Alex Jones and Social Media Censorship

[gandalfe]

I thought you were a gorilla?

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

 

[Red]

Might get a Trump tweetstorm over this....

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/tech/twitter-trump-rules/index.html

New York (CNN Business)Twitter plans to place a disclaimer on future tweets from world leaders that break its rules but which Twitter decides are in the "public interest," the company said in a blog post Thursday.

This policy change could face its most prominent test in President Trump. Trump has repeatedly tested Twitter's community standards with his regular tirades on the platform and some of the president's tweets have run afoul of Twitter's rules.

Twitter (TWTR) has in the past allowed tweets from Trump and other world leaders to remain online, even though they broke the company's rules, a Twitter spokesperson confirmed to CNN Business, because it believes the tweets are in the public interest.

But putting a disclaimer on one of Trump's tweets would almost certainly bring a firestorm of criticism down on Twitter's head. Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives. Such a disclaimer on a Trump tweet, even if he had clearly violated Twitter's rules, would provoke a new cycle of such complaints at a time when Washington is increasingly investigating Big Tech over concerns over antitrust and privacy.

 

[One Brow]

Is there a Peterson/Shapiro policy? I don't know. If they're calling them Nazis behind closed doors, who knows what else they're doing.

So, you are assuming guilt and bad intentions based on no evidence.

Yes, there's lots of evidence. We can start with this.

I listened to the first 6 minutes. What do you think this is evidence of? The Twitter executive specifically, explicitly said Shapiro, et. al., are free to express their opinions on the meaning of biological sex, as long as they don't use that as a tool to harass people by repeatedly singling them out with this opinion. Why do you think that is wrong? Do you support the right to harass people on on social media? If not, what are you arguing for?

If there is some actual evidence of some other position after the first 6 minutes, what's the time marker?

I do care about the slippery slope of enforcing censorship though.

De-platforming is not censorship.

Enter Steven Crowder.

Enter 'YouTube is a money-making enterprise, not a public platform'.

I still think it's hard for me to believe you don't get the problem with this. I know you don't like Shapiro, Peterson (I don't know much about) and Prager (I know they make super conservative and corny YouTube videos) but come on, bro.

While I don't agree with lumping Shapiro in there, if Peterson doesn't want to be thought of as pro-Nazi, perhaps he should be less chummy with white supremacists. In any case, again, we are talking about one employee.

 

[One Brow]

There is, and you're burying your head in the sand to think this is the case.

Censorship punishes people for talking. Not subsidizing talk is different from punishing talk.

 

[One Brow]

What if Amazon makes decisions like this based on skin color, religion, sexuality, political affiliation?

Several of those are illegal.

 

[Archie Moses]

So, you are assuming guilt and bad intentions based on no evidence.

1) I said who knows.
2) Project Veritas
3) So in other words, I'm trying to form a conclusion with what information is available.

I listened to the first 6 minutes. What do you think this is evidence of? The Twitter executive specifically, explicitly said Shapiro, et. al., are free to express their opinions on the meaning of biological sex, as long as they don't use that as a tool to harass people by repeatedly singling them out with this opinion. Why do you think that is wrong? Do you support the right to harass people on on social media? If not, what are you arguing for?

It's very one-sided. I don't support harrassment. I don't support enforcement of one-sided, politically motivated, perceived harrassment either.

See pic below.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...exposing-googles-anti-conservative-censorship

De-platforming is not censorship.

If it's politically motivated, to me, it is.

Enter 'YouTube is a money-making enterprise, not a public platform'.

YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, all have a huge influence. Yes, they make money too. They're public media platforms too, or no? (Honest question.)

I don't agree with lumping Shapiro in there, if Peterson doesn't want to be thought of as pro-Nazi, perhaps he should be less chummy with white supremacists. In any case, again, we are talking about one employee.

I don't know much about Peterson or him chumming with white supremacists. I did a simple Google search and saw this though (along with articles about him being called a Nazi lol)

https://yellowhammernews.com/fact-check-is-jordan-peterson-alt-right/

 

[Harambe]

blahblah blah

Lemme tell ya somethin mean Gene, you two are working yourselves into a shoot, brothers. Just like Joe'n'co did over bias. Is there a bias? sure. Will we disagree on how much and why? It seems as such. Keep down your tunnel... Where's the outrage from Joe over donnie being above the rules? That the leader of the free world isn't censored when using modern technology(which is going to be naturally biased towards young people who are increasingly liberal) to threaten genocide, but you're still bitching about an instance of a conservative being censored for repeatedly breaking the rules of a social media site?

No one really wants to go by the rules here. They just want upvotes and sweet sweet karma.

 

[Archie Moses]

Lemme tell ya somethin mean Gene, you two are working yourselves into a shoot, brothers. Just like Joe'n'co did over bias. Is there a bias? sure. Will we disagree on how much and why? It seems as such. Keep down your tunnel... Where's the outrage from Joe over donnie being above the rules? That the leader of the free world isn't censored when using modern technology(which is going to be naturally biased towards young people who are increasingly liberal) to threaten genocide, but you're still bitching about an instance of a conservative being censored for repeatedly breaking the rules of a social media site?

No one really wants to go by the rules here. They just want upvotes and sweet sweet karma.

This is pretty funny, actually. I can present as much evidence, post articles of why it's a concern, and since you're liberal it just automatically translates to you as blah blah blah. Then you bring up Trump, where there's a whole thread where I bitch about him getting the hell off of Twitter because the leader of the free world, or people like OC need to stop tweeting their political ******** and lies. (That said, I don't think they should really be banned.)

And just so you know, Crowder didn't break the rules. If you'd actually read the articles, you'd might learn something.
But for simpletons, it's just blah blah blah.

Gtfoh.

 

[Harambe]

This is pretty funny, actually. I can present as much evidence, post articles of why it's a concern, and since you're liberal it just automatically translates to you as blah blah blah. Then you bring up Trump, where there's a whole thread where I bitch about him getting the hell off of Twitter because the leader of the free world, or people like OC need to stop tweeting their political ******** and lies. (That said, I don't think they should really be banned.)

And just so you know, Crowder didn't break the rules. If you'd actually read the articles, you'd might learn something.
But for simpletons, it's just blah blah blah.

Gtfoh.

Trump derangement syndrome isn't a ****ing thing, and using big bad donnie as a scapegoat was the perceived intent, it was not the desired intent. Illustrating by example that conservatives, too, are thrown leniency from twitter is. Using the biggest, most visible example running seemed like a good idea at the time, as you'd think even a drunk toddler would get it. Instead, victim instinct leads to "oh he's a liberal and hates Trump, OMG"

Rules were broken. Don't act like anyone's innocent. You're not mad someone did something wrong, you're mad they did it to the wrong person.

 

[Archie Moses]

Trump derangement syndrome isn't a ****ing thing, and using big bad donnie as a scapegoat was the perceived intent, it was not the desired intent. Illustrating by example that conservatives, too, are thrown leniency from twitter is. Using the biggest, most visible example running seemed like a good idea at the time, as you'd think even a drunk toddler would get it. Instead, victim instinct leads to "oh he's a liberal and hates Trump, OMG"

Rules were broken. Don't act like anyone's innocent. You're not mad someone did something wrong, you're mad they did it to the wrong person.

Sigh

 

[Archie Moses]

Rules were broken. Don't act like anyone's innocent. You're not mad someone did something wrong, you're mad they did it to the wrong person.

YouTube responded to Maza saying that although Crowder's language was "hurtful," it didn't constitute a violation of its policies.

What did Crowder do wrong?

 

[Harambe]

What did Crowder do wrong?

Sure.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802268?hl=en

Harassment and cyberbullying policy
Content or behavior intended to maliciously harass, threaten, or bully others is not allowed on YouTube.

If you see content that violates this policy, please report it. Instructions for reporting violations of our Community Guidelines are available here. If you have found multiple videos, comments, or a user’s entire channel that you wish to report, please visit our reporting tool, where you will be able to submit a more detailed complaint.

If specific threats are made against you and you feel unsafe, tell a trusted adult and report it to your local law enforcement agency.

What this means for you
If you're posting content
Don’t post content on YouTube if it fits any of the descriptions noted below.

• Revealing someone’s personal information, such as their address, private email addresses, private phone numbers, passport number, or bank account information
  • Note: This does not include posting widely available public information, such as a public official’s office phone number
• Content that is deliberately posted in order to humiliate someone
• Content that makes hurtful and negative personal comments/videos about another person
• Content that incites others to harass or threaten individuals on or off YouTube
• Content featuring non-consensual sex acts or unwanted sexualization
• Content threatening specific individuals with physical harm or destruction of property
• Content featuring abusive or threatening behavior directed at a minor
• Sexualizing or degrading an individual who is engaged or present in an otherwise non-sexual context
• Content claiming that specific victims of public violent incidents or their next of kin are actors, or that their experiences are false

This policy applies to videos, video descriptions, comments, live streams, and any other YouTube product or feature. Please note this is not a complete list.

In their official response, did they not say what was said was hateful? Which would be an abuse?