patrick.net

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.

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.

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!

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.

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)!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

After Alex's antics yesterday with all-Wet Rubio and CNN Censorship Supporter Oliver Darcy... suspended from twitter.

Holy shit Twitter just banned Infowars and Alex Jones for their confrontation with Oliver Darcy https://t.co/CqlGv8Lzm1 pic.twitter.com/2xbiDUPWcv— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) September 6, 2018

Allegedly for "Aggressive Behavior" by aggressively interviewing Senators and CNN Witchfinder Generals.

Sarsour has been arrested many times for aggressive disruption... will she permanently banned from Twitter?

FCC, Regulate Tech Oligarchs. Before November 8th.

I never censor any point of argument. Make your point and it will remain.

But there needs to be a point and not just insults.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

will she permanently banned from Twitter?

try holding your breath...you will turn blue before IT is banned

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Why aren't insults informed by fact a 'point of argument' ?

Difference is between "your argument is fucking stupid" and "you are fucking stupid"
Seems quite an easy distinction.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Sarsour has been arrested many times for aggressive disruption... will she permanently banned from Twitter?

Sarsour however doesn’t seem to have a problem with actual terrorists. On April 2 she appeared on stage with known terrorist Rasmea Odeh, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine who took part in a bombing attack that killed two Jewish students and wounded nine others.
At that event Sarsour said, “honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.” Rasmea will soon be deported from the U.S. for lying about her past terrorist activities.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/linda-sarsour-tweets-hate-at-jews-whites-and-women/

Double, triple, or quadruple standard muh

dr6B says

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Why aren't insults informed by fact a 'point of argument' ?

Difference is between "your argument is fucking stupid" and "you are fucking stupid"
Seems quite an easy distinction.

Yes, that! Thank you.

Aphroman says

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)

This simple question will never be answered, especially by people who believe all government is bad except when they don't like something and want the government to do something about it. .

bob2356 says

Aphroman says

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)

This simple question will never be answered, especially by people who believe all government is bad except when they don't like something and want the government to do something about it. .

Very Simple. Do not like twatter or facesucker, do not use it. Do not like serving gays or some races/genders/whatever in your store or company, don't do it. Philosophically these situations are the same, and I guess if State intrudes in one of them, it should intrude in other as well. If state does not intrude in one of them, it should not intrude in other.

bob2356 says

This simple question will never be answered, especially by people who believe all government is bad except when they don't like something and want the government to do something about it. .

As long as Twitter and Facebook don't take a dime of Federal or State money...

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

As long as Twitter and Facebook don't take a dime of Federal or State money...

What money is it they are taking?

bob2356 says

What money is it they are taking?

I said "as long as".

I'm sure Facebook, Google, and Twitter never received any State or Federal government subsidies, am I right?

Certainly no Amazon data centers are being subsidized, either? ;)

Infowars permabanned from Apple's App Store

I guess Apple Users are no longer free to seek out Infowars on the Apple Store; it's not enough to ban it from iTunes. Infowars content can no longer be directly accessed from within any app on 40% of all mobile devices. Why shouldn't Cook and friends dictate what's appropriate for users?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/7/17833748/apple-just-permanently-banned-infowars-from-the-app-store

Remember when Computer Guys from California were like "Hey man, whatever anybody says can be said, man. You don't wanna tell people what they can and can't say, Man."

bob2356 says

Aphroman says

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)

This simple question will never be answered, especially by people who believe all government is bad except when they don't like something and want the government to do something about it. .

Weak strawman.

Monopoly busting and ensuring a free market is one of the most important jobs of government.

CBOEtrader says

Monopoly busting and ensuring a free market is one of the most important jobs of government.

Weaker strawman and a oxymoron. Only if a monopoly is the result of illegal actions does the government have a standing to break it up in a free market. No one has ever claimed any of the social media platforms have become so large because of illegal actions. . Or are you saying the government has an obligation to decide how businesses are run and how big they can grow which by definition isn't a free market? You can't have it both ways.

I notice you didn't answer the question on the table. Are you taking a page out of CIC's playbook? Duck and shuffle. Should the government force social media to publish content that is demonstrably false? Simple question unanswered still.

bob2356 says

Only if a monopoly is the result of illegal actions does the government have a standing to break it up in a free market.

False, I believe.

The earliest regulatory measures were not as focused on competition, however. The goal was to protect the consumer. For example, the Grangers (19th Century farmers) felt that they were being oppressed by unfair practices of the railroads. There was great social unrest in this population because of the practices of large corporations. To avoid revolt and turmoil, the state government passed the Granger Laws. This group of legislation was essentially an attempt to appease the troubled farmers. It was not until the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th that regulation made the turn toward preserving competition.

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/corporate-monopolies/government.html

Propaganda from Cold/Hostile Authoritarian Regimes that peddle stories designed to destabilize America, esp. through Racial Divisions: No Problem.




Anti-Racist and Pro-American/Pro-Liberty site, totally banned:

dr6B says

bob2356 says

Only if a monopoly is the result of illegal actions does the government have a standing to break it up in a free market.

False, I believe.

Bob is totally wrong.