As Twitter Suspends Alex Jones, Should We Worry About Silicon Valley Regulating Speech?
Apple, Facebook, Spotify, and YouTube's decision to ban right-wing shock jock Alex Jones and his media site, Infowars, from their platforms in early August has reignited a debate about what, if any, obligations these companies have to provide access to ideologically diverse users in the name of free speech. Twitter came under enormous criticism for refusing to go along, but on Tuesday announced that they were suspending Jones's account for one week due to violations of its rules. Jones was banned after years of public outrage over lies spread by Infowars, including the infamous "Pizzagate" conspiracy and the false claim that the Sandy Hook shooting, in which 26 elementary school children and staff members were killed, was a hoax. Jones is also known for tirades against Muslims, immigrants, and transgender people.
Some critics have claimed that, given the monopoly-like power that Silicon Valley giants now exert over the internet, encouraging them to regulate content based on ideology, hate speech, or arbitrations of "truth" and "falsity" will jeopardize internet freedom and vest a handful of corporate executives too much control over it. But others have defended the choice to ban Jones, citing the anti-hate speech rules and nonviolence policies almost universally adopted by major internet platforms. Because terms of service are open to interpretation — "hate speech," for example, can be difficult to define — there is a significant risk that standards will be inconsistently applied. The ambiguous policies also present a threat to controversial speech from the left — think, for example, of speech related to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or expressive speech about bad cops or white men.
Twitter had been heavily criticized in the days following a Aug. 8 statement by CEO Jack Dorsey explaining that Alex Jones and InfoWars had not been banned because they had not violated Twitter's rules.
Taibbi: Beware the Slippery Slope of Facebook Censorship:
Many of the banned pages look like parodies of some paranoid bureaucrat's idea of dangerous speech. A page called "Black Elevation" shows a picture of Huey Newton and offers readers a job. "Aztlan Warriors" contains a meme celebrating the likes of Geronimo and Zapata, giving thanks for their service in the "the 500 year war against colonialism." And a banned "Mindful Being" page shared this, which seems culled from Jack Handey's Deep Thoughts bit: "We must unlearn what we have learned because a conditioned mind cannot comprehend the infinite." Facebook also wiped out a "No Unite The Right 2" page, appearing to advertise a counter-rally on the upcoming anniversary of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Facebook was "helped" in its efforts to wipe out these dangerous memes by the Atlantic Council, on whose board you'll find confidence-inspiring names like Henry Kissinger, former CIA chief Michael Hayden, former acting CIA head Michael Morell and former Bush-era Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. (The latter is the guy who used to bring you the insane color-coded terror threat level system.) These people now have their hands on what is essentially a direct lever over nationwide news distribution. It's hard to understate the potential mischief that lurks behind this union of Internet platforms and would-be government censors.
Deplatforming: does it work?
(Score: 5, Funny) by idiot_king on Sunday August 19 2018, @01:17AM (15 children)
The free market... HATH SPOKEN!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 19 2018, @01:27AM (14 children)
What free market? There is no such thing within the United States.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday August 19 2018, @01:48AM (4 children)
Shhhh, don't let that out, the peasants will revolt.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:15AM (3 children)
They're already revolting..... and they smell bad too.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:20AM (2 children)
They haven't bathed in years.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @02:57PM
"They haven't bathed in years."
They're jewish then, eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @09:19PM
De MONET! Don't get saucy with me, Bernaise!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:27AM
FTFY.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ilPapa on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:28AM (4 children)
Welcome to the Resistance, brother. There has never been a free market in the United States because free markets do not exist. There is no such thing as a free market. Free markets don't exist in nature. They are a fiction created in order to get people who work for a living to behave, and to give cover to the neo-feudalists.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by idiot_king on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:57AM
No no no no, don't let the secret out! The free market is whatever the banks and CEOs say a free market is! Just look at Amazon and Walmart - that's what freedom looks like!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:00AM (2 children)
Which part of "Independent" have I failed to impress upon my reading audience? No, I'm not part of your "resistance". Those who are members of the much publicized "resistance" against Trump are even more smelly, unwashed, and bovine than the administration and it's supporters.
As for the existence of free markets in other places and times - I'm not ready to argue either side of that argument. If I were to enter into such an argument, the book market in Iraq would definitely be one of my major points. Before the invasion of the US and allies, you could find any book you desired. Some books may have been kept out of sight of the religiously uptight, but the books were available. It seemed to be a pretty damned free market.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:18AM
Bullshit!
I present my briefs for your nose and thus refute your assertion - one can't be bovine with a natural smell of a hog.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @07:05PM
You are one large sack of fast moving air molecules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @10:28AM (2 children)
Because dumb people just love utopias. Free market leads to monopoly dictatorship. On the other pole, socialism leads to stealing even if some "comrade" finds it out and orders to destroy everything which could be stolen (yes, there was such even in history). The problem is that in all these cases the result is the same: In extreme cases people stop thinking.
Any corporate censorship is based on assumption that people cannot think. If it is not, then we're living in an illusion in some domain, there are also such cases, but they're more rare and highly localized and are based on mutual consensus that the fallacy will be the paradigm for reality. As a result, more and more "free" read corporate-ruled market, more ddos on minds, less thinking.
So it's not about having some goal reached, but about the process of reaching these states. This maintains ability to adapt to changing conditions. What was keeping this system not fall to a full totalism was some opposite force always present. Now, when information can be easily manipulated and people just like it - locking themselves in "info bubbles" - this force is nullified. The "civilized" men from western civilization are not any better than highly-indoctrinated men in religion-oriented tribes in the eastern wild devil's arse now. They just don't see this as it's their own extremism.
And now, "so much thinking" people go to a battle for free market under the flag of monopoly company :).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @09:22PM (1 child)
Try learning what socialism actually is before you spout off and make yourself look stupid. Too late now, but for next time!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @11:18PM
Wrote too much from perspective of people in my country, which is:
1. "socialism==communism"
2. Fighting communism and socialism, free market ftw...
3. ...while still praising socialist-like government moves and using it as much as possible,
4. Simultaneously criticizing the same steps, but done by opposing parties, as communism they're fighting with.
Yes, many people may get lost here :).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @01:30AM (45 children)
If platform X wont host you, create your own and provide an alternative. its not that hard. Its called competition.
Now if you run into effects of net-non-neutrality we can talk.. but just because a couple of social media outlets dont like you, grow up.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday August 19 2018, @02:24AM (41 children)
On the technical side, and the present legal side, I agree with you. And I am no fan at all of Alex Jones.
But I do think that the reach and pervasiveness of Facebook, for instance, is not in any way anticipated in the ideas of "private platforms." When Facebook says you can't play in their yard, it's not like your neighbor saying you can't play in their yard. It's like you can't play in the yard of the entire nation; the entire world. Instead, you must go play in the woods. Of course it's perfectly fine if you want to play in the woods. But it's not okay to exile people there.
The founders and the current legal system didn't see that coming.
Forcibly isolating people isn't a great idea, generally speaking. For one thing, it leads to resentment and that leads to crime and abuse. For another, most times, if you push someone off into a place where they operate unseen, you're worse off than if you kept an eye on them. Something else is that equal access to generally available resources. Barring actual imprisonment for a crime, it seems — to me, anyway — like a very bad idea to say to citizen X "no you can't" while saying to citizen Y "yes you can."
At the very least, whether this is acceptable is a discussion that should happen, even if our society comes out the other side saying "yeah, go play in the woods."
(Score: 3, Disagree) by ilPapa on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:32AM (32 children)
The founders didn't see a lot of things coming, including semi-auto weapons, the rise of megacorporations, and income inequality at these levels.
You could fill a book with the things the founders didn't see coming, but all they were worried about at the time was evading paying their taxes and keeping slaves.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 5, Informative) by fyngyrz on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:38AM (3 children)
No. The presence of article V tells us that the founders cared about unexpected change, and provided for it.
The lack of use of article V in favor of fiat law tells us that our current legal system is severely corrupt.
But while the founders didn't account for the unknowable future in specific, they certainly gave us the tools to deal with it, so I'm not inclined to agree with your characterization.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:40AM (2 children)
So, you admit to a loophole you could drive a freight train through. The founders lacked vision. They knew there would be corruption, but they didn't have a plan for it.
They figured that no way would some degenerate with dementia could rise to power and that the entire membership of his party would acquiesce to his madness. They didn't see gerrymandering, they didn't think a party in power would have such bad faith as to block certain groups from voting even though they had the legal right to do so.
Let me ask you, what was the founder's remedy to something like this?:
https://www.newsweek.com/georgia-close-polling-locations-black-majority-1079197 [newsweek.com]
(note: the Republican secretary of state is running for governor and he will be running the election)
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @09:40AM
I guess they'd amend the ADA so that it is not applicable to older buildings.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:45PM
They certainly missed the specifics of the whole "politicians will not have any conception of, or inclination to, honor" business, yes. And I would agree that should have been obvious to them on day one. But article V is broad enough to add teeth to the constitution if we really want them there. So I'll give them a pass on that as well.
It's our job to keep the system working. As long as we're in the habit of electing the rich and powerful, we're going to get laws that favor the rich and powerful. We have the government we deserve.
(Score: 4, Informative) by jmorris on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:55AM (2 children)
Actually, if you look at a real history book instead of Democratic Party talking points, muskets were already obsolete in the interval between the Revolutionary War and the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. They had cartridges and weapons we would recognize as the obvious fore bearers of modern rifles and revolvers. Not gas powered semi-automatics and certainly not full auto but multiple shots between reloading. such weapons were not yet in general circulation but educated men of science such as the Founders certainly followed developments in military technology and knew what was coming.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @08:14AM (1 child)
Hmm, note to self: never, ever, trust jmorris on the history of firearms. Or on anything, for that matter.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @08:52PM
Ya, dont let the highly upmodded posts throw you off. The alt-wrongers have been brigading pretty hard recently. I think it is due to aristarchus getting the pseudo ban and not posting much to counter the alt-wrong with his sometimes too extreme leftist posts. Like Trump winning brought out the bigots, ari leaving-ish has made the SN trolls really active.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:55AM
You have bought the musket talking point I see. Start at page 12 here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/6-4_2017-05-26_Exhibit-H-V-To-The-Declaration-of-Anna-M.-Barvir-In-Support-of-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf [michellawyers.com] under the heading "B. Magazines of Greater than Ten Rounds are More than Four Hundred Years Old"
Some excerpts:
FN1: This is the same technology that allows this gun to shoot at a 1,000,000 rds per minute rate (those nutty Australians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm [wikipedia.org] ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hlj4EbdsE [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @07:26AM
"The founders didn't see a lot of things coming, including ... income inequality at these levels"
I don't think that was a priority since a lot of them had slaves at the time.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday August 19 2018, @12:01PM (22 children)
Semi-auto weapons aren't legally relevant - the US has survived them for about 150 years. Megacorporations were kicking around in those days too (one megacorporation [wikipedia.org] owned most of India at the time and via a tax on tea [wikipedia.org] was one of the causes of the US revolution!).
And income inequality was worse back then than it is now. I don't have an objective measure of it. But there were debtor prisons and people being exiled from the UK because they were poor (Georgia, for example, was a penal colony before Australia became one) and millions of people fleeing Europe as a whole for a better life in the US. The poverty problems of the US today are nothing like that.
TL;DR. The only thing that the founders can be claimed to haven't seen, because it wasn't happening back then was firearms with a higher rate of fire. That's just not a serious matter. Sorry. They had both abusive and powerful megacorporations and considerable income inequality, both worse than today's.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:44PM (17 children)
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:50PM
OK, so let's take this at face value. (I don't agree with the assumptions behind the analysis, but what the hell it's Sunday.)
It simply wouldn't have been possible to do that any other way, and the founders couldn't possibly have contemplated any advance in weaponry.... oh wait.
If you think that was bad, what do you think that the proverbial truck with diesel and nitrates might have done? Or a slingshot and a ready supply of molotov cocktails? A few pressure cookers, black powder and timing devices? There are more, but I'll leave them as an exercise for the reader.
And advances in weaponry were totally unknown before the nineteenth century. It's not as if anybody had worked out the advantages of steel, or forging, or improved casting for barrels, or self as opposed to compound bows, or grenades, or grenade construction or ... hang on.
So let's see. Banning something that would not have prevented a tragedy, on specious grounds, while significantly reducing the abilities of the law-abiding to do something useful, is your version of social progress?
Cound me out.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 19 2018, @08:45PM (13 children)
Tell that to the 325 million citizens of the US whose rights you're trampling for a cause of death, mass shootings, that is so minuscule in number killed, it's comparable [wikipedia.org] to lightning deaths [lightningsafety.com] in the US.
The regulation should be proportionate to the threat. Else we'll throw away democracy to address minor threats.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @09:32PM (2 children)
Yeah, khallow would never use his 17 "converted" AR-15s to commit mass murder! Of course, that was what they said about the Las Vegas shooter, before he did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @09:41PM
The problem is that any motivated individual can cause mass death, locking down society into a nanny state will only increase the number of pissed off people. Trade your freedom for safety at your own risk.
Wait, shit, trade *our* freedoms for *your* own safety. There is no perfect safety and banning guns is a band-aid solution that doesn't address the real problems.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 19 2018, @11:55PM
And if I did, it wouldn't be more mass murder than 2 "converted" AR-15s.
Nor is it about what one disgruntled person can do with firearms, but rather what happens when we cripple the rights of hundreds of millions of people just because there are disgruntled people somewhere in the world. Just look at what happened because there was a couple of terrorist attacks in 2001 (with much of the benefit of that response spent on rewarding the agencies that had failed to prevent those terrorist attacks!). Again, the response should be proportionate to the threat or we evolve into a world where government can create and manipulate threats to control our every move, Brazil-style.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @09:36PM (1 child)
I dislike agreeing with khallow, but the 2nd amendment was put in for a very real reason. People have a right to protect themselves and quite frankly I don't see the massive problem everyone else seems to see.
The problems I see are a dehumanizing educational and economic system, a lack of mental health support, a lack of *helpful* support for kids in bad situations. A total lack of support for teens going through tough times, no funding for after school / extra curricular activities, etc.
The problem starts when someone gets the desire to murder their peers. Honestly guns might be the type of weapon we DO want around, otherwise a motivated individual just might start dreaming up ideas that have much more dire consequences. A friend who got a civil engineering degree outlined a few of the really easy ways someone could kill lots of people and it was disturbingly easy.
So let us focus on providing support. For you hardcore 2nd amendment types that means universal healthcare and free education. This stops people from worrying about every little health problem and worrying about whether they will be able to find another job when they don't have any other skills / education. Take away the feeling of hopelessness that so many experience, give teens various activities / clubs / supporting adults and we'll solve our problems. can. you. diiig. ITTTTT? [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @11:01PM
^ This. People spend way too much time/budget on whether folks should or should not have guns and the trigger points for their abuse but way too little about the socio-economic causes and ways to resolve that.
Personally I'm against firearms in my country but I don't live in a country like the US where owning firearms is codified into the constitution as a cultural tradition spanning back centuries. If I were to move to the US, which I had in the past, I'd still stay away from them, but acknowledge the cultural tradition.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday August 19 2018, @10:53PM (5 children)
You lying sack of shit. There are an average of 51 lightening strike deaths per year in the US. There are over 30,000 gun deaths per year in the US.
Fuck your gun rights. That's just some shit the gun industry made up in the 70s and 80s. Americans have had enough of jackoffs like you watering the tree of liberty with the blood of schoolchildren.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/majority-of-americans-want-stricter-gun-laws-poll/ [nypost.com]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 19 2018, @11:45PM (4 children)
Don't blame me for your incompetence. You cited a mass shooting as a reason to change US law, not generic deaths which include a vast number of accidental shootings and suicides. The deaths from mass shootings are on the order of lightning-caused deaths each year contrary to your idiotic accusation of lying.
Sure, firearm deaths, even deliberate homicide deaths, are much higher than mass shooting deaths, but those are deaths of the sort that the founders of the Constitution would be familiar - the technology changes are irrelevant. They had the same problems with firearms back then too. So by expanding your class of harm, you bring it to places where the founders were quite familiar with the issues at hand.
It's very telling that you hadn't come up with a single relevant instance where the founders would have been ignorant of modern issues. That tells me you're ignorant of the actual history of the US and probably didn't care in the first place with your interpretation of history merely a pretext to screw up US law to suit your prejudices.
The Second Amendment predates the 1970s by almost 200 years. So fuck your historical revisionism.
(Score: 3, Touché) by ilPapa on Monday August 20 2018, @01:36AM (1 child)
Only you could suggest that accidental shootings don't really involve guns.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Monday August 20 2018, @07:48AM
Let us note that I didn't suggest that. It's tiresome to be continually accused of saying things I didn't say.
But since we're on the subject, what exactly was the point of bringing up a rare sort of gun crime as if it were good enough to rationalize modifying the US Constitution and then mention without context the total deaths from firearms? What reason is there to modify the Constitution just because people occasionally die from firearms?
Let's look at some actual data [wikipedia.org].
So I was way off on accidental deaths. But I see that most deaths from firearms are suicide. Ok, so why is that supposed to be a reason to modify the US Constitution? This is all so poorly thought out. Just how much bad stuff should we cause merely because bad stuff happens?
As to the founders of the US, they knew quite well of the problems of firearms, just as they knew the dangers of megacorporations and income inequality. But I find the people who want to second-guess those guys tend to be remarkably ignorant of history such as you insisting
even though the Second Amendment which is over 200 years old clearly states:
Note the language please. The people which when used in the rest of the Constitution is not a member of a militia or the military, not even a citizen of the US(!), has the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, those "gun rights" are well over 200 years old rather than 40-50 years old. Perhaps, we ought to get our act together a bit and get a clue before continuing on?
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday August 20 2018, @02:15AM (1 child)
And if that doesn't make you mad enough, did you know that cities with tough gun laws have less gun violence? Go figure.
Violent crime rates per 100,000 people in 2016:
Lubbock — 1084
Houston — 1026
Dallas — 762
Los Angeles — 719
San Francisco — 711
NYC — 573
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 20 2018, @07:06AM
No, and you didn't know either. Notice only one of the gun control cities you mention has an relatively low violent crime rate (the other two are comparable to Dallas), that would be New York City. There are other cities with aggressive gun control laws that don't see the same drop in crime such as Chicago and Washington, DC. For example, when I looked at similar statistics [wikipedia.org] I get for the cities mentioned so far (Lubbock didn't make the list I used for some reason):
Washington, DC - 1202.6 (violent crimes per 100,000 people per year)
Houston, TX - 966.7
Chicago, IL - 903.8
San Francisco, CA - 776.8
Dallas, TX - 694.2
Los Angeles, CA - 634.8
New York City, NY - 585.8
If you're seeing a pattern from that particular selection with respect to gun control, then you're delusional. For example, there's a factor of two difference in violent crime per capita between best and worst, NYC and Washington, DC. It can't be explained by gun control because they both have strong gun control regulation.
But that's the perils of cherry picking data. I have no idea why you thought that was a useful argument to make. There are after all more than half a dozen cities in the US with most of those cities outside of Texas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @06:23AM (1 child)
So the solution is to have corporations own more of everything and then they can deplatform shooters just like they can deplatform Alex Jones.
It's a wonderful time when the Corporations are more able to "protect" the People from their Freedoms ;).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 20 2018, @07:51AM
They already do "deplatform" on this basis for all kinds of things. You're decades out of date.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @07:44AM (1 child)
Nice appeal to emotion. But just like I wouldn't accept the NSA's mass surveillance even if it did stop terrorism, I won't accept gun control even if it did decrease murders. And just like with the NSA's mass surveillance, its proponents use the 'But think about the victims of terrorists!' emotional appeal. I will not trade freedom for security, and I am not sorry about that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 20 2018, @07:53AM
Plus, it's a phony trade. Once some authority has taken away your freedom, they no longer need to deliver security.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 20 2018, @10:03AM (3 children)
Of course you don't, as usual, khallow. Don't let it bother you! The obvious rebuttal is that you never have any objective measures for anything you claim in arguments on SN, and you argue in bad faith. Bad, I say, bad faith. So stick a sock in your refutation of income inequality. And Miminum Wage, while you're at it. Oh, Anthropogenic Global Warming, too. Are we done here?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 22 2018, @04:00AM (2 children)
Please be stupid and dishonest somewhere else. Where's the comprehensive economic data collection of the late 18th century with which to make a valid comparison? How do I prove such things to your satisfaction?
Instead, I'll note several obvious factors for your consideration. First, the existence of widespread slavery and disfranchisement of native Americans (both which would greatly increase the population of the most poor). Second, large populations of desperate people and sweat shop conditions in the most urbanized areas of the colonies. Third, the already mentioned laws and institutions as punishment for being poor. Fourth, the poor were much poorer than the poor of today are. Can't afford an education, owning land, or the goods that a US poor family owns today.
Then fifth, in contrast to the paltry wealth of the poor in the US, we have the extreme wealth of Europe's nobility and other elites. At the time of the revolution, you had numerous nobility with ownership of extensive palaces and other displays of wealth backed by large incomes from estates or state sources. Again, it's hard to make any sort of valid economic comparison between the wealthy of today and yesterday. But we have a lot more of them today that we did back then. And they tend to be only moderately more wealthy than the earning potential of the poor.
We never started.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 22 2018, @05:40AM (1 child)
What? Cannot stand the competition? Poor khallow!
The obvious rebuttal is that you do not understand what is obvious, and what needs actual measurement upon which to make an argument.
Native Americans? Enslaved? Hardly. Greatly increase? Via genocide? None of this is remotely true, let alone obvious.
Really, you don't say! Large, desperate populations! How large? How desperate? Sweat shops in the colonies? You are off by decades, if not centuries.
Punishment? Oh, yes, the "put them in prison until they are rich" theory. What is this supposed to be demonstrating? Have you gone completely off your rocker?
True, dat. No flat-screen large format video screens back then. So the poor today are much richer than the rich back then? But surely you realize, my dear and fluffy khallow, that povery is not an absolute measure, but a relative ranking, so the point you are making is the point of a madman, who does not understand numbers, and so does not use them.
Ok, you have lost me entirely. Of course you realize that "property" of the aristacracy was nothing like capital, it was non-fungible, until things like the enclosure movement started in England.
You have made this point exquisitely, khallow!
Which "them"? the Poors or the Richies? And you cannot compare wealth to earning potential, unless you are some kind of Enron "smartest guy in the room" accounter.
We have not yet begun. It is not even the beginning of the beginning. The education of a khallow is not something done in a day!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 22 2018, @12:28PM
I could have written the sentence better. There was a lot of slavery about at the time, I didn't intend to imply that it was of native Americans.
Wealth and income inequality aren't merely about disparity in the levels of money. If you can get thrown into jail for being poor, that is an additional inequality on top of the original one.
The point is that the famous issues of the Gilded Age were already present to some degree in the largest cities of the time (New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, and Charleston). They merely got bigger with immigration of more poor people.
Poverty is an absolute measure - for example, if you've saved up enough that you never have to work again, you are rich even if there are richer people than that around. We were speaking of inequality instead which was the relative measure.
You just made my point for me. There weren't even legal procedures for the poor to own stuff like the aristocracy did. The poor peoples's wealth in this case would be of commons property (like open fields for sheep grazing) which could eventually be taken away by law merely because no one actually owned it and the parties which used the property were politically disfranchised.
The rich. For example, the Pew Trust found [pewsocialtrends.org] that 21% of US citizens were above middle class (compared to 14% at the beginning of their study).
But if you do bother to use a mild amount of accounting (which I suppose an Enron, "smartest guy in the room" accountant could do, but then so could you), then yes, you can make that comparison. For example, it's typical to multiply an income stream by 10-20 to estimate a instantaneous value for it.
The point to it is that wealth is not just what you have lying about. A lot of people, particularly in the developed world, borrow money and pay back with future income. By most measures of wealth used these days, that makes them poorer than someone who doesn't have a cent to their name. So do you think developed world borrowers really are poorer? Earning potential (at least when conservatively applied) allows for a better estimate of wealth than merely counting the property to your name.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:45AM (2 children)
And, guess what, people with many followers -- people like Alex Jones -- created that situation. Welcome to the world you created.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:58PM (1 child)
Not me — I'm a woods guy. Never been a member of Facebook, never plan to be. It looked toxic to me from day one, and it still does, only even more so.
When I talk about Facebook's ubiquitous platform and the implications of that, I recognize up front that I am an outlier, and that for most people, that is not the case. I'm not saying you have to go there. I'm just saying a very large number of people do. There's a toxic draw consisting of "all my contacts/family/friends are there, so that's where I hang, so if you want to hang with me, you have to hang there too." Resisting that takes an act of will. I have no shortage of will. :)
So welcome to the world that those people created.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday August 19 2018, @10:14PM
I am not in that world either. Never had a Facebook login.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:21AM
Volunteer him to a one-way-trip to Mars, I hear there's a serious deficit of fertilizer there.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday August 19 2018, @11:12AM (3 children)
Current law does consider such things. They had to during the decades when ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS were the only 4 nationwide sources of information that existed. In that period, there were rules about what those big networks both could not broadcast (e.g. 7 dirty words you can't say on TV) and had to broadcast (e.g. the Emergency Broadcast System). There still are rules like that to a degree, as part of getting an FCC license to broadcast TV or radio. Back in those days, those big 4 networks could and did exercise considerable discretion about what they did and did not talk about on their TV and radio broadcasts. And that meant that millions of people lived their lives without ever playing to a national audience. For instance, if moon-landing conspiracy theorists got anywhere near a national TV broadcast, it was to laugh at them as kooks as a light entertaining bit, not as a serious news story.
The good thing about the Internet is that it sees this kind of censorship as something to route around, so that weird ideas and crazy theories can be communicated to however large an audience wants to hear them. The bad thing about the Internet is that far too many people treat the weird ideas and crazy theories they find out there as any more reliable than the rantings of some random drunk at a bar. There are reliable techniques for telling the difference between good information and the rantings of idiots and nutjobs, but the Powers That Be don't want to have those techniques widely known because that would make their propaganda less effective.
As for InfoWars, any concerns that they were being censored out of existence is just plain wrong: As their fans were quick to point out, they downloaded the InfoWars mobile app in huge numbers, and InfoWars' website still exists and is going strong.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:03PM (2 children)
Perhaps you should take a few minutes and read Facebook's Terms of Service [facebook.com], while also considering that nothing has been able to "route around" Facebook.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday August 19 2018, @07:53PM (1 child)
Sure they have: InfoWars just did, by directing its viewers / readers to their own website.
You're acting like if something doesn't exist on Facebook, it doesn't exist at all. That's not true, and never has been.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday August 19 2018, @10:05PM
That smell you've been noticing is the elephant in the room. :)
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday August 19 2018, @10:07PM
I'm kind of thinking this is part of the effect of net neutrality being eliminated. Without net neutrality, there is a lot of legal gray area as to the liability of hosting platforms. They were fine with the like of Alex Jones when he meant profits without risk. Suddenly now there is a potential liability in willfully hosting content that might get sued as the hosting companies could be dragged into it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @11:21PM
It all starts from payment processors then works its way up unto the web. Paypal, Stripe, Patreon, etc forced not to do business with you. Mastercard won't allow you to take payments, and will force all 3rd party processors to not accept them, your bank closes on you, so you are forced to accept cash through the mail, and can't deposit it into a bank account or use checks. You also can't get a host or ISP to run your website. All because your view is center or right of center.
So I suppose you are supposed to start a bank, issues cards and a clearing network, run fiber cable to every household, and then you can create a website that has conspiracy theories or allow the discriminated against mentally ill have their ideas to be viewable by the internet using public at large. Or you can just ensure that payment processing and the internet is accessable by everyone without discrimination on political belief, whether it is in vouge or not. Because laws and policies against the center, moderate, and extreme right can be used against the moderates and the left if/when power shifts the other way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:15PM
>create your own and provide an alternative
What if you are unable to because economics? What if their internet access was cut? What if they won't host their servers in their racks? What if you now have to create an entirely new datacenter?
It's fairly easy to argue "make your own alternative" until you're forced to literally generate your own power and grow your own food just to survive. At the end of the day, we're dependent on each other for survival.
Where does it end?
(Score: 1, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday August 19 2018, @01:54AM (33 children)
@janrinok said, if I put Exclamation Point, "we probably won't read them." Talking about, the Subs. Well, I made a Sub about what happened to Alex Jones -- to Infowars. About how, the same guy that went after Alex Jones is going after Matt Drudge. And the article in my Sub says, it's not Silicon Valley. It's one guy. A guy who works for Fake News CNN. Who worked very hard to get Alex banned. Who's working very hard to get Matt banned. And probably will keep working. Until there's nobody doing news on Social Media except CNN. And the Intercept doesn't know that. Or, doesn't want you to know that.
And by the way, no Exclamation Point. The article has Exclamation Point, I didn't put it in the Sub. And my Sub is still sitting in the Subs Queue. Probably the Robot Editor will come along after a week or two and reject it. While this much later Sub by @takyon sailed right through. Unfair & dumb.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @02:19AM (16 children)
Bitching and complaining about story submissions that were not accepted is a great way to encourage the editors to actively ignore any further submissions.
If other's story submissions are being accepted, and yours are not, I suggest you might want to try doing something different.
Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.
You act like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum... Grow up and act like an adult, and the editors just might treat you like one.
(Score: 3, Funny) by RS3 on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:23AM (2 children)
It's a type of dry humor. You're not supposed to take it at surface value. He's just playing a role. Admittedly a bit too well...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @04:22PM
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:06PM
Nah he screws it up all the time with big words and out of chsrscter statements. If it was more parody it might be funny, but i guess that is the problem with Trump. Everything he does is a parody (lies really) so matching it would be inherently difficult.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday August 19 2018, @04:40AM (10 children)
I don't know what actively ignore is. What is that? I'm saying, they're ignoring Subs. They're already doing that, that IS my complaint.
You say, do something different. I said, I did something different. Chief Editor @janrinok said, don't do Exclamation Point, don't put Exclamation Point. He didn't call it that, he said "'!' Characters." But that's what he meant. So, I tried without Exclamation Point. The article had Exclamation Point, I took it out. To please goofy Editors. But, Sub ignored.
I said that. But you don't understand. Or pretend not to understand. And possibly still don't understand. You're very loyal to the Editors -- you even write exactly like them. Very loyal, it's a great quality. But, is it good for the website?
You don't like my tweet. You think it's fine for the Editors to ignore Subs. And you have nothing to say about my Sub. Or the story. Only about my tweet -- and me. You want to turn the whole situation into being focused on ME. Instead of the Subs that were not read. Different Sub about the same story, telling the story very differently. But, they don't care, or don't want you to know. And you don't care, or don't want to know. That's too bad.
And possibly, it is about me. The Editors have their favorite submitters. And I'm not one of them. Although, I'm not their LEAST favorite. @aristarchus said they were accepting 12% of his Subs. And they accepted 36% of mine. If you look at SoylentNews, so many stories come from just a few people. And a lot of those people are the Editors. And for them to open it up to other people, well, they opened it up to people that serve their agenda. They have an agenda of, our Social Media companies are hurting us tremendously. And @takyon's Sub serves that agenda. Instead of telling us, look, Fake News CNN hired a guy to get people blocked. To get Alex blocked, to get Matt blocked. They call it deplatformed. Like me and @aristarchus!!!
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday August 19 2018, @07:19AM (1 child)
We are not ignoring your subs. We (multiple editors) read every submission, including yours. If you are posting a submission as rDT you had better make sure that it is unbiased, neutral and accurate. Your alto-ego persona tends to take things to extremes in the comments. Unfortunately, you have the habit of selectively editing parts of your submission to make this easier for you to achieve in the subsequent comments. Whether this is intentional on your part or not, I cannot tell. We, therefore, read your submissions more closely than those from submitters we know we can trust.
My submissions sometimes get rejected. Other editors' submissions get rejected. Everybody's submissions sometimes get rejected. If they do, we (all) need to improve the quality of our submissions, not come on here and whine about how you are being persecuted. Your usual submissions are simply not good enough - live with it.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @08:18AM
Unlike aristarchus subs, to which there is a long-standing prejudical bias by enough of the editorial team to throw the entire site into the welcoming maw of the pedophiliac alt-right. You should be ashamed, Janrinok, ashamed.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Sunday August 19 2018, @07:55AM (7 children)
I'm sorely tempted to publish here what each editor has written next to your submission. There are currently 5 unflattering comments. I won't publish them because they wrote those comments in the belief that they are private between editors. They are there so that we can do our job and make sure that no single editor can mount a campaign against any submitter. But if we ALL think a submission is below standard, it is probably not good enough for the front page.
There is no robot editor that deletes old submissions. Many submissions cease to be relevant after a week or two, or the fact that they are still in the queue means that they are not of sufficient quality to be published. They are deleted manually by an editor. We can see how many editors have viewed the submission and have recorded their opinions on its quality. Deletions such as these do not come with an explanation, they are simply marked for deletion and away they go. This is necessary otherwise the submission queue looks full but actually contains a large number of stories that will not be published. If the queue appears full, then nobody makes new submissions. And if nobody makes new submissions then we have to go looking for stories ourselves, hence exec, MrPlow, and Arthur.
The solution is to make good quality contributions, on new topics that are likely to generate intelligent discussions, that are balanced and neutral, and that need little editing on our part. We love such things because, by making our lives easier, they are more likely to get to the front page.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday August 19 2018, @02:13PM (2 children)
Thank you so much for all you (all) do here at soylentnews. Sincerely. But I feel badly that you're taking trdt so seriously. As I commented above, he's just role-playing, and a bit too well. I'd love it if you got into a Monty Python-esque role. Maybe tell him you've only got a flesh wound and to come back and fight like a man! And to be glad you aren't a robot because robots never vote "R".
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)
I can tolerate rDT's attempts at humour - it isn't to my taste but I can ignore it.
But when he, or anyone else, makes untrue accusations against the editorial team or an individual editor it is part of my job, as Editor-in-Chief, to defend them and explain why such accusations are wrong. This task is taking far more of my time nowadays than it ever did before. I have been here since the start of SN I do not wish the site to be destroyed by those who would rather it was the home of trolls and shills. The primary focus of this site is STEM and it will remain so until the majority of the community decide it should change.
Those who have a genuine complaint about how their submissions have be treated deserve my respect and they will always receive an explanation. If we subsequently discover we were wrong, an apology will be made and we will attempt to rectify the matter. But those who simply moan about how their umpteenth submission on the same topic has been rejected, or those who simply continue to ignore the clearly document requirements of any submission, might well be treated differently. rDT can have his parody in his comments but he doesn't dictate how the story selection process is managed, and Aristarchus can submit a story on any topic he chooses as long as it is not one that we have already discussed ad nauseum.
Submissions from them or anyone else that meet the submission guidelines will be considered for publication as usual.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:05PM
Thank you, sincerely. I have some thoughts, but they're clouded by some problems I'm facing, so thank you and I hope people chill a bit.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:15AM (3 children)
You made a secret Comments Section on my Sub. And yesterday it had 5 Secret Comments -- possibly, many more by now. That's so interesting. I didn't know. Who knew? And you won't show anybody the comments, because the editors thought they were private. Like @aristarchus thought it was private when he touched "Post Anonymously" and tweeted. But you UNMASKED him, we call it unmasking. That's OK, it's just @aristarchus. Who is obviously crazy. And says so many things that are NOT NICE.
You're an editor, the top top editor. And you did a summary of the Secret Comments. You said, "unflattering." Well are they talking about me. Or about my Sub? You say, make better Subs, maybe they'll go through. But, "unflattering" doesn't say what's wrong with the Sub. And maybe you can't do a summary without unmasking the editor. Or editors. That's too bad.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:05AM (2 children)
Editors have to edit, and we have to communicate with each other. Get over it.
If people wish to remain anonymous they should at least take the minimum of precautions, e.g. change their IP address or use a VPN. And nobody on this site, or very few at least, are actually who their nick says that they are. You are not really Donald Trump, my name isn't janrinok, TheMightyBuzzard is probably known by another name away from this site, and so on. Oh, and Aristarchus isn't really a Greek philosopher - the real one died quite a while ago. Nobody has been unmasked. It is just the same as the other account that you frequently post under, even to the extent of modding yourself up and trying to bury comments that are critical of you. You expect the editors to reveal their private discussions whereas you cannot even be honest about your public ones.
I have written to you privately before explaining what is wrong with your submissions. You do not reply privately, you put it in the comments for all the world to see. So, in the replies to those comments, I have also told you over the recent weeks what is wrong with your submissions.
This site used to be a place where intelligent conversation took place about topics that were of interest. You are incapable of actually having an intelligent conversation, rather you think that adding your parody to every thread is helping this site. In my opinion, you and your ilk have ruined it. Enjoy yourselves while you can.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 21 2018, @09:53PM (1 child)
They don't have Passports to SoylentNews. And they don't have Real ID. They have accounts. Some of us use our names, some have fake names. As you know. And in the accounts, when you go to tweet, it says "Post Anonymously." It's not anonymously. Because certain people can look at the cyber of the tweets. And of the accounts. Can look at the "Anonymous Coward" tweets and say, "oh, hi there @janrinok. Oh, hi there @realDonaldTrump. Oh, hi there @aristarchus. Oh, hi there @martyb." You get the idea. Because you're doing it. We call it UNMASKING. And maybe you're saying, "oh, the accounts are anonymous. So when I say whose account the tweets are coming from, it's still anonymous!" It's not what I'd call anonymous. It's anonymous until you decide you don't want it to be. It says anonymous, it needs a BIG ASTERISK. Barry Bonds, 40 home runs & 40 stolen bases in one season*. Not many guys have done that. But, big asterisk on that. And the asterisk says, oh by the way, steroids. But, no asterisk on SoylentNews. Folks touch "Post Anonymously," maybe to tweet something you don't like. And you tweet back with, "oh hi so-and-so." Little surprise for them. And that's a nasty little surprise.
You wrote to me privately about my Subs. In rejection messages -- thank you. I don't like what you said. As you know. But at least you said something and it wasn't the same exact thing over and over. Which is what the Robot Editor does. And I didn't see Reply, the button for reply. Is there supposed to be a button? For me, no button and that's why I didn't reply that way. And, you didn't write to me about the Alex Jones Sub. Because it's not rejected. But before, you said don't always go to Fox News, pick another site sometimes. I LISTENED. And you said, don't put "!". I LISTENED. But, later Sub goes through, mine is still waiting. You say maybe there's something wrong with it, the editors looked at it and didn't like it. But they don't want you to talk about that in public. That's too bad. You ran with the other Sub that says, oh, our Social Media industry is becoming a monopoly. And says nothing about CNN. But CNN has been going after Alex for a while. As Alex himself says. Big part of the story. infowars.com/cnn-pushes-youtube-to-ban-alex-jones-demonetize-video-channel [infowars.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday August 22 2018, @04:09AM
As this is the only new thing you have said in your rant, I will respond. Stories are judged not only on their content, but whether they are balanced, neutral and without bias. Whenever you write anything you automatically use the language and politics of your adopted persona. That means for your story to be useful it will have to be rewritten. When another story arrives in the submission queue that covers the same points but is better presented and without the faults of other similar submissions it will be used in preference. That is the role of the editor. However, if you had written about something original and more interesting then I am sure that I, or another editor, would have taken the effort to help you get your story published. That is what we do, day in, day out. You ask why your submission is ignored, I have just told you again why, as I have done many times already, but you either lack the intelligence to understand what is being said to you, or you simply wish to disrupt the site. I don't expect that this response will have any effect either.
I know that you believe that everyone is waiting for your next witty parody comment, and maybe some people are, but for majority they are becoming just noise to be ignored. We would like to have an intelligent conversation regarding each story and you bring each one back to politics by your participation. You may not realise it, it might be unintentional on your part. But we have to spend a lot more effort just trying to manage the site as a result of your comments. I have written to you privately but you insist each time, on taking this discussion public. I will assume that you haven't mastered the skill of emails yet? So be it.
I am no supporter of Aristarchus either. But he has pointed out one fact that I have been very much aware of for some time. People are being driven away from our community by the political rants that are taking over each story. Almost every story you, or someone like you, brings up the details of an election that happened years ago, or a pending court case which hasn't yet happened so is entirely speculation, or something similar. All entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the story itself. Where Aristarchus is quite wrong however, is his belief that the cure for the political trends that we are seeing in almost every story is best countered by more political comments - but in his case from the completely opposite side of the political spectrum. It will not. The cure is to stop the political bickering unless the story is actual published under the 'Political' topic banner.
You could have written your piece as a normal commentator and it would have had at least the same impact, possibly more. But, as it is, it will simply be ignored by a large proportion of our community. The editors can select the stories for discussion, but the SN community have argued that the comments belong to the individuals concerned and only community moderation is necessary. So, it is not up to the editors to control the problem, but up to the contributors and commentators themselves. That includes YOU! Stop the parody in every thread and you will find that you will be treated as a serious contributor by the editors. Until then, we will read your submissions and, unless they are outstanding in content and meet the SN submission guidelines, they will probably be rejected.
Do not bother to respond - BUT READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:39AM (1 child)
Bitches bitch - that's what they do. Chill, man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @09:47PM
You bitch all the time!
I like this logic, you little whiny bitch, at least according to your logic since you're the one bitching the most round here.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday August 19 2018, @02:37AM (8 children)
So you are saying this Robot Editor scans back for dupes and rejects submissions that match previous stories?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Redundant) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:15AM (2 children)
Robots are VERY DUMB. As everybody knows. The Robot rejects Subs when they reach a certain age. Kills them. And sends the same message over and over. If you saw the movie Logan's Run, it's like that.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:53PM (1 child)
Robots are VERY DUMB.
That was actually the point :-P
You know..I vaguely remember an advertisement about Logan's Run "Featuring the season's Film Debut of Farrah Fawcett!" or something close to that. Just capitalizing off the name presumably, she didn't have that big a part.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 3, Touché) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 21 2018, @01:21AM
Farrah had a couple of VERY BIG parts. Magnificent parts, so beautiful. 🍈🍈 As everybody knows. But unfortunately, she died from Cancer of the Ass. Which is what Vince Lombardi, great guy, died from. RIP!!!!
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday August 19 2018, @07:58AM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @09:35PM (2 children)
Psst! janrinok IS the robot editor! This is exactly what you would expect him to say!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 20 2018, @12:14AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @10:13AM
And, see? Again? Isn't that exactly what a robot editor would say? (If janrinok smiles again, run. Or at least watch Ex Machina again. Then run.)
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 21 2018, @01:27AM
You don't know about the Robot. And, very natural that you wouldn't. They brought in the Robot while you were in the hospital. While you were very sick. To replace you, I guess. And possibly they've carted it off, now that you're back. I'm not your biggest fan. But, the Robot is MUCH WORSE. So dumb, and it makes Spam. Sad!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:31AM (6 children)
Alex Jones is pure evil. He takes down businesses and families with utter bullshit. I find it hard to defend him.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday August 20 2018, @07:56AM (4 children)
But that's one successful way encroachment on freedom works. They go after the unpopular ones first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @10:14AM (1 child)
The obvious rebuttal is that no one is going after khallow. How much more unpopular does one have to be to be de-platformed?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 20 2018, @12:48PM
I don't seek places where they'll deplatform me. Thus, the only example I have of being deplatformed was when Ars Technica banned me for 24 hours and deleted some posts of mine on climate change.
It's a slippery slope. Don't wait until it's your turn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @10:19AM (1 child)
So far no problem. Or is this like global warming and we should worry before it personally affects us?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 20 2018, @12:06PM
I worry about global warming too. But humanity has other problems too. Why aren't you worrying as much about overpopulation or poverty - both much bigger problems at present?
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:15AM
You don't want to defend him. OK, I don't say defend him. But, what about his side of the story, don't you want to hear it? He says CNN worked very hard to get him banned!!! infowars.com/cnn-pushes-youtube-to-ban-alex-jones-demonetize-video-channel [infowars.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:00AM (9 children)
Candice Owens hit trouble. All she did was copy a New York Times editor's tweets, changing "white" to other things like "jewish".
Multiple republican candidates for office have hit trouble. Democrats never hit trouble. Just this past week, it was a California rep candidate having her video taken down.
Diamond and Silk hit trouble. (leftist's greatest hate is focused on black and LGBT conservatives) Diamond and Silk were shut down until members of congress brought up the issue and had them come testify about it. Think of all the people with smaller audiences who won't get noticed by members of congress: they just disappear.
There is a ranking that gets enforced. You can't go ranting against LGBT for example... unless you are Muslim and invoke Islam to do it, since that makes it OK???
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday August 19 2018, @04:27AM (8 children)
Yup, it was a rant about trannies that got Alex Jones deplatformed. Most media accounts are omitting that detail but it appears to be what was in the ban notice, and notice it was Apple's homosexual CEO who initiated the ban which was instantly picked up by Facebook, Apple, Google and Spotify (the FAGS of tech).
Now I have only seen short clips of Jones because Infowars be some zany mofos, but banning anyone is bad. It doesn't stop at people you don't really care about, in fact Jones is far from the first. Probably the biggest one so far though, he has a One Million Subscriber plaque from YouTube on his wall and it was several years old. So all you stupid people who support this ban, tell us where it ends? Do you want to just the "haters"? Well you already went far beyond that, see the post I'm replying to. Just the conspiracy nuts? So where do you draw that line? Every 911 Truther? Flat Earther? Anti-Vaxxer? Warming "Deniers"? Moon landing was produced by Stanley Kubrick theorists? Just ban liars? So CNN is still up so that isn't the game. ISIS still has accounts so you aren't just banning terrorist and violent people, anyway Alex Jones isn't even close to violent. So tell us what the goddamned rules are? We all know, just wanna see if anyone on the left will admit it.
No, Big Social Media can only exist within the safe harbor of section 230 of the CDA and since they are obviously outside of it and acting as publishers, time for the Feds to print out a bunch of ISIS crap still up and seize Twitter. Full seizure with asset forfeiture, and just like a common drug dealer no possibility of recovering a single asset until and unless a not guilty verdict is rendered in court. Make an example. Losing Twitter wouldn't destabilize the whole economy like seizing Apple or Facebook would, Hell Twitter is trading below IPO price. Muh Free Market? Screw that, you guys weaponized the Federal Government against political enemies, time to make you live under the rules you made.
And no, telling us these are private companies who can do what they want won't work. Because it has already went FAR beyond that. Yes we can replace Twitter, Gab was spun up by a couple of guys on a budget less than Twitter's cafeteria expense line item. That isn't a real problem, almost all of the tech in social media is the advertising and monitizing we can't do anyway. The problem is the collusion across the entire corporate world that exists. Get banned from Social media, build a replacement. Which can't keep stable DNS, but that crisis seems to have abated for now. Then their hosting provider (Azure/Microsoft) starts demanding they censor. Any other cloud provider is going to do the same thing. Ok, build your own infrastructure? Good luck getting connectivity. Then there is the deplatforming from the whole financial sector that is carefully coordinated. First it is just Stripe and Paypal but quickly Coinbase won't even allow bitcoin as an alternate method and now Mastercard is involved. Attempts to build a payment processor find no bank willing to accept the business. Uber won't serve unpersons, restaurants are openly and gleefully announcing how virtuous they are for not refusing to serve unpersons. At this rate we will soon start worrying whether "unpersons" can even keep a cell phone or electricity. If you guys want a civil war 2.0, this is how you get a civil war.
No, we are done with the "free market" and ready to make you obey your own "bake the effing cake" rule, the same ones that forbid discrimination against any other class of customer. The "public accomodation laws" that until quite recently you guys just loved.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:42AM (1 child)
Are you going to patent that? Is it copyrighted? What license is it copyrighted under? Does it GNU, or moo?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:25AM
Nah, I totally stole that gag. No idea who did it first.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:25AM (4 children)
In my opinion it is not a direct conspiracy to ban these people, but one of the ways an underlying problem is manifesting itself. Same shit went down with Wikipedia too. It started as a website anyone could edit, then slowly turned into a turf-war between propagandists, and then after driving away new contributors, it war was won by whoever had more admins (i.e., leftists getting funds from the government to monitor their article). Wikipedia was arguably one the earliest social media platform with all of its "talk-pages" etc.
What we have to contend with is that there is a whole generation raised that thinks personal is political, and is basically amoral crooks who just happen to have been fed the leftists honey because it tastes good. As that generation reaches the places of power, this is how it is going to play out.
Of course, this is how it conservatives were also playing so it is not entirely different, but at least there was a window for logic and reasoning. The new generation has no respect of that. My hope is with the upcoming generation - they know there is something wrong. Let us see what they think it is - hopefully not xenophobia.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:10PM (2 children)
Window for logic and reason with Republicans? You have gone round the bend my friend.
(Score: 2, Funny) by cubancigar11 on Monday August 20 2018, @04:06AM (1 child)
I am not talking about vulcan society. There is a lot of room to argue when talking about what's logical in our civilzation, obviously. But most importantly, I didn't talk about REPUBLICANS at all. Come out of your extreme viewpoint, please!
(Score: 1, Redundant) by cubancigar11 on Monday August 20 2018, @03:26PM
Troll, eh? Looks like I touched a nerve there.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday August 22 2018, @04:15AM
I would give you even more mod points if I were able to do so. But you have hit the nail on the head. The sooner we stop discussing partisan politics and look at things with a broader appreciation the better it will be for all.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @01:09AM
You mean, Alex Jones was actually sane and reasonable for a moment and that got him banned? How ironic.