Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures

[Peter King]

You’re no supporter of Free Speech. You’ve reiterated this point continuously.

You’re intolerant.

Free speech allows for what you call “hate speech”. And I’d hate to have the likes of you controlling it... but alas... Google and Facebook have a lot of intolerant types like you at the helm and throughout their organizations. The Project Veritas videos reveal why. It’s sinister.

In the past Leftists used to say they supported the right of others to say things Leftists did not agree with. Even despised. Not any longer.

Today, as you have so magnificently illustrated, the Left is intolerant. They do not believe in free speech.*

Google and Facebook lied before Congress. Under oath. These are public companies that are subject to the forces of free speech. Speech you seem to want to deny.

*Free speech lets idiots and the brilliant reveal themselves. I encourage more speech, not less... but Leftists have a terrible habit of shutting down those they dislike at every opportunity. I know this... first hand. And you... intolerant you... simply do not support free speech.

I am not a supporter of limitless free speech, you are very right. And I could care less about that. I am actually proud to protect the rights of all people to civil rights, not just the ones who have freedom of speech.

And yes, I am intolerant of intolerance, need to repeat it 10 times more?

And again, it is their company (google and facebook) and they have the right to protect their members and to police their website to remove users who break the rules.

And they are not subject to free speech, they are free to make their own rules. And lies are pretty much par for the course in Washington/congress now aren't they. Public corporations are not bound by the first amendment, they can and will make their own rules.

 

[zimmer]

I am not a supporter of limitless free speech, you are very right. And I could care less about that. I am actually proud to protect the rights of all people to civil rights, not just the ones who have freedom of speech.

And yes, I am intolerant of intolerance, need to repeat it 10 times more?

And again, it is their company (google and facebook) and they have the right to protect their members and to police their website to remove users who break the rules.

And they are not subject to free speech, they are free to make their own rules. And lies are pretty much par for the course in Washington/congress now aren't they. Public corporations are not bound by the first amendment, they can and will make their own rules.

In short, you’re intolerant.

You sound like the intolerant type who has problems with FOX NEWS. One outlet that isn’t part of the Goebbels Media.

Leftists... so much intolerance and closed-mindedness.

There are laws concerning the likes of fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats.

You support denying free speech to political opponents who you despise. That’s intolerance. It’s a slippery slope and very dangerous. But... you fully support it.

Is it because, as the Google executive and another noted, that 2016 cannot happen again, and they are skewing results to achieve that goal?

Facebook is also in on the game.

Evil.

 

[OlNate]

In short, you’re intolerant.

You sound like the intolerant type who has problems with FOX NEWS. One outlet that isn’t part of the Goebbels Media.

Leftists... so much intolerance and closed-mindedness.

There are laws concerning the likes of fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats.

You support denying free speech to political opponents who you despise. That’s intolerance. It’s a slippery slope and very dangerous. But... you fully support it.

Is it because, as the Google executive and another noted, that 2016 cannot happen again, and they are skewing results to achieve that goal?

Facebook is also in on the game.

Evil.

Hi, Zimmer. Long time since we chatted last, bud.

So, wonder if you can clear something up for me - I could be wrong a hundred ways here, so I'm not being smug, just asking.

If corporations were given entity status, so that they could use their money to support the politicians they like, with 1A protection, what is the difference between that and donating corporate work and expertise to support the politicians they like? These are all private platforms, they could put just about whatever they want out there. All they're doing is omitting.

I'm not saying that's what's happening, there could be a lot of reasons to deny these assholes space on their private platforms. But even if it is what you say, so what? Corporations have had a hand in your politics forever - it is my understanding that it's constitutionally protected.

Please tell me how I'm wrong, so I can finally understand what all the fuss is about. You'll be doing me a favor.

 

[Peter King]

In short, you’re intolerant.

You sound like the intolerant type who has problems with FOX NEWS. One outlet that isn’t part of the Goebbels Media.

Leftists... so much intolerance and closed-mindedness.

There are laws concerning the likes of fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats.

You support denying free speech to political opponents who you despise. That’s intolerance. It’s a slippery slope and very dangerous. But... you fully support it.

Is it because, as the Google executive and another noted, that 2016 cannot happen again, and they are skewing results to achieve that goal?

Facebook is also in on the game.

Evil.

In short you seem to need to repeat something I fully admitted time and time again.

And disagreeing with Foxnews and the moron pundits they have on there is not being intolerant, it is known as having commons sense, something that most pundits on Foxnews clearly are totally devoid of.

Also, we were talking about social media, not "the media" in general. And if there would be something that would be part of the Goebbels media than it would be FoxNews and their right wing idiot pundits.

And sure, us being intolerant of intolerant people makes use closed minded :lamo You right wing appeasers are so funny.

And politicians can say what they want, they just cannot do it on Facebook if that violates the rules, because you clearly seem to have issues with understanding the subjects we are discussing:

Social media companies and their right to ban people who violate the rules of that website!!!

Facebook has the right to ban rule breakers, pure and simple. No 1st amendment is going to change that.

And I was not talking about skewing search results.

And facebook might have issues, Alex Jones is the one who is evil.

 

[zimmer]

Hi, Zimmer. Long time since we chatted last, bud.

So, wonder if you can clear something up for me - I could be wrong a hundred ways here, so I'm not being smug, just asking.

If corporations were given entity status, so that they could use their money to support the politicians they like, with 1A protection, what is the difference between that and donating corporate work and expertise to support the politicians they like? These are all private platforms, they could put just about whatever they want out there. All they're doing is omitting.

I'm not saying that's what's happening, there could be a lot of reasons to deny these assholes space on their private platforms. But even if it is what you say, so what? Corporations have had a hand in your politics forever - it is my understanding that it's constitutionally protected.

Please tell me how I'm wrong, so I can finally understand what all the fuss is about. You'll be doing me a favor.

Companies can spend their money as they see fit. Denying opponents free speech and not doing like-kind with those on their side is one-sided censorship.

Google is denying opponents a platform and doing so for social engineering purposes. That is fact. One of their executives has exposed this fraudulent behavior. Why? Because Trump won... and they want to prevent a recurrence.

These folks would have been very good little Nazi’s. Goebbels would have loved them.

Lied under oath:
Google's Pichai denies any political bias in search results during lengthy Congressional testimony

 

[NiceGuyEddie]

Companies can spend their money as they see fit. Denying opponents free speech and not doing like-kind with those on their side is one-sided censorship.

Google is denying opponents a platform and doing so for social engineering purposes. That is fact. One of their executives has exposed this fraudulent behavior. Why? Because Trump won... and they want to prevent a recurrence.

These folks would have been very good little Nazi’s. Goebbels would have loved them.

Lied under oath:
Google's Pichai denies any political bias in search results during lengthy Congressional testimony

"Pichai admitted that being based where it is in California, many of Google's workers may lean liberal, but the CEO added that he and the rest of the company are committed to being politically fair —and no individual employee can skew search results. This was challenged by the panel, that claimed that neutral algorithms can still produce skewed results with concerted effort by a larger public influencing relevancy."

I'd love to see this manipulation completely exposed.

 

[OlNate]

Companies can spend their money as they see fit. Denying opponents free speech and not doing like-kind with those on their side is one-sided censorship.

Google is denying opponents a platform and doing so for social engineering purposes. That is fact. One of their executives has exposed this fraudulent behavior. Why? Because Trump won... and they want to prevent a recurrence.

These folks would have been very good little Nazi’s. Goebbels would have loved them.

Lied under oath:
Google's Pichai denies any political bias in search results during lengthy Congressional testimony

So what though? They are a private company, it's their hardware... Why is anyone at all entitled to use it in any way other than the intended or desired? If they're doing it, I don't know why they bother to lie... "I paid for this with my money" should be justification enough. :shrug:

You think companies paying millions of dollars aren't doing the same thing for the same reason? Is it just that Google is really really good at it that pisses you off? I thought you guys celebrated exceptionalism down there...

These are not public spaces, these are spaced designed to generate revenue in the private sector. So, no one's 1A rights are being trampled on...except, from the looks of it, the corporations' rights, by folks like you who think they should be forced to host anything YOU want them to, on infrastructure they paid millions to build and maintain. Unless you've got something a little more substantial than your opinion to present.... I still have an open mind.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Maybe on paper, as written. But SCOTUS long ago expanded all of it. For instance a public school bus can’t be used to transport kids to a religious school. Clearly that is not Congress making a law. [emoji2369]

No, it's a state/local government making the law. Those governments have to respect the first amendment, too.

 

[zimmer]

"Pichai admitted that being based where it is in California, many of Google's workers may lean liberal, but the CEO added that he and the rest of the company are committed to being politically fair —and no individual employee can skew search results. This was challenged by the panel, that claimed that neutral algorithms can still produce skewed results with concerted effort by a larger public influencing relevancy."

I'd love to see this manipulation completely exposed.

Project Veritas is doing a good job on this front.

And the tolerant folks at Google deleted the Project Veritas video.

 

[zimmer]

So what though? They are a private company, it's their hardware... Why is anyone at all entitled to use it in any way other than the intended or desired? If they're doing it, I don't know why they bother to lie... "I paid for this with my money" should be justification enough. :shrug:

You think companies paying millions of dollars aren't doing the same thing for the same reason? Is it just that Google is really really good at it that pisses you off? I thought you guys celebrated exceptionalism down there...

These are not public spaces, these are spaced designed to generate revenue in the private sector. So, no one's 1A rights are being trampled on...except, from the looks of it, the corporations' rights, by folks like you who think they should be forced to host anything YOU want them to, on infrastructure they paid millions to build and maintain. Unless you've got something a little more substantial than your opinion to present.... I still have an open mind.

It seems the Goebbels Media has done a poor job informing citizens.

Google and FB are killing diversity... in a one-sided manner. Their censoring is social engineering, and their heavy hand is tilted towards aiding the Left.

I suggest reading the entire article.

Platform, or Publisher?
If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business.


Lieu is incorrect. While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.”

But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”

This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

Platform, or Publisher?: If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business. | City Journal

 

[American]

If you own stock in Facebook, do you have a right to be heard on Facebook?

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Peter King]

It seems the Goebbels Media has done a poor job informing citizens.

Google and FB are killing diversity... in a one-sided manner. Their censoring is social engineering, and their heavy hand is tilted towards aiding the Left.

I suggest reading the entire article.

Goebbels media :lamo Hilariously that would mean Foxnews, but hey, who looks at the facts.

But now for your diversity issue. The WWW is extremely diverse, it is extremely multi faceted. Google is just one of the providers of content on the WWW, if you want another search engine there are plenty, so that is not what is killing diversity. And facebook is there to suit the largest number of content users, you may call it heavily lifted to the left, I think it is more that the vast majority of the users have a very huge dislike of extreme right. A great dislike of preachy whiny conservatives who are so far outside of "the norm" that everybody who disagrees with them is "to the left" of them.

Also, social media is mostly for the younger user and they are a lot less conservative than the majority of conservatives. You may complain about "the left" but when people are so far to the right, most people will be to the left and nobody is to blame for that. But it is illogical for Facebook to start tilting to those conservatives because that is against the wishes of it's members and thus against it's bottom line.

 

[OlNate]

It seems the Goebbels Media has done a poor job informing citizens.

Google and FB are killing diversity... in a one-sided manner. Their censoring is social engineering, and their heavy hand is tilted towards aiding the Left.

I suggest reading the entire article.

That actually was a really interesting article, Zimmer, thank you.

One key takeaway from it though...the content they are removing is the kind of content Section 230 protects them from anyway. :shrug: Without the government protection, they wouldn't be able to post that stuff anyway, for liability purposes.

Frankly, I'd like to see dangerous political rhetoric from both sides removed.

I think at some point people who are vexed about this need to admit something - the speech they are trying to protect is so damaging that it requires laws passed to limit liability for anyone hosting them, while at the same time being considered too detrimental to the business models of the hosts as to be removed anyway. That's how disgusting these individuals are.

When do you actually put the blame where the blame belongs?

 

[3leftsdoo]

I've certainly >learned< a lot from this thread...

That the 1st is first because it's the >worst.<

That people who live in countries without the 1st >understand< it better than those who live with it.

>That speech is ideally narrowed down into the least diverse and most acceptable spectrum of polite expression possible.<

>That only sports and the weather should ever be discussed.<



Although come to think of it, sports has been pretty controversial since players knelt while Tom Brady's balls were deflated, and of course the climate is/n't changing, so those two are out as well...



Do you like my hat?

:hm

 

[DifferentDrummr]

If you own stock in Facebook, do you have a right to be heard on Facebook?

If you own stock in Home Depot, do you have a right to a discount when you shop?

 

[zimmer]

That actually was a really interesting article, Zimmer, thank you.

One key takeaway from it though...the content they are removing is the kind of content Section 230 protects them from anyway. :shrug: Without the government protection, they wouldn't be able to post that stuff anyway, for liability purposes.

Frankly, I'd like to see dangerous political rhetoric from both sides removed.

I think at some point people who are vexed about this need to admit something - the speech they are trying to protect is so damaging that it requires laws passed to limit liability for anyone hosting them, while at the same time being considered too detrimental to the business models of the hosts as to be removed anyway. That's how disgusting these individuals are.

When do you actually put the blame where the blame belongs?

They have actually gone far beyond Section 230 and have skewed their Machine Learning to skew results. Project Veritas and anyone with open eyes knows it.

They’re not for diversity of opinion, they’re for shutting down opponents and assisting Leftists.

Their banning the Project Veritas video is a perfect example.

 

[zimmer]

Goebbels media :lamo Hilariously that would mean Foxnews, but hey, who looks at the facts.

But now for your diversity issue. The WWW is extremely diverse, it is extremely multi faceted. Google is just one of the providers of content on the WWW, if you want another search engine there are plenty, so that is not what is killing diversity. And facebook is there to suit the largest number of content users, you may call it heavily lifted to the left, I think it is more that the vast majority of the users have a very huge dislike of extreme right. A great dislike of preachy whiny conservatives who are so far outside of "the norm" that everybody who disagrees with them is "to the left" of them.

Also, social media is mostly for the younger user and they are a lot less conservative than the majority of conservatives. You may complain about "the left" but when people are so far to the right, most people will be to the left and nobody is to blame for that. But it is illogical for Facebook to start tilting to those conservatives because that is against the wishes of it's members and thus against it's bottom line.

Nothing you have written has changed the fact you’re far from a Free Speech advocate.

Google has 90% of search. And they are skewing results in violation of Section 230. FB and Twitter too.

I understand as a Leftist you like this. In a series of previous posts in this thread, you’ve made your intolerance to Free Speech rather clear. You see, that is the value of free speech. Morons and the brilliant get to reveal themselves.

Denying free speech as Google, FB and twitter do is social engineering... and in violation of Section 230.

Perhaps breaking up Google and FB would be a good thing. As the executive for Google noted, if and when it is done, Google would lack the power to do what it is now doing... assisting Leftists and screwing their opponents.

 

[Peter King]

Nothing you have written has changed the fact you’re far from a Free Speech advocate.

Google has 90% of search. And they are skewing results in violation of Section 230. FB and Twitter too.

I understand as a Leftist you like this. In a series of previous posts in this thread, you’ve made your intolerance to Free Speech rather clear. You see, that is the value of free speech. Morons and the brilliant get to reveal themselves.

Denying free speech as Google, FB and twitter do is social engineering... and in violation of Section 230.

Perhaps breaking up Google and FB would be a good thing. As the executive for Google noted, if and when it is done, Google would lack the power to do what it is now doing... assisting Leftists and screwing their opponents.

Ooh nice another post about me being intolerant against those who are intolerance personified. I was not sure you had stated this enough times in your previous posts :roll:

Denying rule breakers to remain on FB is logical and appropriate. You can huff and puff about the injustice but if Alex Jones had not violated the terms he agreed to than he deserves to be banned from FB/Instagram/Youtube, etc. etc. etc.

And breaking up facebook will not change the moderation practices or the rules/terms people have to agree to.

And facebook/google cannot help it that the republican party/conservatives have skewed so far to the right, far right in some cases that the rest of the internet is a bit sick and tired of them, their hatred and their constant complaining about how poor and lamentable they are because they are being so unkindly treated by the big bad world. Pathetic, if you spread hatred like Alex Jones you will have to expect people shunning you and ignoring your whining about not being allowed on Facebook. That has nothing to do with leftists (even though a lot of leftists will hate Alex Jones's guts) specifically but with Alex Jones's disgusting behavior and opinions.

He is like the North Korea of internet hatemongers, hated and not wanted anywhere because he cannot behave himself in a proper manner. That caused him being kicked off social media, he deserved to be removed no matter how much right wingers complain about that.

 

[OlNate]

They have actually gone far beyond Section 230 and have skewed their Machine Learning to skew results. Project Veritas and anyone with open eyes knows it.

They’re not for diversity of opinion, they’re for shutting down opponents and assisting Leftists.

Their banning the Project Veritas video is a perfect example.

lol...I don't know much about Project Veritas, bud, but from what I can tell from a quick search (used Bing, by the way), it appears to be a bit of a joke.

Anyway...I'm not arguing that Google isn't biased. Just that, as a private company, they can be as biased as they want. If there are protections in place that helps them avoid certain liabilities, by all means, pull them. Then ALLL political rhetoric will be silenced, not just the 0.0000000001% of posters who's ideas are so misaligned with their host's corporate strategy, while simultaneously being disgusting to their host's decent customers. Fine by me, things are way out of control anyway.

You're defending trash, Zimmer. There's got to be better things to do with your day.

 

[American]

If you own stock in Home Depot, do you have a right to a discount when you shop?

The not a free speech answer to a free speech question.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

The not a free speech answer to a free speech question.

Okay, here's an example you'll like better.

If you own stock in Alphabet (Google's parent co.), do you have a right to demand top placement for all your ads? Before you answer, remember that advertising IS speech.