria (what is the goal outside opposing the US?).
Just listen RT or read zerohedge (often quoted by people here): these are not friendly to US institutions.



Yep, and we manipulate Russian Elections. Obama blatantly interfered in the Israeli Elections. Fuck, there was a Newsweek Cover bragging about it.

But then again, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Germany, UK, Morocco also influence US Elections.

And spent a pantload more money doing so.

Any Libertarian leaning group is going to be suspicious of War. Look at Justin Raimundo for example. That means any geopolitical competitor viewed as an enemy of the US might very well be subject to Libertarian apologetics about how it isn't a thing, and therefore subject to censorship. All the time, without end.

So Libertarians will be suspicious of the Iraq War
Then of the Cold War Reboot
Then of the South China Sea conflict.
Then of the Iceland Threat...

and each time they'll be colluding with the "Enemy", all their counter-factuals about why tensions should subside will be traitorous, they will always be subject to banning.
201   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 9, 12:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says
Today I heard that the Greens AND the Russians cost the Dems a victory in Ohio. Apparently everybody there is watching Sputnik and/or RT.

The dems are trying to claim Trump is there because "Russia", because it's easier than to admit it is because of themselves.
That by itself, doesn't mean Russia does not try to mess with the US.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says
Yep, and we manipulate Russian Elections. Fuck, there was a Newsweek Cover bragging about it.


Yes. And we're not quite as good at it.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says
But then again, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Germany, UK, Morocco also influence US Elections.

I'm sure they are communicating about it. But are they running propaganda inside the US?
202   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 12:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

2003: The Iraq War is kinda bullshit
DELETE THEIR GEOCITIES and MYSPACE page!
2011: The Libya Invasion is kinda bullshit!
TRAITORS! Fake News! NYT, BBC, Foreign Policy, National Review says Great! Ban Traitors
2014: Y'know, we don't need to be fighting Russia!
Putin Sympathizer! TRAITORS! Pull their facebook page
2021: Maybe we don't need to invade those islands in the South China Sea!
IRRESPONSIBLE! JACK, Kick them off Twitter!
2025: The Empire of Iceland is a peaceful entity, that has never attack...
YOUTUBE, pull their Channel!

And so on...

Just remember, it's always different this time.
203   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 12:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Yes. And we're not quite as good at it.


Sure we are. Yeltsin would probably not have been elected without getting access to billions of dollars from the US to bribe all and sundry, while we looked the other way when he forced government employees - who magically got paid just before the election for the first time in months - to vote for him.
204   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 9, 12:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
The dems are trying to claim Trump is there because "Russia", because it's easier than to admit it is because of themselves.


Yep.

Heraclitusstudent says
I'm sure they are communicating about it. But are they running propaganda inside the US?

Saudi Arabia endows a lot of Chairs in Middle East Studies, particularly at Columbia. Their largess on NGOs, Think Tanks, Academia, is legendary. They expect deference for that money. Until very recently - ironically when they began liberalizing - it was almost verboten to criticize them except in the most hush tones. It's a bit more okay now because Obama has a lot of defenders in the Press who were willing to cross Saudi Arabia to help save his "Legacy" of the Iran Deal.

Do you think DW doesn't push Merkel's line? Or that Al Jazeera isn't pushing the Qatari line?
207   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 12, 10:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.


Libertarians believe in business being in a free market where all trades are voluntary - nothing is preventing people from making trades or forcing people to make trades. Social media is a business. Accepting or not accepting infowars is a free trade. It's a simple business transaction not free speech. Social media accepts content to provide advertisers a platform. Content providers get their content aired to generate revenue.

If you are a libertarian then to be ideologically consistent you have to support social media's right to trade or not trade with infowars. Free market trade is a bedrock principle of libertarianism. You can't have it both ways.

The first amendment has nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with individuals or private enterprise, only governments making laws. Why such a fucking simple concept is totally incomprehensible to so many people is a deep mystery.
208   Aphroman   ignore (7)   2018 Aug 13, 10:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
Goran_K says
Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.


Libertarians believe in business being in a free market where all trades are voluntary - nothing is preventing people from making trades or forcing people to make trades. Social media is a business. Accepting or not accepting infowars is a free trade. It's a simple business transaction not free speech. Social media accepts content to provide advertisers a platform. Content providers get their content aired to generate revenue.

If you are a libertarian then to be ideologically consistent you have to support social media's right to trade or not trade with infowars. Free market trade is a bedrock principle of libertarianism. You can't have it both ways.

The first amendment has nothing, nada, zip, zero ...


I just assume the confused aren’t actually Americans. Real Americans understand this obvious truth.

You know what real censorship looks like? FoxNews coverage of Bernies run in 2016. I’m sure these same people would have been making the same kind of noise if only they had a platform
209   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 13, 10:13am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
Goran_K says
Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.


Libertarians believe in business being in a free market where all trades are voluntary - nothing is preventing people from making trades or forcing people to make trades. Social media is a business. Accepting or not accepting infowars is a free trade. It's a simple business transaction not free speech. Social media accepts content to provide advertisers a platform. Content providers get their content aired to generate revenue.

If you are a libertarian then to be ideologically consistent you have to support social media's right to trade or not trade with infowars. Free market trade is a bedrock principle of libertarianism. You can't have it both ways.

The first amendment has nothing, nada, zip, zero ...


If there were 1000 facebooks, this wouldn't matter. Instead we have a 3-way oligopoly in social media: FB, Twitter, and Youtube.

If its a free trade decision, then these 3 CEO's shouldn't be colluding to make these market decisions together. That is blatant violation of anti-trust.

If these companies want to agree on social media community standards, they cant selectively enforce the rules on political groups. I do not know the specific legal angle, but this will be considered an infringement on the right of political expression.
210   mell   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 13, 10:19am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
bob2356 says
Goran_K says
Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.


Libertarians believe in business being in a free market where all trades are voluntary - nothing is preventing people from making trades or forcing people to make trades. Social media is a business. Accepting or not accepting infowars is a free trade. It's a simple business transaction not free speech. Social media accepts content to provide advertisers a platform. Content providers get their content aired to generate revenue.

If you are a libertarian then to be ideologically consistent you have to support social media's right to trade or not trade with infowars. Free market trade is a bedrock principle of libertarianism....


Agreed, this should be obvious.. And not only that, it's likely also a violation of shareholders interests and grounds for a lawsuit as they are canning moneymakers.
211   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 13, 10:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Just to repeat some numbers to put it in perspective:

2.5M Infowars Subscribers on Youtube
1.3 NYT Subscribers on Youtube
MSNBC also is smaller than Infowars.

I think really only CNN had more subscribers.

Youtube banned the 2nd largest News/Media Channel.
212   Aphroman   ignore (7)   2018 Aug 13, 10:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says
Just to repeat some numbers to put it in perspective:

2.5M Infowars Subscribers on Youtube
1.3 NYT Subscribers on Youtube
MSNBC also is smaller than Infowars.

I think really only CNN had more subscribers.

Youtube banned the 2nd largest News/Media Channel.


I thought Alex Jones admitted he isn’t News? That he’s just an actor peddling FakeNews as a business model?

Should the Stare force business to engage in providing a platform free of charge to people who are spreading falsehoods like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook being a hoax?(why won’t any of you answer this simple question? Lol)
213   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 13, 12:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Aphroman says
I thought Alex Jones admitted he isn’t News? That he’s just an actor peddling FakeNews as a business model?


Alex Jones is News the same way Rachel Maddow is news.

« First    « Previous    Comments 174 - 213 of 213    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions