Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Ipso

super_furry wrote: »

U okay hun?

Poor angle x

Ipso

El_Bee wrote: »

they should have thought about that before having illegal opinions.

So Facebook and twatter make laws now

Billy86

El_Bee wrote: »

they should have thought about that before having illegal opinions.

If I am of the opinion that you are a pedophile, should I be allowed use boards.ie as a tool to endlessly push that narrative, including doxxing you, notifying your employers, friends, family etc that you're a pedophile, encouraging others to take action against you for fiddling with children, for years and years and years on end as you are forced to move home time and again with your life in tatters?

Or should boards ban me for doing so? I mean given that it would be against many, many rules in the boards.ie terms of service.

Sonics2k

El_Bee wrote: »

they should have thought about that before having illegal opinions.

Ugh, are we doing this again?

Research people, research! Just a little bit goes a long way.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/06/05/infowars-paul-joseph-watson-can-t-get-anything-right/215506#photoshop

ogsjw

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Where did I defend Milo? I happen to think he's a degenerate actually.

But I do not think he should be banned for his political opinions

And yet he was. Too bad, really, because he's millions in debt and now can't even whine and beg people online to save him from it anymore. Womp womp.

Cienciano

20Cent wrote: »

Screaming lol


https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1124153500068405248?s=19

Perfect, he can play the victim. It's all worth it for the alt right idiot when he can indulge in his wet dream of being a victim. It's what they live for

ogsjw

HOWLING

That c-c-c-combo of the pic and the top comment!!!

Today is a good day.

OMM 0000

Alex Jones was banned because he associates with Gavin McInnes.

But so does Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, and many others.

I wish they'd either be consistent with their bannings, or just have a free speech policy.

McInnes is not a white nationalist, so the ban doesn't make sense anyway.

greencap

Non issue.

Shareholders may find certain views of twitter users objectionable, and being that they are the owners they are free to disassociate their business from those views.

So for example if there was some ultra popular app owned by Virgin and you went on it and started dissing Branson, what could you really expect.

Or some platform owned by the saudis and you went on it and started dissing various sultans, again, what can be expected.

Is it fair, is it biased, doesn't matter.
Like boards, maybe one of the mods disagrees me, they're free to ban me.

Its inconvenient, its not very nice, it may even be out of unfair political bias, but boards still owes me nothing.

Also for all we know twitter shares could be owned by a corporate entity which also sells to demographics which find Watson/Jones' material distasteful.

What that would mean is at a later point it may emerge that company X was a shareholder in Twitter, and did nothing to stop material which its customers find offensive, damaging Company X's reputation.

Customers then might react by changing supplier.

Hundreds of social media apps out there. If twitter bans you I suggest you ask for a full refund. Tough shyte.


(and I'll state this exact same argument for any conceivable political outlook)

OMM 0000

I disagree it's a non-issue.

Why?

Because these platforms are utterly dominant.

They're monopolies, so if you're banned from them, you disappear.

I think they need to be regulated so they have a consistent banning policy, a consistent appeals policy, transparency, etc.

You'll notice their bans are heavily skewed towards the right. This is because the people working in these places (San Francisco) are very left leaning.

20Cent

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I disagree it's a non-issue.

Why?

Because these platforms are utterly dominant.

They're monopolies, so if you're banned from them, you disappear.

I think they need to be regulated so they have a consistent banning policy, a consistent appeals policy, transparency, etc.

You'll notice their bans are heavily skewed towards the right. This is because the people working in these places (San Francisco) are very left leaning.

Government regulation of speech? Are you a Socialist or something?

OMM 0000

20Cent wrote: »

Government regulation of speech? Are you a Socialist or something?

I am a free speech person.

Let people be offended.

But if they're not going to allow free speech, then make them have consistent policies with a chance of forgiveness.

greencap

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I disagree it's a non-issue.

Why?

Because these platforms are utterly dominant.

They're monopolies, so if you're banned from them, you disappear.

I think they need to be regulated so they have a consistent banning policy, a consistent appeals policy, transparency, etc.

You'll notice their bans are heavily skewed towards the right. This is because the people working in these places (San Francisco) are very left leaning.

So once a business hits a certain success level the law changes for it?

This is bending the law and saying 'yeah but...' solely on the basis that you've been inconvenienced.

And inconvenienced online at that. I mean theres not even a drive to a different supplier involved, its a matter of typing a different URL.

These are the snowflakes. People outraged and offended by social media not treating them ..... fair ..... waaah .... fair.

thats not fair, i want change at the corporate legislative level waaah.

OMM 0000

greencap wrote: »

So once a business hits a certain success level the law changes for it?

This is bending the law and saying 'yeah but...' solely on the basis that you've been inconvenienced.

And inconvenienced online at that. I mean theres not even a drive to a different supplier involved, its a matter of typing a different URL.

These are the snowflakes. People outraged and offended by social media not treating them ..... fair ..... waaah .... fair.

thats not fair, i want change at the corporate legislative level waaah.

Yes, there are laws against monopolies.

greencap

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes, there are laws against monopolies.

Does Twitter fit the definition?

OMM 0000

greencap wrote: »

Does Twitter fit the definition?

It's illegal for companies to work together to use their advantage to refuse "business" with a person or individual. It's against antitrust laws.

Twitter, Facebook, etc., banning the same people is (probably) in violation of antitrust laws.

Again my issue here is either allow free speech, or be fair.

They are consistently proving they are unfair.

OMM 0000

^-- company or individual

batgoat

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's illegal for companies to work together to use their advantage to refuse "business" with a person or individual. It's against antitrust laws.

Twitter, Facebook, etc., banning the same people is (probably) in violation of antitrust laws.

Again my issue here is either allow free speech, or be fair.

They are consistently proving they are unfair.

That's a pretty big leap. It's more that they're violating individual terms of service. In Europe, it's likely they're hitting incitement to hatred law. In the US, there's no grounds to enforce freedom of speech on a business.

20Cent

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's illegal for companies to work together to use their advantage to refuse "business" with a person or individual. It's against antitrust laws.

Twitter, Facebook, etc., banning the same people is (probably) in violation of antitrust laws.

Again my issue here is either allow free speech, or be fair.

They are consistently proving they are unfair.

To prove that how about you tell us some left wing twitter or facebook accounts that are doing the same thing but haven't been banned?

Billy86

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I disagree it's a non-issue.

Why?

Because these platforms are utterly dominant.

They're monopolies, so if you're banned from them, you disappear.

I think they need to be regulated so they have a consistent banning policy, a consistent appeals policy, transparency, etc.

Small problem here - they are not monopolies, and there are literally hundreds of other social media outlets out there for people to use.

You are saying they are too big, not that they are monopolies, but then at what point does a company become 'too big' to be allowed have their own policies and conduct themselves as a business? Like honestly, what metric do you want to use - traffic, userbase, posts per day, something else - and if so, how much do they need to hit to 'too big" quota?

You'll notice their bans are heavily skewed towards the right. This is because the people working in these places (San Francisco) are very left leaning.

Are they though, it is it that those in the right get extremely loud about this - but inky when it applies to them? Note the utter silence on Farrakan, or on Saoradh being banned off twitter a week back. Not a peep from any of them on it, and very few on the left/centre doing so either because they don't feel a cult like devotion to blindly defend enyything in "their team".

The difference is when Alex Jones gets banned his sycophants create threads hundreds of posts long across the internet, but when someone like Jake Passi does... well can you find the on after hours for me, from when that happened?

Billy86

greencap wrote: »

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes, there are laws against monopolies.

Does Twitter fit the definition?

Not even close.

mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
"his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"
a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
"areas where cable companies operate as monopolies"
a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.
"electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies"
the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something.
"men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love"


Twitter do not have exclusive control of social media, or even close to it. There are literally hundreds of social media outlets out there. The fact that some are trying to claim that MULTIPLE companies (fb, twitter, etc) have a monopoly over ONE specific industry pretty much kills the argument before it even gets going.

greencap

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's illegal for companies to work together to use their advantage to refuse "business" with a person or individual. It's against antitrust laws.

Twitter, Facebook, etc., banning the same people is (probably) in violation of antitrust laws.

Again my issue here is either allow free speech, or be fair.

They are consistently proving they are unfair.

I think various US prosecutors would be on it by now if twitter was breaking the law.

This is not a free speech issue, free speech does not include private social media companies.

Your free speech concerns your freedoms, not the freedoms of other people.

The standard of free speech in the 70's, 80's, 90's was considered widely healthy and acceptable.

If you leave twitter you revert back to that perfectly good level.

You can have billboards, books, phone calls, megaphones, radio, tv, newspapers, public gatherings, letters, street corners, all for your message.

And indeed all of the internet too, bar a few sites of the endless thousands available.

All of those means are available for free speech. More means than were available for reagan, bush snr, bush jnr, clinton.

And those men, who ran successful public campaigns never once considered themselves to not have free speech.

OMM 0000

20Cent wrote: »

To prove that how about you tell us some left wing twitter or facebook accounts that are doing the same thing but haven't been banned?

Have you been to twitter lately?

It's absolutely full of anti-white racism, anti-male sexism, and conspiracy theory peddlers about Trump being a Russian spy.

Surely you remember the Covington High School nonsense? Lots of people threatening violence and doxing against the kids, but none of them banned.

OMM 0000

Billy86 wrote: »

Small problem here - they are not monopolies, and there are literally hundreds of other social media outlets out there for people to use.

You are saying they are too big, not that they are monopolies, but then at what point does a company become 'too big' to be allowed have their own policies and conduct themselves as a business? Like honestly, what metric do you want to use - traffic, userbase, posts per day, something else - and if so, how much do they need to hit to 'too big" quota?


Are they though, it is it that those in the right get extremely loud about this - but inky when it applies to them? Note the utter silence on Farrakan, or on Saoradh being banned off twitter a week back. Not a peep from any of them on it, and very few on the left/centre doing so either because they don't feel a cult like devotion to blindly defend enyything in "their team".

The difference is when Alex Jones gets banned his sycophants create threads hundreds of posts long across the internet, but when someone like Jake Passi does... well can you find the on after hours for me, from when that happened?

You're not being fair if you claim twitter, Facebook, etc., aren't monopolies.

Hardly anyone knows or uses their competitors.

The reason no one cares Farrakan or Saoradh were banned is because they are genuine extremists peddling hate. They're impossible to defend.

greencap

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Have you been to twitter lately?

It's absolutely full of anti-white racism, anti-male sexism, and conspiracy theory peddlers about Trump being a Russian spy.

Surely you remember the Covington High School nonsense? Lots of people threatening violence and doxing against the kids, but none of them banned.

So dont go to that site.

And why confound one issue (twitter) with a separate issue (covington). What do twitters management have that connects them to some random kids in some other story?

are they in on it together? did whoever was at that incident get together with twitters management and come up with a plan?

OMM 0000

greencap wrote: »

So dont go to that site.

And why confound one issue (twitter) with a separate issue. What do twitters management have that connects them to some random kids in some other story?

are they in on it together? did whoever was at that incident get together with twitters management and come up with a plan?

But if you're a media personality, you need twitter.

Banning a media personality because you don't like their political views really damages their career.

The problem is companies like twitter are mostly staffed with left leaning people, so their bannings mostly target the right.

They allow anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-right.

I'm just asking for fairness. Do you think that's unreasonable?

Billy86

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections

More left wing accounts banned on Twitter. Where was the 1,200 post thread for this?

Where is the 1,200 post thread for Saoradh Twitter being suspended?

Where is the 1,200 post thread for that Jake Passi guys page being deleted?

Where is your, and the rest of the supposed free speech advocates on AHs collective outrage about all of this?

OMM 0000

Billy86 wrote: »

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections

More left wing accounts banned on Twitter. Where was the 1,200 post thread for this?

Where is the 1,200 post thread for Saoradh Twitter being suspended?

Where is the 1,200 post thread for that Jake Passi guys page being deleted?

Where is your, and the rest of the supposed free speech advocates on AHs collective outrage about all of this?

As I've said multiple times, I think they should allow speech, even if it's offensive.

You're forcing me to keep repeating myself.

Either have a free speech policy or be fair.

No one can say they're currently fair.

Billy86

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Small problem here - they are not monopolies, and there are literally hundreds of other social media outlets out there for people to use.

You are saying they are too big, not that they are monopolies, but then at what point does a company become 'too big' to be allowed have their own policies and conduct themselves as a business? Like honestly, what metric do you want to use - traffic, userbase, posts per day, something else - and if so, how much do they need to hit to 'too big" quota?


Are they though, it is it that those in the right get extremely loud about this - but inky when it applies to them? Note the utter silence on Farrakan, or on Saoradh being banned off twitter a week back. Not a peep from any of them on it, and very few on the left/centre doing so either because they don't feel a cult like devotion to blindly defend enyything in "their team".

The difference is when Alex Jones gets banned his sycophants create threads hundreds of posts long across the internet, but when someone like Jake Passi does... well can you find the on after hours for me, from when that happened?

You're not being fair if you claim twitter, Facebook, etc., aren't monopolies.

Hardly anyone knows or uses their competitors.

The reason no one cares Farrakan or Saoradh were banned is because they are genuine extremists peddling hate. They're impossible to defend.

Fair? No I am being literal. They literally are it monopolies, and simply saying they are is not going to change that. Christ, you are claiming MULTIPLE companies hold a monopoly over ONE thing, your argument makes no sense on this front.

Your second paragraph explains Alex Jones and co. to a tee (as well as farrakan and Saoradh, I support their bans too). It's would appear at this point that you have no interest in the "free speech" you are talking about.

MrFresh

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I disagree it's a non-issue.

Why?

Because these platforms are utterly dominant.

They're monopolies, so if you're banned from them, you disappear.

I think they need to be regulated so they have a consistent banning policy, a consistent appeals policy, transparency, etc.

You'll notice their bans are heavily skewed towards the right. This is because the people working in these places (San Francisco) are very left leaning.

I don't think there's any evidence their bans are skewed towards a particular ideology. The right certainly make a louder stink about theirs and they have had higher profiles people banned. But I don't think it's simply a case of tach companies leaning left, it's more that the loudest voices on the right these days are pushing fake news and going hard into ideologies of hate.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's illegal for companies to work together to use their advantage to refuse "business" with a person or individual. It's against antitrust laws.

Twitter, Facebook, etc., banning the same people is (probably) in violation of antitrust laws.

Again my issue here is either allow free speech, or be fair.

They are consistently proving they are unfair.

Don't those laws require collusion?

OMM 0000

Billy86 wrote: »

Fair? No I am being literal. They literally are it monopolies, and simply saying they are is not going to change that. Christ, you are claiming MULTIPLE companies hold a monopoly over ONE thing, your argument makes no sense on this front.

Your second paragraph explains Alex Jones and co. to a tee. But thanks for letti g us know your "free speech" mantra over the last while has nothing at all to do with free speech at all.

You're being unreasonable.

If you are banned from twitter, facebook, instagram and youtube, you're basically gone from 99%+ of normal people's browsing habits.

You disappear.

Sure you can put your videos on Vimeo or have your own website, but you've lost almost the entire audience because twitter, facebook, instagram and youtube have a monopoly on traffic.

Your final paragraph makes no sense. Just because most people don't care about Farrakan or Saoradh being banned, how does that mean I don't really support free speech?

As I've repeatedly said here, I believe in free speech. Allow it all. Let people be offended. Just don't allow incitement of violence.

OMM 0000

MrFresh wrote: »

I don't think there's any evidence their bans are skewed towards a particular ideology. The right certainly make a louder stink about theirs and they have had higher profiles people banned. But I don't think it's simply a case of tach companies leaning left, it's more that the loudest voices on the right these days are pushing fake news and going hard into ideologies of hate.

Don't those laws require collusion?

You don't think it's strange how Apple, Facebook, etc. all banned Alex Jones on the same day? Seems like collusion to me...

The tech companies definitely have a bias. It's really easy to prove.

Go say something anti-muslim or anti-black, and you will be banned.

Go say something anti-Christian or anti-white... no bother.

OMM 0000

Btw I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I think he talks nonsense.

greencap

OMM 0000 wrote: »

But if you're a media personality, you need twitter.

Banning a media personality because you don't like their political views really damages their career.

The problem is companies like twitter are mostly staffed with left leaning people, so their bannings mostly target the right.

They allow anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-right.

I'm just asking for fairness. Do you think that's unreasonable?

No you don't. Use a different social media site, or set up your own site.
Or just don't use social media at all.
You don't need it .... you want it.

So what if they have a left leaning staff culture. Go to fox or the telegraph, tell them you're a lefty see if you get a job.

I think its probably pushing it with the law to hire on the basis of political outlook, but thats the reality of the workplace. Good luck proving it.

If they're spreading some kind of anti-white male shyte online, or being biased in their bannings I couldn't give a hoot, (as a white male), let them circle jerk away. Not my world.

Twitter is no different to bebo or myspace except in popularity.
The whinge fest here is that people perceive themselves to be unable to vote with their feet. (when in fact they can)

Had there been a few equally large rival companies there would be no talk of a threat to free speech, no posturing as a suppressed political radical, no martyr act.

But now faced with slightly inferior platforms and the inconvenience of coordinating future communication its evidently an issue of constitutional level importance.

Billy86

When it's far left scumbags:

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The reason no one cares Farrakan or Saoradh were banned is because they are genuine extremists peddling hate. They're impossible to defend.

When it's far right scumbags:

OMM 0000 wrote: »

As I've said multiple times, I think they should allow speech, even if it's offensive.

And only posted minutes apart, which is frankly pretty amazing even by AH standards.

Now, can you please stop pretending your objection has anything to do with free speech or fairness, and be more consistent as to your reasoning why you get so offended by the far right being banned, but not the far left?

OMM 0000

Billy86 wrote: »

When it's far left scumbags:


When it's far right scumbags:

And only posted minutes apart, which is frankly pretty amazing even by AH standards.

Now, can you please stop pretending your objection has anything to do with free speech or fairness, and be more consistent as to your reasoning why you get so offended by the far right being banned, but not the far left?

I wasn't talking about me.

You asked me why aren't people complaining about Farrakan or Saoradh being banned, and I replied saying no one cares about those people being banned because they're seen at hate merchants.

It seems you've decided who I am and what my opinions are, and you keep trying to prove it.

For the final time:

I believe in free speech, and think people should not be getting banned. I don't care if some people get offended. It is worth it to have free speech.

Billy86

OMM 0000 wrote: »

.Go say something anti-Christian or anti-white... no bother.

Given the number of times it has been pointed out to you that racist Farrakan was banned the other day two, it's beginning to look like you might be intentionally trolling.

OMM 0000

greencap wrote: »

No you don't. Use a different social media site, or set up your own site.
Or just don't use social media at all.
You don't need it .... you want it.

You're not being reasonable.

Being banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram means you've lost 99%+ of the market.

Look at Milo. He was banned and now he's disappeared.

OMM 0000

Billy86 wrote: »

Given the number of times it has been pointed out to you that racist Farrakan was banned the other day two, it's beginning to look like you might be intentionally trolling.

He's anti-Jew.

Look, you're not thinking through any of your responses, so I'm not going to reply to you anymore.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're not being reasonable.

Being banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram means you've lost 99%+ of the market.

Look at Milo. He was banned and now he's disappeared.

So its about money then not freedom of speech?

OMM 0000

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So its about money then not freedom of speech?

What?

greencap

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't think it's strange how Apple, Facebook, etc. all banned Alex Jones on the same day? Seems like collusion to me...

The tech companies definitely have a bias. It's really easy to prove.

Go say something anti-muslim or anti-black, and you will be banned.

Go say something anti-Christian or anti-white... no bother.

You're not getting it.

That may all be 100% true .... but it doesn't matter.

There is no teacher to tell.

This is how businesses function. You might be selling product A, and the owner of your rival company selling product B.

If your rival owns enough of the shares of the local newspaper, guess what, your ad is not going in his paper. Or his mates paper.

There is no fair or unfair. There's just legal and illegal.

Some edge lords said some stuff on a platform thats probably largely owned by shareholders who are either minority background themselves, or are white and happen to be lefties.

And they said 'ok well fck you, you're not using our company then'.

And some people are shocked?

I think you're a cnt, oh btw can you give me a lift home?

Billy86

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

When it's far left scumbags:


When it's far right scumbags:

And only posted minutes apart, which is frankly pretty amazing even by AH standards.

Now, can you please stop pretending your objection has anything to do with free speech or fairness, and be more consistent as to your reasoning why you get so offended by the far right being banned, but not the far left?

I wasn't talking about me.

You asked me why aren't people complaining about Farrakan or Saoradh being banned, and I replied saying no one cares about those people being banned because they're seen at hate merchants.

It seems you've decided who I am and what my opinions are, and you keep trying to prove it.

For the final time:

I believe in free speech, and think people should not be getting banned. I don't care if some people get offended. It is worth it to have free speech.

I was asking about you. Why don't you care about them being banned, despite you claiming to be all for free speech? Why are you in other posts (like claiming you can't be banned for saying racist stuff in the other direction, re Farrakan) trying to ignore that they were banned?

The far left are apparently indefensible, even while you're busy leaping overland over to the defense of the far right. You're peddling an agenda, and it's very clear. Otherwise you would be equally offended about all of them being banned, and would have been when Saoradh were also. Instead, you are eagerly minimizing and dismissing those at each and every opportunity.

Billy86

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Look, you're not thinking through any of your responses, so I'm not going to reply to you anymore.

The reason you do t want to respond any further is because I am pointing out the many, many inconsistencies in your argument and the clear agenda you are peddling.

It's a shame too, if you had at least pretended to be consistent on the issue of free speech for the likes of Farrakan or Saoradh you could have done a much more effective job driving a wedge in here.

OMM 0000

greencap wrote: »

You're not getting it.

That may all be 100% true .... but it doesn't matter.

There is no teacher to tell.

This is how businesses function. You might be selling product A, and the owner of your rival company selling product B.

If your rival owns enough of the shares of the local newspaper, guess what, your ad is not going in his paper. Or his mates paper.

There is no fair or unfair. There's just legal and illegal.

Some edge lords said some stuff on a platform thats probably largely owned by shareholders who are either minority background themselves, or are white and happen to be lefties.

And they said 'ok well fck you, you're not using our company then'.

And some people are shocked?

I think you're a cnt, oh btw can you give me a lift home?

You're not getting what I'm saying either.

These companies are where most people get their information. They are able to shape what speech people see. They do this via their algorithms and by banning opinions they don't like.

It's not good for society.

I understand they are private businesses and currently they can do whatever they want. What I'm saying is deeper than that. Looking at things in a black and white way (it's legal, so no problem!) is not very insightful.

greencap

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're not being reasonable.

Being banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram means you've lost 99%+ of the market.

Look at Milo. He was banned and now he's disappeared.

So don't get banned.

Live by the terms of the service. Don't insult the politics of the owners.

Or, if that doesn't suit you, go use a different service. its your problem.

Lets just say Youtube was 100% owned by a black guy, twitter by a muslim and instragram by a feminist.

Why why why on gods green earth would they do business with me if I was a skinhead nazi.

You and you, out of europe with yis, and you back in the kitchen.
Oh but before you go, can I use your site please.

OMM 0000

greencap wrote: »

So don't get banned.

Live by the terms of the service. Don't insult the politics of the owners.

Or, if that doesn't suit you, go use a different service. its your problem.

Lets just say Youtube was 100% owned by a black guy, twitter by a muslim and instragram by a feminist.

Why why why on gods green earth would they do business with me if I was a skinhead nazi.

You and you, out of europe with yis, and you back in the kitchen.
Oh but before you go, can I use your site please.

The issue is the bannings are not consistent, there is very limited appeals process, there is no potential for forgiveness, and the people in charge have an ideology and political leaning (left) which is causing them to have bias.

I don't think you fully understand this. Your viewpoint is way too black and white, and (sorry) naive.

is_that_so

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're not being reasonable.

Being banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram means you've lost 99%+ of the market.

Look at Milo. He was banned and now he's disappeared.

He's just a troll and there seem to be major financial issues behind it as well. Self-inflicted is the real problem for him. Social media has its rules, flout them and you're out.

is_that_so

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The issue is the bannings are not consistent, there is very limited appeals process, there is no potential for forgiveness, and the people in charge have an ideology and political leaning (left) which is causing them to have bias.

I don't think you fully understand this. Your viewpoint is way too black and white, and (sorry) naive.

Commercial companies decide how people can use their platform. What's hard to understand?

OMM 0000

is_that_so wrote: »

Social media has its rules, flout them and you're out.

It has been proven multiple times that people who break the same rules as him, or worse, don't get banned.

Look, I'm wasting my time here.

It seems many people here think the rules are transparently, fairly, and consistently applied to people. That is not true. And that's the problem.

So the solution is either fix the problem, or just allow all speech (except incitement of violence). I would like the latter.

Maybe a day will come when your own opinion will become wrong-think, you'll get banned, and then you'll realise what the problem is.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, so checking out now.