Social Media deletes InfoWars pages

[Endus]

Again, I didn't say "political neutrality means they need to let racist shitmongers incite violence on their platform." Stop lying.

Jones is a racist shitmonger who was inciting violence in his videos. I'll freely acknowledge that's my wording.

You took issue with his being banned based on statements where some of these companies claimed to be politically neutral. That they COULDN'T ban him for his videos, if they were.

Really don't see how I'm misrepresenting your argument.

[Zan15]

Did you watch the actual video? Its only about 6 minutes long. It isn't some "mysterious law". It's how YouTube isn't criminally liable for something a user post that is not protected under the first amendment.

.

Yes and that has been proven to be inaccurate about a hundred times over....so i ask what are they going to taken to court over? What law did they break even if they conspired to mass ban him??


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/0...rms-be-neutral


Online platforms are within their First Amendment rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

[Edge-]

Because my argument is that they obvious colluded

Not in the slightest, you've yet to establish anything more than, "They took action in a similar timeframe".

Which as Endus explained, is often the case if a bad actor is breaking the rules on multiple sites and getting national media attention. These sites are all going to spot the attention, check the posts, spot the violations, and take swift action. They don't need to be in communication for that, and even if they were there is nothing inherently wrong with them communicating with each other regarding bad-actors violating rules that are similar between sites.

and that is what violates them being "politically neutral".

It doesn't. It would violate it if they banned him for being conservative. None of them did. They banned him because he repeatedly violated their rules.

None of your arguments are remotely consistent.

[Endus]

Because my argument is that they obvious colluded and that is what violates them being "politically neutral".

First, not only is not not "obvious", there's no indication other than timing to even suggest collaboration. Jones was cross-posting the same offensive material, it's not that surprising that it violated the terms of multiple sites.

Second, even if they had collaborated, that still would not constitute any argument that they weren't politically neutral, since nothing to do with this was political in the first place. You're inserting that, based on absolutely nothing.

I was extremely clear in what I said, and at no time did I say anything about them having to provide a platform for someone who incites violence. You made that connection all on your own, with no help from me.

I made that connection because that's the content Jones was uploading, that triggered this response.

I might add, it still has yet to be proven in the court of law.

What? No it doesn't. Not in any way whatsoever. They're free to ban him for stuff they don't want posted, not just stuff that's illegal.

[Felya]

If you say so, I will let the Dalai Lama explain it... he is a moral relativist too, from your perspective, so I am in good company.

Source: http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trp...001.pdf#page=9

Two months ago you confused characature and character, now you are confusing moral relativism and being able to relate. You are literally asserting his perspective, because you do not see how you could be wrong in regards to your interpretation of bhudism.

That’s your problem right there, that Buhdist quote sounds like what you mean, but this is actually what you mean:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjac.../#32ad996f5e5e

To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

[Zan15]

I believe you and whomever wrote that blog seem to be misunderstanding the reason why Section 230 was made. The key reason being responsible with their policing of the platform. Working in a coordinated effort to de-plaform someone isn't being responsible.

really going with this huh? Other web sites also explain it in even more details how his representation of section 230 was ass backwards. But you want to devalue the EFF as "blog" so be it. Look at the other ones if you may.

Your "Opinion" on what is responsible or not weighs no value in this argument.

Did he or did he not violate the TOS of those sites?

A snowball effect of banning which happened over a week is not the same as a coordinated effort by those companies.
Companies often monitor the activities of their rivals and when they make controversial moves they review the move and determine if they should or should not act the same way for the benefit of the company.

Your implication that they coordinated anything is a conspiracy theory at best, especially since one company banned him for 90 days a week earlier then the others then when he tried to get around that ban they made it permanent...again for violation of TOS of trying to circumvent a ban


Even if we were to take your "Opinion" on the matter into consideration i would say you are being insane just on the violations alone they are more then responsible.

[Felya]

I am not saying it is moral relativism... He is(Machismo)... I am using his own words against him.

I know, I agree with @Machismo... you are confirming what he said, while trying to use his words against him. The mere fact that you place InfoWars on a side within a political dychotomy, proves him right.

[Bodakane]

Really he violated Pinterest TOS?? The fact they all decided to do it on the exact same day?

That's not logically. If they had coordinated it analytically would be illegal in the US. Because their entire predicate for not being legally liable for things people post on their platform is that they are a "PUBLIC" neutral forum. They aren't being neutral if they work in a coordinated effort to censor someone they don't like.

SO he managed to do something the same day to get banned from all of them? Please tell me that's not your argument.

- - - Updated - - -



The fact your calling me right wing shows how blind you are. Please continue.

Anyone that mildly disagrees with my Point of View is Right Wing?

If you posted a video showing pedophilia on numerous sites one day, and they all banned you within a week.....would you think they all called each other and coordinated your banning?

[Kraenen]

All I can think of is the fact that Alex Jones will love this. It's just a gold mine for a person of his theater and audience.

[Machismo]

I know, I agree with @Machismo... you are confirming what he said, while trying to use his words against him. The mere fact that you place InfoWars on a side within a political dychotomy, proves him right.

I don't think he realizes it that he's been arguing against himself for weeks.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, well, I do not believe in moral relativism as being "good" in society. I am not sure what I can say to convince you.

Then stop using it.

[Machismo]

I do not use it in my life. I am using it here to make a point. Just because I know and understand what moral relativism is, does not mean I use it in my life. However people, more and more are.

Trump does, for instance, does not seem to be moral at all, he is amoral... that seems to have worked for him, he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world, arguably... but very few people, even on the right would call him "moral".

All I am saying, is that in our culture, that is becoming more and more a fact... and I do not like it.

So, this is your life (part of it), and you are using it right now. You just lied... again.

For a guy who claims to not like it, you have pushed thread after thread of using it.

[GennGreymane]

None of you standing for Alex Jones, the guy who harassed the parents of dead children from a school shooting to the point of being doxxed, threatened, stalked, and in some cases unable to visit the graves of their children without fear stand with me when I get banned.

So clearly its not about speech.

[Vizardlorde]

None of you standing for Alex Jones, the guy who harassed the parents of dead children from a school shooting to the point of being doxxed, threatened, stalked, and in some cases unable to visit the graves of their children without fear stand with me when I get banned.

So clearly its not about speech.

Genn Im pretty sure they are the ones who report you

[GreenGoldSharpie]

None of you standing for Alex Jones, the guy who harassed the parents of dead children from a school shooting to the point of being doxxed, threatened, stalked, and in some cases unable to visit the graves of their children without fear stand with me when I get banned.

So clearly its not about speech.

Because, in the end, this all about propping up right wing grievance culture, and Infowars is one of the central players in that culture. If you really think about it, these arguments aren't actually going anywhere, really.

[Machismo]

Having rhetorical conversations is not "part of my life" I do not see this (talking on forums), as really having anything to do with my life besides talking about philosophy.

Well, you spend enough time doing it. It would appear you are wasting your life away on moral relativism.

[GennGreymane]

Genn Im pretty sure they are the ones who report you

Indeed

it is not about free speech. It is about fear of the deranged alex jones fans.

[Machismo]

I am not going to justify what I do to you. Like I said, I know where I stand, you can either believe me or not. I am not going to change your mind, you will not change mine, so stop this petty attacking.

If you want to talk about something of substance, I welcome that, if you want to make accusations, I will just put you on ignore, I do not have anyone on ignore currently, but I will make an exception for you.

I don't expect you to. I just enjoy pointing out your hypocrisy, lies, and moral relativism. You admitted to doing it, which is odd that you now want to try and play the victim card about it.

[GennGreymane]

None of u protect me when they gib me the ban hammer :'( and I dont even harass parents of dead children.

[Shadowmelded]

Looks like McInnes is gone too now lol.

[Deleted]

Proud boys and Gavin McInnes just got twitter nuked.