Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

FTA69

Well Pegida were done in and scattered before so hopefully this lot get the same treatment.

paleoperson

Overheal wrote: »

Is google dodging taxes or have your elected officials carved out allowances for them? Your ire seems misplaced.

Google are notorious for dodging taxes the world over, this is acknowledged by the mainstream left. Try reading a newspaper some time. I'd worry about my own basic information first rather than picking one term from his post and speculating about his "ire".

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

The people are not protesting on Google behalf. They are protesting O'Doherty's racist, homophobic and hateful rhetoric.

I don't think anyone suggested they were protesting "on Google's behalf".

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

Gemma o Doherty wants to use YouTube. She wants to use the corporations services. That's why she's outside Google.

Yes and they will have to provide valid reasons for denying it to her. Being "hateful" is hardly a valid reason. You could be hateful against an evil tyrant and I doubt that would get you banned. Google will have to come up with some valid responses and show key areas where she is being hateful, homophobic and the rest of it. She is entitled to use the services of a corporation as a citizen of Ireland unless there's a compelling reason why not.

I can't say I've followed her that closely so I don't know what she said recently, but I do know that herself, John Waters and Dave Cullen and the like are certainly standing up for a lot of people in every part of Irish society including the working class and are making a lot of really valid and important points.

A key question here will be - if what Gemma O' Doherty was doing was so vile and hateful/whatever - then why couldn't it be a matter for the police to take up? Why should a third party corporation get to decide? That's what we have laws for.

Overheal wrote: »

Your post is laughable.

What part of what he said was wrong?

MarquisDeSad

Another laughable post. So much nonsense.

AndrewJRenko

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

Gemma o Doherty wants to use YouTube. She wants to use the corporations services. That's why she's outside Google.

Or more specifically, she wants the ad revenue that comes with hosting video on YouTube. There are plenty of ways for her to get her video message out there if that was her priority.



Follow the money.

Timberrrrrrrr

paleoperson wrote: »

Google are notorious for dodging taxes the world over, this is acknowledged by the mainstream left. Try reading a newspaper some time. I'd worry about my own basic information first rather than picking one term from his post and speculating about his "ire".



I don't think anyone suggested they were protesting "on Google's behalf".



Yes and they will have to provide valid reasons for denying it to her. Being "hateful" is hardly a valid reason. You could be hateful against an evil tyrant and I doubt that would get you banned. Google will have to come up with some valid responses and show key areas where she is being hateful, homophobic and the rest of it. She is entitled to use the services of a corporation as a citizen of Ireland unless there's a compelling reason why not.

I can't say I've followed her that closely so I don't know what she said recently, but I do know that herself, John Waters and Dave Cullen and the like are certainly standing up for a lot of people in every part of Irish society including the working class and are making a lot of really valid and important points.

A key question here will be - if what Gemma O' Doherty was doing was so vile and hateful/whatever - then why couldn't it be a matter for the police to take up? Why should a third party corporation get to decide? That's what we have laws for.



What part of what he said was wrong?

They did tell her why she was banned from using youtube, she then went and created a 2nd account to circumvent the ban. This is against the T&C's that she agreed to when joining and they rightly banned her.

She is not "entitled" to use them.no more than you or I are entitled to use boards or any other social media site.

Their house their rules, she broke.the rules and is having a hissy fit over her ban. She can always set up her own website and post her crazy ramblings to her hearts content, why do you think she hasn't done this?

Lackadaisical

Deflecting this into a tangent about the regulation of Google or their tax affairs is frankly pointless and it isn't going to work either, due to the majority of posters here not being that gulloble.

This isn't about Google or any other social media platform, but rather about the content that was published.

These people had absolutely no issues with any of that until Google pulled the channel, assumably because it wasn't in compliance with their published T&C's, which all users agree to when they sign up and are far from heavy handed. In fact, it was Google, Twitter and other platforms that have accidentally facilitated the growth of this far right nonsense in the first place.

Google aren't doing anything other than enforcing their own terms of use. If you want to go down the route of calling for state regulation of social media content, bring it on as it will probably mean far tigher control of this kind of thing!

tigger123

Was Gemma at the protest yesterday? And on which side?

MontgomeryClift

The problem for the counter-protesters and their supporters here is they insist that O'Doherty, Barrett and the like are lunatics, outsiders and political failures who have no real support among the population.

If that's the case, then there really is no need for any censorship or counter-protest in support of that censorship. If her message is so bad then, if left uncensored, it will appeal only to a fringe element or discredit itself completely on account of its "hate, racism and homophobia."

Yet clearly that's not what the rainbow-flag people believe. They obviously suspect that the protesters' message will appeal to a significant portion of the population, which would rather not be subjected to the changes that the corporations, media and political classes have in store for them.

It looks pretty bad for the counter-protestors when they march under the rainbow flag, which is now the common symbol of mass media, international banking and global corporatism, in order to support the censorship of regular people who want access to a platform of discussion that's available to others.

cookie1977

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

The problem for the counter-protesters and their supporters here is they insist that O'Doherty, Barrett and the like are lunatics, outsiders and political failures who have no real support among the population.

If that's the case, then there really is no need for any censorship or counter-protest in support of that censorship. If her message is so bad then, if left uncensored, it will appeal only to a fringe element or discredit itself completely on account of its "hate, racism and homophobia."

Yet clearly that's not what the rainbow-flag people believe. They obviously suspect that the protesters' message will appeal to a significant portion of the population, which would rather not be subjected to the changes that the corporations, media and political classes have in store for them.

It looks pretty bad for the counter-protestors when they march under the rainbow flag, which is now the common symbol of mass media, international banking and global corporatism, in order to support the censorship of regular people who want access to a platform of discussion that's available to others.

You're conflating two very disparate things. Hate speech should not be seen as free speech. And the issues surrounding a company should not be used to justify hate speech rights. They should be dealt with separately.

The Nal

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

The problem for the counter-protesters and their supporters here is they insist that O'Doherty, Barrett and the like are lunatics, outsiders and political failures who have no real support among the population.

If that's the case, then there really is no need for any censorship or counter-protest in support of that censorship. If her message is so bad then, if left uncensored, it will appeal only to a fringe element or discredit itself completely on account of its "hate, racism and homophobia."

Yet clearly that's not what the rainbow-flag people believe. They obviously suspect that the protesters' message will appeal to a significant portion of the population, which would rather not be subjected to the changes that the corporations, media and political classes have in store for them.

It looks pretty bad for the counter-protestors when they march under the rainbow flag, which is now the common symbol of mass media, international banking and global corporatism, in order to support the censorship of regular people who want access to a platform of discussion that's available to others.

I thought it was a bad idea to counter protest. Should've just left them alone. Gemma has the same 7 or 8 morons there every day. The numbers weren't growing. This has added fuel to the fire. Streisand effect.

MontgomeryClift

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're conflating two very disparate things. Hate speech should not be seen as free speech. And the issues surrounding a company should not be used to justify hate speech rights. They should be dealt with separately.

I'm not conflating anything. I never mentioned free speech.

cookie1977

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

I'm not conflating anything. I never mentioned free speech.

Message, speech. Whats the difference? Vial contemptuous messages of hate of others should not be permitted a sounding board. Particularly if that same person is profiting from them.

paleoperson

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

She is not "entitled" to use them.no more than you or I are entitled to use boards or any other social media site.

Of course people are entitled to join and use it. It's openly available to the public and not only that is making a lot of money, that puts it into a contract with the people. No matter what their race, gender, age, belief system or whatever they have a right to use it. I was arguing that general purpose websites shouldn't be able to discriminate against and ban people as they wish since well over a decade ago.

"their house their rules" is an outdated concept for websites that as was stated I never fell for in the first place. Even Zuckerberg himself has stated that Facebook and social media has to come to the point where it's obvious that they need to be more strongly regulated. So here you have the CEO of one of the most greedy corporations in existence admitting it and you're still arguing against it for the sole purpose of that they're aligning with your political views, that's just shameful.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Their house their rules, she broke.the rules and is having a hissy fit over her ban. She can always set up her own website and post her crazy ramblings to her hearts content, why do you think she hasn't done this?

What about that man/woman/whatever in Canada who is taking multiple cases against salons for daring to not wax his balls? Trying somewhat successfully so far to get them shut down and ruining their lives? What about "their house their rules"?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/19/canadas-bizarre-trans-waxing-controversy/

What's more Google and Youtube are not publishers like a newspaper would be. They have explicitly denied being publishers in court many times to escape charges of libel or slander, they claim they are merely conduits of material like the postal system. It would be like if the postal service decided they weren't going to send material to or from a particular person anymore.

Frankly, at this point maybe the likes of twitter, facebook and youtube should be brought under the direct control of the governments at this point, because some people obviously just aren't getting it.

Imagine if they decided they were going to refuse email services to particular people they didn't like. Imagine if banks refused to give people accounts solely for the reason of their political beliefs. There's no excuse for that type of carry on.

cookie1977

paleoperson wrote: »

Of course people are entitled to join and use it. It's openly available to the public and not only that is making a lot of money, that puts it into a contract with the people. No matter what their race, gender, age, belief system or whatever they have a right to use it. I was arguing that general purpose websites shouldn't be able to discriminate against and ban people as they wish since well over a decade ago.

"their house their rules" is an outdated concept for websites that as was stated I never fell for in the first place. Even Zuckerberg himself has stated that Facebook and social media has to come to the point where it's obvious that they need to be more strongly regulated. So here you have the CEO of one of the most greedy corporations in existence admitting it and you're still arguing against it for the sole purpose of that they're aligning with your political views, that's just shameful.



What about that man/woman/whatever in Canada who is taking multiple cases against salons for daring to not wax his balls? Trying somewhat successfully so far to get them shut down and ruining their lives? What about "their house their rules"?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/19/canadas-bizarre-trans-waxing-controversy/

What's more Google and Youtube are not publishers like a newspaper would be. They have explicitly denied being publishers in court many times to escape charges of libel or slander, they claim they are merely conduits of material like the postal system. It would be like if the postal service decided they weren't going to send material to or from a particular person anymore.

Frankly, at this point maybe the likes of twitter, facebook and youtube should be brought under the direct control of the governments at this point, because some people obviously just aren't getting it.

Imagine if they decided they were going to refuse email services to particular people they didn't like. Imagine if banks refused to give people accounts solely for the reason of their political beliefs. There's no excuse for that type of carry on.

Sounds like whataboutism

AndrewJRenko

paleoperson wrote: »

Of course people are entitled to join and use it. It's openly available to the public and not only that is making a lot of money, that puts it into a contract with the people. No matter what their race, gender, age, belief system or whatever they have a right to use it. I was arguing that general purpose websites shouldn't be able to discriminate against and ban people as they wish since well over a decade ago.

"their house their rules" is an outdated concept for websites that as was stated I never fell for in the first place. Even Zuckerberg himself has stated that Facebook and social media has to come to the point where it's obvious that they need to be more strongly regulated. So here you have the CEO of one of the most greedy corporations in existence admitting it and you're still arguing against it for the sole purpose of that they're aligning with your political views, that's just shameful.



What about that man/woman/whatever in Canada who is taking multiple cases against salons for daring to not wax his balls? Trying somewhat successfully so far to get them shut down and ruining their lives? What about "their house their rules"?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/19/canadas-bizarre-trans-waxing-controversy/

What's more Google and Youtube are not publishers like a newspaper would be. They have explicitly denied being publishers in court many times to escape charges of libel or slander, they claim they are merely conduits of material like the postal system. It would be like if the postal service decided they weren't going to send material to or from a particular person anymore.

Frankly, at this point maybe the likes of twitter, facebook and youtube should be brought under the direct control of the governments at this point, because some people obviously just aren't getting it.

Imagine if they decided they were going to refuse email services to particular people they didn't like. Imagine if banks refused to give people accounts solely for the reason of their political beliefs. There's no excuse for that type of carry on.

Normal anti-discrimination laws apply to websites, just like any other services.


No-one is being blocked on YouTube because of their political beliefs. They are being blocked for inciting hatred, which is against the law.

Ulysses Gaze

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Normal anti-discrimination laws apply to websites, just like any other services.


No-one is being blocked on YouTube because of their political beliefs. They are being blocked for inciting hatred, which is against the law.

Why people don't get this, I don't know.

Lackadaisical

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Why people don't get this, I don't know.

I suspect they do get it, they simply chose to attempt to conflate it with freedom of speech, or they seem to think that the kind of bile that's being spewed should somehow be protected by the law.

Very broad freedom of speech is protected in Ireland, but like almost anywhere else, it's subject to certain T&Cs and it does not mean that you can just expect no reaction / consequence. Other people can speak back, and do so extremely loudly and there are certain acts of expression which are not allowed - e.g. incitement to hatred, sedition, conspiracy to commit a crime, harassment.. even on the not so nasty levels things like reporting restrictions around court cases and of course you can't just yell lies about someone or you can be sued for defamation.

In terms of Google, like any business, they're expected to not discriminate on the grounds of: gender (m/f/tg), civil status (single/married/seperated/divorced), religious beliefs (or none), pregnancy, sexual orientation, age (if over 18), race (which extends to nationality), membership of the traveller community or disability.

*NONE* of that covers the right to post offensive videos and it's entirely up to Google to decide what they deem to be offensive or not (within the law).

Google / YouTube T&Cs are very clear and published, so I am sure they're quite capable of justifying why they opted to terminate the accounts. They're not exactly prone to shutting things down at a whim. In fact, many would argue they don't intervene nearly enough and are extremely laissez-faire.

The Nal

https://twitter.com/trol_exesas/status/1160493212827627522?s=19

Nulu5

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're conflating two very disparate things. Hate speech should not be seen as free speech. And the issues surrounding a company should not be used to justify hate speech rights. They should be dealt with separately.

" Hate speech " as some would see it as subjective who gets to decide and define what is " hate speech"? For example in the past some of the counter protesters have described comments made by Glinner on issues dubbed " trans issue " as so called " hate speech " whereas some other people would see it as fair comment. Last October when Peter Casey made his comments about travellers some described his comments as " hate speech " while others thought he made a fair comment/fair point.

cookie1977

Nulu5 wrote: »

" Hate speech " as some would see it as subjective who gets to decide and define what is " hate speech"? For example in the past some of the counter protesters have described comments made by Glinner on issues dubbed " trans issue " as so called " hate speech " whereas some other people would see it as fair comment. Last October when Peter Casey made his comments about travellers some described his comments as " hate speech " while others thought he made a fair comment/fair point.

More whataboutism. In Gemma's case we can call a spade a spade.

Nulu5

cookie1977 wrote: »

More whataboutism. In Gemma's case we can call a spade a spade.

Im not talking about Gemmas case. Im replying to the comment in your post about " hate speech " as one comment can be seen by some as fair comment and by another as " hate speech " it is subjective, given this who gets to decide and define what is " hate speech "?

cookie1977

Nulu5 wrote: »

Im not talking about Gemmas case. Im replying to the comment in your post about " hate speech " as one comment can be seen by some as fair comment and by another as " hate speech " it is subjective, given this who gets to decide and define what is " hate speech "?

Who are these "some people"?

Nulu5

cookie1977 wrote: »

Who are these "some people"?

When one looks at past online threads some people commenting agreed with Casey and Glinner whereas some counter protesters described Glinners views as
" hate speech " and self pro claimed anti racism groups described Caseys comments as the same.

cookie1977

Nulu5 wrote: »

When one looks at past online threads some people commenting agreed with Casey and Glinner whereas some counter protesters described Glinners views as
" hate speech " and self pro claimed anti racism groups described Caseys comments as the same.

Some people this, some people that. Just because some people believe something doesn't make it right. Some people once believed the earth was flat, some still do...

Birneybau

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Why people don't get this, I don't know.

Because they are disingenuous. They do get it but prefer to twist it. It's rife.

Also, with regards to 'false flag' Nazi saluter, why the fcuk would you do it, without covering your face, when it's obvious that you will be photographed.

Even IF you were a plant, no one would believe you if you came out and said that after the fact. Could lose your job, but hey, a martyr for the left :pac:

MarquisDeSad

Nulu5 wrote: »

cookie1977 wrote: »

Who are these "some people"?

When one looks at past online threads some people commenting agreed with Casey and Glinner whereas some counter protesters described Glinners views as
" hate speech " and self pro claimed anti racism groups described Caseys comments as the same.

Can people say whatever they want without a reply? Can hate speech mongers like Gemma o Doherty expect not to be challenged?

I remember a previous poster with exact same paradoxical view on free speech. He believed hate speech should be allowed without counter. Which of course is nonsense.

super_furry

Ooooh Gemtrails saving her skin and dropping the nazis in it. I suppose the signs were there when she opted against turning up on Saturday in the first place.

Looks like the PJ and Duncan looking nazi could be a member of Identity Ireland anyway.

paleoperson

cookie1977 wrote: »

Sounds like whataboutism

"whataboutism" is a ridiculous argument used by the US to excuse their own atrocities while condemning others for theirs. You can't seriously tell me you're an educated person in modern times falling for the idea that it's a fallacy to point out inconsistencies in another person's belief system.

cookie1977

paleoperson wrote: »

"whataboutism" is a ridiculous argument used by the US to excuse their own atrocities while condemning others for theirs. You can't seriously tell me you're an educated person in modern times falling for the idea that it's a fallacy to point out inconsistencies in another person's belief system.

I agree whataboutism is ridiculous, hence why I called it out.

Blueshoe

super_furry wrote: »

Ooooh Gemtrails saving her skin and dropping the nazis in it. I suppose the signs were there when she opted against turning up on Saturday in the first place.

Looks like the PJ and Duncan looking nazi could be a member of Identity Ireland anyway.

Not necessarily. It's a smart move to disassociate from anyone throwing up a nazi sign or on this case the Roman sign ( some people don't know the difference)
The general public won't show any sympathy to anyone associated with the hand salute. It's a giant step backwards not to condemn it.