Not really. Politicians and government were coming down on them, so outsourcing the duty to government relieves them of the pressure and responsibility.Originally Posted by otherone
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
The crux of the matter, which I don't see yet in this thread, is that all the major platforms acted in concert, within 24 hours of each other. When Spotify didn't jump high enough SJWs took to the media to decry it until it stepped in line.
There is a word for this sort of activity: CARTEL.
I cannot logically have a problem with voluntarily formed cartels. What I can do, is say Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Spotify, and everyone else that colluded to do this needs to have a long, hard look taken at whether the state has propped up any stools under their feet... and then they need to get immediately and forcefully kicked out from under them.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
Nixon was also taken down by the Deep State. here's an interesting article on it:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/...uropean-media/
There is no spoon.
The ultimate solution, of course, we are working on. It’s coming. Few years away still, though. Urbit.
The interim solution will come before the mid-terms, in the form of the dropping of a beautiful, Reese’s-flavored Hammar of Wrathful Judgment. Mark.
That is a total non-solution, man. Just for the record. You need to hard ponder the problem about five levels deeper. Ideally ten.
True decentralization solves. Technically and totally.
Enforcement of the First Amendment online solves legally, and in time for the Red Wave at midterms.
The issue here is not (yet) one of free speech, since, as many have pointed out, these are private corporations. Looking for government collusion with these big tech companies to justify a free speech issue is, in my opinion, the wrong approach.
The issue at hand is discrimination, and there are laws (right or wrong) on the books prohibiting discrimination.
A good attorney would use this, and force these companies who want to silence him into either changing their policy to include a statement to the effect that all "right-wing political views are not allowed" or reverse their decision and treat Jones like any other customer.
Jones was chosen, I am sure, because he is on the extreme end of the political spectrum and they can use other charges that allegedly violate their policies.
But given the fact that these entities are now emboldened to ban other content that clearly lean to the right, and that Twitter recently admitted (big mistake!) that they lean to the left, discrimination is the best defense here. They can ban whomever they want, but it has be consistent with their policies, and not violate discrimination laws. Those wanting to silence him are the same ones prosecuting bakers, florists, etc. for choosing not to serve customers who are homosexuals. Double standard.
If his broadcasting channels do silence him, then there are bigger issues related to government, including FCC regulations.
And to all those who criticize him for using these platforms and believe he will now fail, it has already been shown that these actions against him have INCREASED his readers/viewers, because he has always had his content available outside these platforms.
It is always wise to promote your speech on your own property (which still relies on Internet connectivity, airwaves, etc.), but anyone who does not, in addition to hosting your own content, utilize these massive traffic platforms is unwise if they truly want to get their message to the masses. But one needs to always have a backup plan to be sure they can continue, if something like this happens.
Last edited by Created4; 08-20-2018 at 10:33 AM.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
But the government has directly threatened Facebook to remove Alex Jones.
I responded to you earlier with this but you never replied:
"But they're private enterprises being threatened by the government. Have you seen the video of the congressional hearing where Facebook is threatened? By the way Ron Paul was censored recently as well. Facebook is not the problem, government is. I seriously doubt Facebook would voluntarily do that much censoring.
I'm hoping that some of the people being censored will sue the government for 1st amendment violations.
30 second mark shows congressional threats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2vVc4abqKI "
I feel like I'm in twilight zone on this topic. Neither side seems to agree with me that the government threatening Facebook is the main issue.
Another thing about this that bugs me. The one congressman said "Why is infowars STILL on your website?" That sure sounds like Facebook had already been warned by the Feds. What else could it mean?
Just to show I'm not a Kool-Aid drinker of either side (like 90% of you guys), republicans should not be grilling Facebook as to why they banned anybody either. Democrats shouldn't be warning Facebook to ban websites and Republicans shouldn't be warning Facebook to not ban them.
Last edited by Madison320; 08-20-2018 at 07:07 PM.
Is DJT treating A.J like a poker player bargaining chip, now that he has a bigger platform?
When he first totally plunged in, in 2015, Alex Jones helped to give him legitimacy & fans.
The orchestrated stripping away of A.J's mass media outlets in a short timespan is no fluke.
He can.
"Since." "Since."
There is no "since" here. I find no "since" in your sentence. Now, ironically, I completely understand what your saying, and on some level agree with it, but let me break down the situation for you:
The Crime: All right-wing voices are being systematically de-platformed from the public square. All of them are. And they are being thoroughly de-platformed: kicked off all websites, kicked off their own websites, robbed of their own domains, kicked off all payment platforms, and, if they are normal people with a job, doxxed and forced to be fired and indeed hounded out of their lives in any and all aspects they can come up with (and they are quite imaginative).
The Motive: It's their speech. It's because of what they say. Their choosing to speak certain truths results in an unstoppable process that ends with the destruction of their lives.
So, what is free speech? What does free speech mean to you?
Does it have something to do with: being able to speak freely! Maybe?
I would think it does. Free speech, and possessing the ability to speak freely, those two things seem related to me. Am I wrong? Am I just dumb? What say thee, Created4? What say ye all?
There are many, many issues, good Madison. What "The Issue" is depends on what you are trying to solve.
What are you trying to solve?
Would just, like, not having Congressmen bother/"threaten" Zuck solve the problem you've identified?
Seriously, tell us! It will be a good exercise. Solidly formulate the problem, and then explain whether and why and why maybe not that threatening or stopping threatening or differently threatening tech executives would solve that problem. It will help you clarify your own thinking.
I think it's a problem when government forcibly restricts speech. I think that issue far outweighs whether or not Facebook has a liberal agenda. I think one solution would be for someone like Alex Jones to sue congress for violating the 1st amendment.
What's your solution?
Last edited by Madison320; 08-21-2018 at 02:59 PM.
Well, SINCE you do not seem to understand English grammar, there is no point continuing this discussion with you.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
The bottom line is that facebook et al were not legally required to remove Jones; nor do I find it likely that they felt coerced by some congressman's comments during a televised committee-xtravaganza. I think they did it because (a) they didn't want to risk losing users/advertisers who hate Jones, and (b) they themselves hate Jones.
I don't know. If I got called before congress and was asked why I was STILL doing something, I'd take it as a threat. What if Trump ordered Facebook to the White House and demanded to know why Black Lives Matter was still on their site? I don't think government officials should be doing that at all. Especially given how subjective internet laws are. It would be easy for the government to punish disobedience without actually making it an official law.
You're sort of the Alex Jones of RPF.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
I entirely agree; but I don't think that's why facebook did what they did. And, even it did affect the decision, the solution would not be an SJW-like lawsuit based on the 1st amendment, or nationalization of facebook (!), as some here apparently want, but to simply have the government get out of the business of even commenting on these matters.
Facebook's own business plan hinges on giving advertisers direct demographic access
to roughly 2.2 billion people, for a gov't NOT to have the propagandist impulse/desire
to likewise have access to those same said poor people is to me such an esoteric shock.
Zing!!C’mon, C4, play ball. Does this quantum we call “free speech” have anything to do with “real humans having the real practical ability, in reality, to speak freely”? Or is it a more mysterious quantum with a more esoteric definition? What say ye? Hold forth! Impart your thoughts freely.
I partly agree but we have no way of knowing why Facebook banned infowars. And I would also argue that those congressmen were doing a lot worse than merely "commenting". They were very specifically asking Facebook "Why is infowars still on your website"?
My question for you is at what point is it a 1st amendment violation? Like I said earlier what if Trump summoned Facebook to the WH and asked them "Why is BLM still on your website?" Is it a 1st amendment violation if the government only threatens force or do they actually need to take forceful action? In my opinion congress crossed the line into 1st amendment territory when they specifically demanded that infowars be removed.
I don't understand why you think a solution to 1st amendment violation would be nationalizing Facebook? Facebook would be the victim in that case. Congress would be the ones who need to get punished.
Like, why? Have you ever asked yourself that? *Why* is it a bad thing for govt goons to restrict free speech? (Is it because it’s a good thing when free men can speak freely? Some other reasoning? Let us know). Would it still be a “problem” if the govt decided to outsource the function to some other goons? Just as long as outside contractor goons do the restricting, is that then, like, too legit to quit?
Along this same line, next time I am painfully negotiating with “Rog(er)” in Cleveland, India, am I under obligation to not be angry at AT&T, because after all Rog just works for a shell corporation — a *totally different!* company — based in Ireland, so I must confine my anger to Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. It’s in no way a problem related to AT&T. Totally not their problem.
You don’t even know what my problem is. A solution would be premature.What's your solution?
Last edited by H_H; 08-22-2018 at 08:15 AM.
Neg rep for wasting my time with gibberish.
Check out Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com
Free alternative to Youtube.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
Senator Ron Wyden Demands “Consequences” For Platforms That Don’t “Remove People Like Alex Jones”
https://www.infowars.com/senator-ron...ke-alex-jones/
First BIG LIE they are telling is that "supporting Alex Jones Right to Free Speech is the same as supporting what he said". The REAL goal is to silence EVERYONE by eliminating Free Speech.
1776 > 1984
The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.
The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide
Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled
Certainly
Whatever you call it, my point is that it was talk, contra law.And I would also argue that those congressmen were doing a lot worse than merely "commenting". They were very specifically asking Facebook "Why is infowars still on your website"?
A threat would suffice, IMO, but it's not at all clear that a threat was made.My question for you is at what point is it a 1st amendment violation? Like I said earlier what if Trump summoned Facebook to the WH and asked them "Why is BLM still on your website?" Is it a 1st amendment violation if the government only threatens force or do they actually need to take forceful action? In my opinion congress crossed the line into 1st amendment territory when they specifically demanded that infowars be removed.
Watch any committee hearing about anything, and you'll find someone insisting that someone do something.
Moreover, the politicians who most dislike the pro-Trump hack Jones aren't even in power.
I don't understand why you think I think that.I don't understand why you think a solution to 1st amendment violation would be nationalizing Facebook?
People are proposing the de facto nationalization of social media, converting it into something like a public utility, to "fight bias" or whatever.
I'm saying that's profoundly stupid.
Isn't this what I said?Congress would be the ones who need to get punished.
...not sure what we're disagreeing about.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us