DStv bans any content with Steve Hofmeyr

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
21,221
Lol at deflection..."not giving airtime" now suddenly becomes "ignoring".
No deflection. It's the same thing but by making an announcement MC is actually giving airtime. Get it?

Poor straw men attempt. They block STEVE not white people. Try to have an honest discussion.

You have no argument, your poor and dishonest reponses displays that.
I am having an honest discussion. You can't answer the question because you know that MC doesn't have all the freedom to decide that you claim they do. All you have is a poorly disguised agenda.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
21,221
This comment is the best
"People should kill their DSTV contracts and pirate everything they carry. It's their choice to remove Steve, but our choice to cripple them."
 

deesef

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
722
This comment is the best
"People should kill their DSTV contracts and pirate everything they carry. It's their choice to remove Steve, but our choice to cripple them."
At last! Some good advice
 

envo

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
2,864
The fact that Steve makes political statements, has nothing to do with anything. (I cannot stand the f***tard, but that's beside the point) Unless DSTV makes the same statements on Andile, Julius, Bill Cosby, Sean Penn, Donald Trump et al, then I'd agree with you. Racewars? So rape is less of a crime than race wars, gotcha (?) Weak argument.
I'm fine with DSTV nailing their colors to the mast, but then be consistent. I do not see them taking this stance against any other person. So this is a very specific attack on an individual, that Multichoice does not agree with. In doing this, they are clearly taking a non-neutral stance with debilitating force towards an ideology/utterance/individual. The elephant is squashing the ant, and being very vocal about it, demanding praise and adoration. This means they have now entered the realm of distancing themselves with causes. Fine, then be consistent, as now a cause you do not condemn will be seen as having your support.
I understand how it is construed to be specifically against Afrikaners. And Afrikaners are getting gatvol of being Sparrow'd, Mentor'd and SchweizerReynecke'd but not VelaphiKhumalo'd, Julius'd, Zuma'd and Andile'd.
again, private companies can play by their own rules. look at how facebook banned all those "right-wing" guys from their platform
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,825
again, private companies can play by their own rules. look at how facebook banned all those "right-wing" guys from their platform
Just because they can ban someone doesn't mean they should.
 

envo

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
2,864
Just because they can ban someone doesn't mean they should.
again, it's their prerogative. ever see a sign in an establishment "we reserve the right to refuse service"?

same thing. they can do it because if someone is a ****, they can throw him out and not be sued for discrimination.

if Steve feels he is being discriminated against, he can take them to court, but he won't, because he knows he can't win because the terms of service explicitly state they can revoke his content if they so choose.

if Multichoice was a public broadcaster and/or the public broadcaster did this, then yes, very very big deal, but a private company deciding to distance themselves from a figure who they think is causing their brand damage by the statements he is making in public, fully within their right and they should do that to prevent further brand damage.

you don't "get" how the real world works it seems, and probably follow the outrage culture. I suggest going on twitter and looking around a bit to find something else to be outraged with, because this is a losing battle you're fighting if you can't understand the concept I explained to you and how it works.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,825
again, it's their prerogative. ever see a sign in an establishment "we reserve the right to refuse service"?

same thing. they can do it because if someone is a ****, they can throw him out and not be sued for discrimination.

if Steve feels he is being discriminated against, he can take them to court, but he won't, because he knows he can't win because the terms of service explicitly state they can revoke his content if they so choose.

if Multichoice was a public broadcaster and/or the public broadcaster did this, then yes, very very big deal, but a private company deciding to distance themselves from a figure who they think is causing their brand damage by the statements he is making in public, fully within their right and they should do that to prevent further brand damage.

you don't "get" how the real world works it seems, and probably follow the outrage culture. I suggest going on twitter and looking around a bit to find something else to be outraged with, because this is a losing battle you're fighting if you can't understand the concept I explained to you and how it works.
Hofmeyer is being targeted for Tweets he made in 2015. It is Multichoice that are being pushed by the outrage mobs on Twitter.

If you think it is good that radical leftists are able to dictate what people can and cannot watch, then I think you are confused.

Of course, Multichoice is free to go down this path, but I don't think it is a good idea.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
14,714
again, it's their prerogative. ever see a sign in an establishment "we reserve the right to refuse service"?
And in exactly the same way, no person is required to use the services of multichoice.
Everyone can play this game. They want to unreasonably exclude someone from their platform, well then they can keep their platform.
 

Mike Hoxbig

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
34,793
And in exactly the same way, no person is required to use the services of multichoice.
Everyone can play this game. They want to unreasonably exclude someone from their platform, well then they can keep their platform.
Nobody is arguing that. If anyone feels so strongly about this attention-seeking piece of trailer trash, they're welcome to cancel their subscription.

What is being argued is against those claiming it is censorship of freedom of expression...
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
14,714
Nobody is arguing that. If anyone feels so strongly about this attention-seeking piece of trailer trash, they're welcome to cancel their subscription.

What is being argued is against those claiming it is censorship of freedom of expression...
It is censorship.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,825
Nobody is arguing that. If anyone feels so strongly about this attention-seeking piece of trailer trash, they're welcome to cancel their subscription.

What is being argued is against those claiming it is censorship of freedom of expression...
It is censorship.
It didn't offend Multichoice in 2015 when he made his Tweets, but it offends them now. So clearly it isn't some objective standard that is being applied here.

Doesn't mean it should be illegal for Multichoice to do it, but don't think this is anything else other than woke SJW shutting down people they don't like.
 

Mike Hoxbig

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
34,793
It is censorship.
It didn't offend Multichoice in 2015 when he made his Tweets, but it offends them now. So clearly it isn't some objective standard that is being applied here.

Doesn't mean it should be illegal for Multichoice to do it, but don't think this is anything else other than woke SJW shutting down people they don't like.
Who cares when they did it and why they did it. Point is it's within their right. Just cancel your subscription and be done with it, why the need to kick up a fuss on top of it?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,825
Who cares when they did it and why they did it. Point is it's within their right.
Intent is important. They could very well be on the course of censoring a lot more than Hofmeyer.


Just cancel your subscription and be done with it,
I can one-up that, I have never paid a cent to those scumbags.

Why the need to kick up a fuss on top of it?
Because it is morally wrong, and it is my right to say so if I want.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
21,221
again, it's their prerogative. ever see a sign in an establishment "we reserve the right to refuse service"?

same thing. they can do it because if someone is a ****, they can throw him out and not be sued for discrimination.

if Steve feels he is being discriminated against, he can take them to court, but he won't, because he knows he can't win because the terms of service explicitly state they can revoke his content if they so choose.

if Multichoice was a public broadcaster and/or the public broadcaster did this, then yes, very very big deal, but a private company deciding to distance themselves from a figure who they think is causing their brand damage by the statements he is making in public, fully within their right and they should do that to prevent further brand damage.

you don't "get" how the real world works it seems, and probably follow the outrage culture. I suggest going on twitter and looking around a bit to find something else to be outraged with, because this is a losing battle you're fighting if you can't understand the concept I explained to you and how it works.
No those signs are there for people causing trouble and not because you simply don't like someone. MC isn't curating content here or choosing not to air specific views but rather censoring them for views they've never aired on the platform. That's something quite different. And MC are the ones "outraged" and throwing their toys out the cot.

MC might have the right to do this depending on their license conditions and whether or not they may be breaking contracts here but it remains a dick move. They are also not a private company so I wonder what the shareholders think about this racist twat in charge's little tantrum.

Nobody is arguing that. If anyone feels so strongly about this attention-seeking piece of trailer trash, they're welcome to cancel their subscription.

What is being argued is against those claiming it is censorship of freedom of expression...
You can think of him what you want without reason but you can't deny that it's censorship of an individual because of his political views. It's also censorship of Afrikaans and freedom of expression as only the winning video alone that they demanded be pulled involved 4 other people. Those 4 people rightfully didn't go to the Goemas or accept their consolation rewards and are considering pulling all their content from Dstv. What about Toeka? You think the greats of our time deserve this treatment. You can argue that this isn't censorship as much as you want against the facts but you can't deny that this black racist twat is giving them and every other Afrikaner the middle finger.
 

Bewlen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
435
again, private companies can play by their own rules. look at how facebook banned all those "right-wing" guys from their platform
You seem to avoid the word "censorship". You would like to replace this with "their rules". But that doesn't change the fact that it is a multinational censoring an individual. Say it with me now, come on: "cen-sor-ship".
 
Top