US politics general thread

[cerebus]

?

An SS tattoo, is not a Nazi symbol?

Your article is about someone completely different, sporting a completely different tattoo? Relevance?

Feel free to address the actual SS tattoo in question, then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic. Until then keep trying I guess?

See what you lefties did? You made him get an SS tattoo and now he's a literal nazi.

 

[Unhappy438]

See what you lefties did? You made him get an SS tattoo and now he's a literal nazi.

This is why people voted Trump

/foams at the mouth from Fukushima radiation poisoning.

 

[konfab]

Y'all are just itching to resuscitate your, 'what if gay folk are *forced* to buy from bigot bakers' deceit with this "allowed to not do business with people they don't like" ersatz aren't ya? Again, 'cos you're in the cheap seats and might not have heard the first time around... Private companies are just that, private. They are free to do business with whoever they like.
Citizens of a country are bound by the laws of the land. If those laws protect folk from bigotry, racism and sexism, bigots, racists and misogynists *can* fall foul of the law.

And the laws of the land also include rights to private property and freedom of speech.

Read this interesting case:

The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.

The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Someone could very well make the case that Facebook, Youtube etc hold similar positions as being dominant, monopolistic entities that would function in the same way as a company town.

As far as your second part goes? Here, let me help you out...

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I want exactly which post(s) he made that suddenly triggered the ban hammer, and the content within them. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask for, as it would provide some clarity about what type of content each of these platforms don't want.

Example: In Podcast #9910 Alex Jones did X,Y, Z which violated our terms of service.

 

[konfab]

This is why people voted Trump

/foams at the mouth from Fukushima radiation poisoning.

Scaremongering about nuclear power is prevalent on both sides of the isle (though slightly more on the Democrats). You take Germany(supposedly the bastion of science-based political thinking) shutting down all its reactors because of Fukushima...

 

[C4Cat]

An alt-leftie who thinks that a warmongering neocon Republican politician with blood on his hands and who divorced his crippled wife of 15 years to remarry an heir to an Arizona brewing fortune just one month later,is a person of high moral fibre.
Scary stuff!!

Yeah, as his 'crippled' wife says:
"The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."
“He’s a good guy. We are still good friends. He is the best man for president."

 

[greg0205]

And the laws of the land also include rights to private property and freedom of speech.

Read this interesting case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Someone could very well make the case that Facebook, Youtube etc hold similar positions as being dominant, monopolistic entities that would function in the same way as a company town.


Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I want exactly which post(s) he made that suddenly triggered the ban hammer, and the content within them. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask for, as it would provide some clarity about what type of content each of these platforms don't want.

Example: In Podcast #9910 Alex Jones did X,Y, Z which violated our terms of service.

First part: How much do clothes cost in the Matrix?
You’re stretching with your “someone could”... and not in the good, pre-exercise kinda way.

Second part: You’re just trolling.
Do your own goddamn homework. Google that way ——>

 

[konfab]

First part: How much do clothes cost in the Matrix?
You’re stretching with your “someone could”... and not in the good, pre-exercise kinda way.

It is not just me:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/facebook-censors-science-journalism-removes-pro-gmo-page/

If you actually look at what this ruling would do to social media platforms, it would bind them more strongly to the country's laws. Including laws prohibiting discrimination etc. For example, it would be illegal to make a Facebook group for white people only, not just against Facebook's policies.

But hey, don't bother using any grey matter. Just get offended, accuse everyone you disagree with of being a troll and carry on living in your bubble.

Second part: You’re just trolling.
Do your own goddamn homework. Google that way ——>

Good argument there.

Would you be happy if the mods banned you, then didn't provide a reason nor which posts were the problem?

 

[greg0205]

It is not just me:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/facebook-censors-science-journalism-removes-pro-gmo-page/

If you actually look at what this ruling would do to social media platforms, it would bind them more strongly to the country's laws. Including laws prohibiting discrimination etc. For example, it would be illegal to make a Facebook group for white people only, not just against Facebook's policies.

But hey, don't bother using any grey matter. Just get offended, accuse everyone you disagree with of being a troll and carry on living in your bubble.


Good argument there.

Would you be happy if the mods banned you, then didn't provide a reason nor which posts were the problem?

First part: I agree with social media being regulated but, you know, ‘cos hostile foreign powers use them to subvert democracy and nazis use them to amplify hateful messages.

Second part: Wouldn’t know, ‘cos I’ve never been a nazi amplifying hateful messages.

 

[konfab]

Second part: Wouldn’t know, ‘cos I’ve never been a nazi amplifying hateful messages.

And that is the problem, you don't know the exact reason why you were banned. You might have been posting content that was perfectly acceptable, but to some idiot doing the censoring, it wasn't.

 

[rietrot]

And that is the problem, you don't know the exact reason why you were banned. You might have been posting content that was perfectly acceptable, but to some idiot doing the censoring, it wasn't.

Only people that say the wrong things get banned. Its a good idea. Just to bad the lefties don't know any history and aren't aware how limiting freedom of speech eventually ends. This time it will be different.

 

[cerebus]

And that is the problem, you don't know the exact reason why you were banned. You might have been posting content that was perfectly acceptable, but to some idiot doing the censoring, it wasn't.

Yes, who can possibly understand why Alex Jones was deplatformed?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e

Jones said he’d “take down” Mueller or “die trying,” adding that Mueller was “going to get it.”

“I look at that guy, and he’s a sack of crap. That’s a demon I will take down, or I’ll die trying. So that’s it. It’s going to happen, we’re going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he’s going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it’s going to happen,” said Jones, miming shooting a gun.

 

[greg0205]

And that is the problem, you don't know the exact reason why you were banned. You might have been posting content that was perfectly acceptable, but to some idiot doing the censoring, it wasn't.

I believe the "idiot" you're referring to is actually many people... Many, many, many people in fact. Facebook calls them its community and Twitter calls them its users.

 

[konfab]

Yes, who can possibly understand why Alex Jones was deplatformed?

A Facebook spokesperson on Tuesday told BuzzFeed News that “Jones’ comments did not violate the company’s community standards as they were not a credible statement of intent to commit violence.”

Its not why he was de-platformed, everyone with a brain knows that, the guy is extremely controversial. It is what he was de-platformed for. They have been OK with the stuff he has been posting for years. Why now?

 

[konfab]

I believe the "idiot" you're referring to is actually many people... Many, many, many people in fact. Facebook calls them its community and Twitter calls them its users.

It is not the community who is pressing the button to delete accounts...

 

[greg0205]

It is not the community who is pressing the button to delete accounts...

Nope, they're reporting bad posts... Kinda takes some of the randomness you seem to think exists out of the equation, wouldn't you say?

 

[konfab]

Nope, they're reporting bad posts... Kinda takes some of the randomness you seem to think exists out of the equation, wouldn't you say?

So Facebook should just remove any and all posts that the majority of people disagree with and not provide a reason for them?

 

[cerebus]

Its not why he was de-platformed, everyone with a brain knows that, the guy is extremely controversial. It is what he was de-platformed for. They have been OK with the stuff he has been posting for years. Why now?

Eventually you can't keep ignoring user complaints. Apple took the lead to ban Infowars from their podcast network, and it forced Facebook et al to follow suit. Twitter hasn't banned him, but as it's been pointed out, they admitted that he had been in violation of their TOS for years. I think the final straw was his death threats against Mueller last week, which were viewed as hate speech.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...fowars-alex-jones-was-banned-apple-facebook-/

 

[rietrot]

Nope, they're reporting bad posts... Kinda takes some of the randomness you seem to think exists out of the equation, wouldn't you say?

That would just turn into a silly war about who can report the most people. I feel sorry for the admins at Facebook and Twitter once the other sides get in on this game to censor views you don't agree with.

 

[greg0205]

So Facebook should just remove any and all posts that the majority of people disagree with and not provide a reason for them?

If it violates their terms, obviously. Here, let me help you out again...

http://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content

 

[greg0205]

That would just turn into a silly war about who can report the most people. I feel sorry for the admins at Facebook and Twitter once the other sides get in on this game to censor views you don't agree with.

Oh, you must not have been following the James Gunn/Sam Seder/Will Sommer things then... Mike Cernovich has been leading the charge on weaponising social media to suit the alt-reich for ages now.