Facebook bans Alex Jones and others

[Spendulus]

Satoshi, one man....took on the entire world's banking system.

Taking on something is not the same as beating it. Taking on a social media platform doesn't require that much capital (assuming you don't want to be a money burning startup).

It's not impossible that Facebook goes the way of Myspace and Friendster.

True.

...
Most people that got banned/removed helped Trump win the last election. I believe this is a culling for 2020.

Yes, that's correct.

And Trump understands the issue. Not the "Republican Party." Trump.

The two party system of the US is a puppet scam. Only kool-aid drinkers believe in it.

Of course. I point this out because of the high number of kool-aid drinkers.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/04/23/texas-senate-bill-lets-state-sue-social-media-companies/

Texas bill would let state sue Facebook.

I predict it will pass, and the state will sue.

[darklus123]

No matter how are we gonna think about it, that is their company and they have all the rights even if this are against our will. They have their terms that a certain users should follow.

It's either you'll have to live it with it or get through with it.

[TECSHARE]

No matter how are we gonna think about it, that is their company and they have all the rights even if this are against our will. They have their terms that a certain users should follow.

It's either you'll have to live it with it or get through with it.

Uh... no. If you want to be a technocratic subject feel free. They do not have a right to deny people their rights against their will. Furthermore these companies not only take government funding, they also get government allocation of bandwidth. They benefit from the infrastructure we all pay for with taxes. Furthermore they are an illegal monopoly. Even further they are acting as publishers by curating content, which makes them liable for what they allow to be published and strips their safe harbor protections as a public commons. If you want to live as a spineless jellyfish subject that's fine, just stop telling people lies to escape your own cognitive dissonance.

[darklus123]

Uh... no. If you want to be a technocratic subject feel free. They do not have a right to deny people their rights against their will. Furthermore these companies not only take government funding, they also get government allocation of bandwidth. They benefit from the infrastructure we all pay for with taxes. Furthermore they are an illegal monopoly. Even further they are acting as publishers by curating content, which makes them liable for what they allow to be published and strips their safe harbor protections as a public commons. If you want to live as a spineless jellyfish subject that's fine, just stop telling people lies to escape your own cognitive dissonance.

Can you state some proof of this claims that they are taking government funding? What certain structures were you referring to? I get it we all have the rights the problem here is we are using their services for free and they have certain rules about it or wait we are again on that old problems in which we agree to such terms without even reading it?

What certain lies Am I actually telling you? I was just stating a certain point of view. You can't just call someone liar because they have a different point of view to yours instead why would you allow me to understand your perspective

[Spendulus]

Uh... no. If you want to be a technocratic subject feel free. They do not have a right to deny people their rights against their will. Furthermore these companies not only take government funding, they also get government allocation of bandwidth. They benefit from the infrastructure we all pay for with taxes. Furthermore they are an illegal monopoly. Even further they are acting as publishers by curating content, which makes them liable for what they allow to be published and strips their safe harbor protections as a public commons. If you want to live as a spineless jellyfish subject that's fine, just stop telling people lies to escape your own cognitive dissonance.

Can you state some proof of this claims that they are taking government funding? What certain structures were you referring to? I get it we all have the rights the problem here is we are using their services for free and they have certain rules about it or wait we are again on that old problems in which we agree to such terms without even reading it?

What certain lies Am I actually telling you? I was just stating a certain point of view. You can't just call someone liar because they have a different point of view to yours instead why would you allow me to understand your perspective

When FB bans and restricts conservatives under the guise of their provoking violence, that's a lie. We all know it, and we all know what they are doing. They are banning conservative opinions.

My impression of the legal arguments is they don't have a chance making the arguments you have pointed out. Sure, it may go to the Supreme Court.

[TECSHARE]

Uh... no. If you want to be a technocratic subject feel free. They do not have a right to deny people their rights against their will. Furthermore these companies not only take government funding, they also get government allocation of bandwidth. They benefit from the infrastructure we all pay for with taxes. Furthermore they are an illegal monopoly. Even further they are acting as publishers by curating content, which makes them liable for what they allow to be published and strips their safe harbor protections as a public commons. If you want to live as a spineless jellyfish subject that's fine, just stop telling people lies to escape your own cognitive dissonance.

Can you state some proof of this claims that they are taking government funding? What certain structures were you referring to? I get it we all have the rights the problem here is we are using their services for free and they have certain rules about it or wait we are again on that old problems in which we agree to such terms without even reading it?

What certain lies Am I actually telling you? I was just stating a certain point of view. You can't just call someone liar because they have a different point of view to yours instead why would you allow me to understand your perspective

I didn't say "certain structures" I said infrastructure, such as roads, subsidized utilities, and the educated population for starters. We are not using their service for free. A terms of service contract REQUIRES by law an exchange of value for it to be a valid contract. They are buying personal information in exchange for use of their service. Part of the problem is they are not even abiding by their own terms of service, which is a violation of that contract for starters. Your entire statement was basically a lie you tell yourself so you do not have to think too hard about this situation and how it can be changed. Your lie is selling people apathy and powerlessness. Your lie is preaching submission. I am not stopping you from doing anything.



https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/8bilw2/darpas_lifelog_canceled_the_same_day_facebook_was/

https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-in-q-tel-the-cias-venture-capital-firm-preview/

[Quickseller]

I don’t like saying this, but the only good solution is moderate amounts of regulation for the tech social media companies.

Devin Nunes is trying to use the court system to strip section 230 of the communication decency act protections from tech companies who have very clear biases against one group of people with mainstream ideas. If this works, tech companies will be forced to lose their left bias.

[darklus123]

I didn't say "certain structures" I said infrastructure, such as roads, subsidized utilities, and the educated population for starters. We are not using their service for free. A terms of service contract REQUIRES by law an exchange of value for it to be a valid contract. They are buying personal information in exchange for use of their service. Part of the problem is they are not even abiding by their own terms of service, which is a violation of that contract for starters. Your entire statement was basically a lie you tell yourself so you do not have to think too hard about this situation and how it can be changed. Your lie is selling people apathy and powerlessness. Your lie is preaching submission. I am not stopping you from doing anything.



https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/8bilw2/darpas_lifelog_canceled_the_same_day_facebook_was/

https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-in-q-tel-the-cias-venture-capital-firm-preview/

They are buying personal information? Are we eve getting paid? I also cannot get the point that we are not using their services for free ( I am not even getting something from them).

The roads "infrastructures"? how does that connects? I am not even a US tax payers.


Tho I can agree with you on one thing they sometimes "don't follow their on terms".  Stop calling me a liar tho just because again of that statement(again that is purely a point of view).

[TECSHARE]

I didn't say "certain structures" I said infrastructure, such as roads, subsidized utilities, and the educated population for starters. We are not using their service for free. A terms of service contract REQUIRES by law an exchange of value for it to be a valid contract. They are buying personal information in exchange for use of their service. Part of the problem is they are not even abiding by their own terms of service, which is a violation of that contract for starters. Your entire statement was basically a lie you tell yourself so you do not have to think too hard about this situation and how it can be changed. Your lie is selling people apathy and powerlessness. Your lie is preaching submission. I am not stopping you from doing anything.



https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/8bilw2/darpas_lifelog_canceled_the_same_day_facebook_was/

https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-in-q-tel-the-cias-venture-capital-firm-preview/

They are buying personal information? Are we eve getting paid? I also cannot get the point that we are not using their services for free ( I am not even getting something from them).

The roads "infrastructures"? how does that connects? I am not even a US tax payers.


Tho I can agree with you on one thing they sometimes "don't follow their on terms".  Stop calling me a liar tho just because again of that statement(again that is purely a point of view).

I never said anything about getting paid, I said an exchange of value. You get the value of the service, and they get the value of all your personal information. An exchange of value is required for a contract (Terms Of Service) to be a valid legal document. It doesn't matter if you are a US tax payer, they benefit from US public systems and subsidies as they are based here.

[pushups44]

I do not support the full deplatforming of Alex Jones, but I think he took his social responsibility for granted with such a massive audience. He took his conspiracy theories too far, which led to death threats and the harassment of innocent people. It probably would have been better to temporarily suspend and warn him. After all, social media companies are private companies with the right to censor.

[darklus123]

I never said anything about getting paid, I said an exchange of value. You get the value of the service, and they get the value of all your personal information. An exchange of value is required for a contract (Terms Of Service) to be a valid legal document. It doesn't matter if you are a US tax payer, they benefit from US public systems and subsidies as they are based here.

What if you don't actually put your personal infos are they still getting the right value for their service?

In short you can still freely used it and in return your freedom is limited to their terms don't they have the rights to ban someone who they think that are harmful to their business? As far as I am concern that is how business works which very unethical tho but duh US based companies have the same ideology

What makes Facebook as pathetic here is that they are a US based company yet they are against the Freedom of Speech that a US citizen embodies.


Wait Jones were also banned from youtube or from the apple services that should mean something. If this guy really were able to promote violence and has some effects from its viewers then facebook might have done right in my opinion

[Lauda]

I do not support the full deplatforming of Alex Jones, but I think he took his social responsibility for granted with such a massive audience. He took his conspiracy theories too far, which led to death threats and the harassment of innocent people. It probably would have been better to temporarily suspend and warn him. After all, social media companies are private companies with the right to censor.

If I say/discuss controversial things, and this leads to some loons making death threats and whatnot, I am supposed to be held accountable? That's not how things work. If it ends up working that way, then we will end up in 1984 much sooner than anyone anticipated.

Wait Jones were also banned from youtube or from the apple services that should mean something. If this guy really were able to promote violence and has some effects from its viewers then facebook might have done right in my opinion

All that deplatforming has nothing to do with they claimed reasons. If it did, they would be able to be transparent about it and show which posts violated which guidelines/ToS.

[Spendulus]

...
All that deplatforming has nothing to do with they claimed reasons. If it did, they would be able to be transparent about it and show which posts violated which guidelines/ToS.

Wouldn't such a course of action pretty much have to be coming from the very top and be a company policy?

Otherwise a company would be quite to flag cases where the claimed reasons didn't add up with the facts and the guidelines/ToS.

[Quickseller]

...
All that deplatforming has nothing to do with they claimed reasons. If it did, they would be able to be transparent about it and show which posts violated which guidelines/ToS.

Wouldn't such a course of action pretty much have to be coming from the very top and be a company policy?

Otherwise a company would be quite to flag cases where the claimed reasons didn't add up with the facts and the guidelines/ToS.

The banning and suspending accounts (and removing of posts) appears to be authorized by fairly low level employees at both Facebook and Twitter. It is probably at least every week that a post is removed or a person is suspended under controversial circumstances, and when asked for comment by a major news organization the company says the action was done in error and reverses the decision. In 2017, a low level Twitter employee banned Trump's twitter account until it was reversed 17 minutes later on his last day of work. It doesn't appear that either company has very strong internal controls in terms of making sure ban/removal actions are done in accordance with company policy.

[TECSHARE]

I never said anything about getting paid, I said an exchange of value. You get the value of the service, and they get the value of all your personal information. An exchange of value is required for a contract (Terms Of Service) to be a valid legal document. It doesn't matter if you are a US tax payer, they benefit from US public systems and subsidies as they are based here.

What if you don't actually put your personal infos are they still getting the right value for their service?

In short you can still freely used it and in return your freedom is limited to their terms don't they have the rights to ban someone who they think that are harmful to their business? As far as I am concern that is how business works which very unethical tho but duh US based companies have the same ideology

What makes Facebook as pathetic here is that they are a US based company yet they are against the Freedom of Speech that a US citizen embodies.


Wait Jones were also banned from youtube or from the apple services that should mean something. If this guy really were able to promote violence and has some effects from its viewers then facebook might have done right in my opinion

You think it matters if you use a fake name? Do you use a fake name for your banking info? Your credit card? Your cellular phone? Do you think they don't have access to all of those things? They know your name is not Mike Hunt. This is racketeering, ie mob activity, illegally using a state sponsored monopoly as a proxy to do all the things the government legally can not do. I don't care if you believe it or not because functionally all the objectives are achieved regardless of your beliefs. I have been watching this process since before PRISM, Total Information Awareness, and Five Eyes were even a thing. This is an attempted overthrow of the USA as well as an attempt at a global power grab by these corporations and their backers, who coincidentally seem to be quite chummy with the Chinese state.

They claim the protections of a commons but they act as if a publisher curating content expecting to be liable for none of it like a publisher would be. They want to take advantage of all the wonderful infrastructure this nation has created and then use it as a tool to crush our freedoms. This is just the first phase, soon it will be you too as the global level Chinese style social credit system is rolled out in the open.

...
All that deplatforming has nothing to do with they claimed reasons. If it did, they would be able to be transparent about it and show which posts violated which guidelines/ToS.

Wouldn't such a course of action pretty much have to be coming from the very top and be a company policy?

Otherwise a company would be quite to flag cases where the claimed reasons didn't add up with the facts and the guidelines/ToS.

The banning and suspending accounts (and removing of posts) appears to be authorized by fairly low level employees at both Facebook and Twitter. It is probably at least every week that a post is removed or a person is suspended under controversial circumstances, and when asked for comment by a major news organization the company says the action was done in error and reverses the decision. In 2017, a low level Twitter employee banned Trump's twitter account until it was reversed 17 minutes later on his last day of work. It doesn't appear that either company has very strong internal controls in terms of making sure ban/removal actions are done in accordance with company policy.

This is just a cover story, AKA plausible deniability. This is an easy way for them to probe reactions and still escape liability as they simultaneously erode the response and alarm over the happenings. It is an ancient tactic. You create repeated false alarms to erode attentiveness then once apathy is conditioned you make the real move for the objective. It would be akin to a high level thief repeatedly setting off an alarm system over and over to breed inattentiveness over it being triggered in order to allow themselves to slip in undetected.

[Spendulus]

....It doesn't appear that either company has very strong internal controls in terms of making sure ban/removal actions are done in accordance with company policy.

It's important to understand that NO SUCH THING COULD EVER WORK.

Throughout history many times policy has been decreed, interpreted and executed and we can study the results today.

Always learn from history, then apply what you've learned to this new internet social media.

Consider the following two truisms.

(A) Politically, no solutions are ever considered that are not amendable to corruption.

(B) Facebook is amendable to corruption.

[darklus123]

You think it matters if you use a fake name? Do you use a fake name for your banking info? Your credit card? Your cellular phone? Do you think they don't have access to all of those things? They know your name is not Mike Hunt. This is racketeering, ie mob activity, illegally using a state sponsored monopoly as a proxy to do all the things the government legally can not do. I don't care if you believe it or not because functionally all the objectives are achieved regardless of your beliefs. I have been watching this process since before PRISM, Total Information Awareness, and Five Eyes were even a thing. This is an attempted overthrow of the USA as well as an attempt at a global power grab by these corporations and their backers, who coincidentally seem to be quite chummy with the Chinese state.

They claim the protections of a commons but they act as if a publisher curating content expecting to be liable for none of it like a publisher would be. They want to take advantage of all the wonderful infrastructure this nation has created and then use it as a tool to crush our freedoms. This is just the first phase, soon it will be you too as the global level Chinese style social credit system is rolled out in the open.

The heck? of course I know they don't have my banking info's or even my cellular phone and I am sure of it. Lol guess what facebook can't even recognized a fake news how much more of a misinformation? That is the problem that Jones are after right?

There are a lot of fake accounts circulating on the social media and it seems that they can't do something about it.

Then good for you, you have the knowledge , I on the other hand just stating a different perspective.


I do agree tho that China has something to do about it. China has already caused problem and that happens a lot of time one good example is the product war.

[TheCoinGrabber]

Among this it's PJW whose videos I've seen a couple of time. The thing is, I found nothing offensive about them, no threats, no call to violence, etc, just political opinion.

FB is trying to be a gatekeeper and we know we've been doing this for a long time. A few years ago when there was a presidential election in my country they sent employees to coordinate with each candidate's social media team. They stick their noses in everything.

I wonder what the banned content creators would do when Google follows suit and closes their Youtube accounts.