Stefan Molyneux Youtube Account and 2k Reddit Subs Terminated Today..

[eddie13]

Wow.. Very sad..

Worlds current most influential philosopher, self-proclaimed annarcocapitalist, Bitcoin believer and supporter, hero of freedom, shut down by THEM...  

This is very very bad news for freedom...

I know Youtube has the freedom to do whatever they choose, but this is a huge setback for truth IMO..

They are cowards..

Videos can still be found on BitChute.. https://www.bitchute.com/channel/freedomainradio/

A great video he just made in the last few days..
"KILLING HISTORY" AN EXAMINATION OF MARXISM WITH DR DUKE PESTA AND STEFAN MOLYNEUX


BITCOIN VS. GOLD: THE FUTURE OF MONEY - PETER SCHIFF DEBATES STEFAN MOLYNEUX

[TECSHARE]

They are a monopoly, they are acting as publishers, and violating their own terms of service, so no, they aren't free to do whatever they want. This is illegal and action needs to be taken against these modern book burners.

[eddie13]

They are a monopoly, they are acting as publishers, and violating their own terms of service, so no, they aren't free to do whatever they want. This is illegal and action needs to be taken against these modern book burners.

I'm not an expert on that but I definitely agree that they way these huge companies use their influence to sway public opinion is terrible, scary, and wrong..
They are definitely no friends of mine..

They are all part of "them" and the influence they have is incredible..

[suchmoon]

There are other sites to put videos on and other ways to promote them (did Youtube even promote these videos? Otherwise what difference does it make which site they're on).

But Reddit deleting The_Donald is just savage... I thought that kind of shit is what Reddit is for. That's like Bitcointalk deleting Bitcoin Discussion.

In the end users will either leave Youtube/Reddit or not. Free market should be free.

[eddie13]

Youtube had removed "Stefan Molyneux" from their autocomplete a while ago... Stef has also had his superchat donation thing taken away for a long time also..

I think he is HODLing a lot of the BTC that has been donated to him over the years so I think he is in OK shape financially..
In one of his latest shows I just watched a chatter asked something like "Do you think Bitcoin is going to zero?" and he replied "Yes, I think it is going to a lot of zeros, but their will be numbers infront of them.."

I hear reddit just axed like 2000 subs today too...

Big things are happening right NOW..

Should I post on 4chan that they can all come here to the P&S board? "Refugees Welcome!" See how much free speech this place can really handle, lol..
Thinking I might...

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/hi5sd7/over_2000_subs_banned_today_reddits_new_content/
"Over 2000 subs banned today. Reddit’s new content policy has atrocious free speech limitations and explicitly states you may promote hate of any group as long as it is not a minority."

[TECSHARE]

There are other sites to put videos on and other ways to promote them (did Youtube even promote these videos? Otherwise what difference does it make which site they're on)...

Youtube has the monopoly as the primary social video hosting platform. Facebook has the monopoly over social networking. Twitter has the monopoly on up to the second current marketing based social media. Google has a monopoly on monopolies (including Youtube). Just because small little lizards exist doersn't mean Godzilla can't crush them with a hard look. This is how these types of businesses work.

They manufacture systems of dependence and control over market share and exploit them almost universally at the expense of the user base and the general public in one way or another. What starts as a simple utility becomes dependence, at which point any competition is easily bought up, made irrelevant, or crushed, and you now operate within the company store with no viable alternatives. This is not a free market, but you know this as you feign objection while quietly relishing the delusion that it serves your goals.

[suchmoon]

Youtube has the monopoly as the primary social video hosting platform.

It doesn't. It's quite impossible to prevent videos from being hosted elsewhere. And even if you could achieve your dream of forcing Youtube et al to host the content you like, it still wouldn't work if users and/or advertisers leave the platform as you can see now happening with Facebook. So then what - are you gonna force Nike and Starbucks to pay for the content you like?

[TECSHARE]

Youtube has the monopoly as the primary social video hosting platform.

It doesn't. It's quite impossible to prevent videos from being hosted elsewhere. And even if you could achieve your dream of forcing Youtube et al to host the content you like, it still wouldn't work if users and/or advertisers leave the platform as you can see now happening with Facebook. So then what - are you gonna force Nike and Starbucks to pay for the content you like?

You can identify a monopoly however you like, but the law has a very specific way of defining one. Lets look at the requisites for determining a monopoly according to the FTC.

"Market Power

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.


Exclusionary Conduct

Judging the conduct of an alleged monopolist requires an in-depth analysis of the market and the means used to achieve or maintain the monopoly. Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.

Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal. These topics are discussed in separate Fact Sheets for Single Firm Conduct."

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

Exclusionary acts. Check. Control of more than 50% of market share. Check. Youtube is very arguably an illegal monopoly. They also are violating their terms of service contract by restricting use of their platform outside of their agreements as well as acting as publishers while enjoying the liability protections of being a public platform.

[Spendulus]

There are other sites to put videos on and other ways to promote them (did Youtube even promote these videos? Otherwise what difference does it make which site they're on).

But Reddit deleting The_Donald is just savage... I thought that kind of shit is what Reddit is for. That's like Bitcointalk deleting Bitcoin Discussion.

In the end users will either leave Youtube/Reddit or not. Free market should be free.

All of the censorship leans in one single direction, that of supporting liberal progressive ideas and the US Democratic Party.

Censorship - violent mobs - rewriting history...

Any questions about what's going on?

[suchmoon]

In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

There is nothing preventing you or some other true conservative from starting conspiratube and hosting whatever you want. But I'm open to the possibility of being proven wrong by the courts, just not sure what Trump/Barr are waiting for if it's such an obvious monopoly.

[eddie13]

Twitch Suspends Trump’s Channel for ‘Hateful Conduct’
The action appeared to be the first outright suspension of one of the president’s social media accounts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/technology/twitch-trump.html

Heard Twitch banned Stef today too..

[TECSHARE]

In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

There is nothing preventing you or some other true conservative from starting conspiratube and hosting whatever you want. But I'm open to the possibility of being proven wrong by the courts, just not sure what Trump/Barr are waiting for if it's such an obvious monopoly.

You say that, but then they get denied services like DDoS protection, hosting, email, banking, etc. I guess they should just reinvent the internet if they want to speak huh?

[cabron]

In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

There is nothing preventing you or some other true conservative from starting conspiratube and hosting whatever you want. But I'm open to the possibility of being proven wrong by the courts, just not sure what Trump/Barr are waiting for if it's such an obvious monopoly.

You say that, but then they get denied services like DDoS protection, hosting, email, banking, etc. I guess they should just reinvent the internet if they want to speak huh?

Didn't they do that back 2008 with SOPA and PIPA act?  It wasn't successful but they could always try collaborating with their colleagues "THEM".  There is just no stopping them even if they are exposed since they literally own the internet. When there is a monopoly its going to be easy to crush anyone small as Stefan.  

[PrimeNumber7]

I looked at his wikipedia page, and it looks like he may have some views that I strongly disagree with, assuming the page is accurate. I am not sure how prevalent these kinds of views are in his videos.

I would not defend someone who uses their platform to promote very bad things just because the person has some other views that I may agree with. If his Wikipedia page is accurate, it sounds like he has some pretty radical views with regards to race.

[Gyfts]

It's a bit odd that these companies, Twitch, Youtube, and Reddit acted simultaneously to remove right wing communities/accounts. They have every right to if they find violations to their ToS. Reddit I think took the best approach. Don't agree with them banning communities, but they banned a toxic right community, and banned the commie derangement subreddit ChapoTrapHouse.

[eddie13]

I looked at his wikipedia page

Ofcourse the wikipedia page is slander..

He has done some stuff about "Race and IQ", scientific data and what not, evolutionary differences of different populations the world, etc..
Scientific stuff, not "white supremacist" stuff.. (unless you want to call science "white supremacy")
Here is some about it... https://www.freedomain.com/2019/11/15/the-untruth-about-stefan-molyneux-3-iq/
It explains income inequality in free markets statistics and BTFOs the "systemic racism" BS excuses the left uses..

He is extremely anti-nazi/fascism and is not a fan of the kkk or white power crazies or anything like that..

Bit hard to find his videos right now, especially old ones, or I'd link it.. That's the worst I can think of as far as "racism"..
It was years ago though.. Nothing new..
Back then he was more into philosophy and stayed away from politics more.. These days he is mostly politics..

He just hit marxism hard in the vid I posted in the OP.. And just did The Rayshard Brooks Shooting - According to an Ex-Cop
Haven't watched that yet, but maybe that did it..

[Juggy777]

Wow.. Very sad..

Worlds current most influential philosopher, self-proclaimed annarcocapitalist, Bitcoin believer and supporter, hero of freedom, shut down by THEM...  

This is very very bad news for freedom...

I know Youtube has the freedom to do whatever they choose, but this is a huge setback for truth IMO..

They are cowards..

They are a monopoly, they are acting as publishers, and violating their own terms of service, so no, they aren't free to do whatever they want. This is illegal and action needs to be taken against these modern book burners.

I'm not an expert on that but I definitely agree that they way these huge companies use their influence to sway public opinion is terrible, scary, and wrong..
They are definitely no friends of mine..

They are all part of "them" and the influence they have is incredible..

It's a bit odd that these companies, Twitch, Youtube, and Reddit acted simultaneously to remove right wing communities/accounts. They have every right to if they find violations to their ToS. Reddit I think took the best approach. Don't agree with them banning communities, but they banned a toxic right community, and banned the commie derangement subreddit ChapoTrapHouse.

I’m not surprised that Reddit has decided to ban accounts, as they had have done it in the past too when they had banned accounts of the climate change deniers. Also YouTube and Twitch parent companies (Google and Amazon) are under constant attack by Trump, hence once again I’m not surprised that they’re targeting him in an election year. In my personal opinion it looks like these companies have colluded within themselves to hurt Trump on social media, and if Twitter and Facebook join in too then Trump will be beaten even before the elections begin.

Sources:

https://www.foxnews.com/science/critics-blast-reddit-over-climate-change-skeptic-ban

https://www.axios.com/reddit-bans-the_donald-forum-as-part-of-major-hate-speech-purge-fbc8a185-0f81-402a-8629-08bec50be4f9.html

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/10/20908894/donald-trump-twitch-amazon-bernie-sanders-washington-post

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/trump-attacks-tech-giants-for-being-controlled-by-radical-left/1836852

[PrimeNumber7]

But Reddit deleting The_Donald is just savage... I thought that kind of shit is what Reddit is for. That's like Bitcointalk deleting Bitcoin Discussion.

Apparently reddit thinks only certain types of racism is acceptable:

Rule 1: Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and people that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.
Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.
While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

[eddie13]

the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority

Right.. So anti-white racism is still just perfectly fine with reddit..
Perfect for the narrative..

[TECSHARE]

You say that, but then they get denied services like DDoS protection, hosting, email, banking, etc. I guess they should just reinvent the internet if they want to speak huh?

Yeah, they really should if they feel that strongly about the problem. The government shouldn't be able to force internet service provision companies to have to carry certain customers. Its against free market principles, something that you supposedly champion. If your argument about monopolies had a legal leg to stand on then you wouldn't be here complaining about white supremacists getting canned for being mass shooter incel-inciting fucksticks. You just want the government to intervene and protect your "little fee fees" from getting hurt. Lol.

Free market my ass. This is the opposite of free market. They should be forced to follow their TOS, not get the liability protections of open platforms while acting as publishers, and are operating illegal monopolies. You think this serves you but your foresight is about as long as your dick. This isn't just conservatives being banned, they are literally determining what is science and banning any dissent of any kind. You are next, this is how it works, they get idiots like you to cheer it thinking it serves you then suddenly it is you who loses access. Also "white supremacist" "incel" and "Nazi" are labels drooling retards like you use to demonize anyone you disagree with. It is just a pathetic pretext to enforce your own preferred totalitarian tendencies. You are a hypocrite and an idiot who has no idea what is in store for him.

I looked at his wikipedia page

Ofcourse the wikipedia page is slander..

The word you are looking for is libel, and of course it isn't. First of all, only a judge is capable of making that determination. Second of all, here is the justification from the Talk section of his Wikipedia page for leaving it the way that it is:

All 53 citations describe a similar picture of the guy being "a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber" and those citations point to common reliable sources that are the norm for this website. Indeed, those sources are known for there neutrality throughout history (even before Wikipedia).

You can argue that every source of the citations is biased I guess, but it would just seem that the main problem is the far right's inability to recognize reality via overwhelming consensus.

He has done some stuff about "Race and IQ", scientific data and what not, evolutionary differences of different populations the world, etc..
Scientific stuff, not "white supremacist" stuff.. (unless you want to call science "white supremacy")

Here's the problem: he's not a scientist and taking his words as "scientific stuff" is an intellectual failure on the part of those who do. He's a social media personality and professional speaker. Nobody thinks science is "white supremacy." Actual scientists have debunked the majority of his claims and the rest of us can see them for what they actually are: inflammatory nonsense designed to give white supremacists (his primary audience) a boner.

Here's what the professor Molyneux based much of his "research" on has to say about him:

"These people are just coattail-hangers. They don't have anything new to contribute to the debate - they just try and make the debate spectacular. I've invested a huge amount of time on this issue, read all the best thinkers, and wouldn't think it would be worth my time."
..
"I've never seen him in the literature as having made any supplementary points to the points Jensen made, and his reputation is such that one suspects he oversimplifies the debate. You have a limited amount of time in your life, and if you look at what every nut says about every issue, you'll never have time to do anything else."
..
"This clown is coming here and if he speaks in Auckland he'll get about 50 people, all of whom agree with him anyway, and best to ignore him..."

FWIW I think taking pride in the qualities that some people have chosen to ascribe to their race is lame, regardless of who or what color they are. It's a sad sort of vanity that people who are insecure about their worth as a human being or role on the planet undertake in order to create a false sense of superiority above others. It's entirely pathetic.

Of course it is, and Wikipedia is well known for being a venue for absolute horse shit. It would seem you in your carefully curated bubble that excludes alternative opinions, are deluded enough to think that qualifies as consensus. His information is always well sourced. You clearly don't know anything about him except for what you have been told by your fart huffing cult brethren. Differences in races exist. This is a fact. You pretend to be a champion of "true" science, but also want to maintain false pretenses when that interferes with your dogmas.

[eddie13]

libel, and of course it isn't.

The data is so white supremacist, it even places Asians and Jews above whites in average IQ...
Please..

"This proves whites are the best but the asians and jews are even better".. Sooo "white supremacist", lol..
I think not..
Think what you want..



BTW Stef has a Masters Degree in history from the uni of Toronto focusing on history of philosophy..


Check out wikipedia on Bitcointalk..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcointalk  "Traded accounts were reportedly used to scam people." <not biased at all
Man they are soo good they remove all the work done on it by our community members here.. Look at the edit history to see all the deletes..

BITCOIN VS. GOLD: THE FUTURE OF MONEY - PETER SCHIFF DEBATES STEFAN MOLYNEUX

[eddie13]

Nitpicking..
That shit is YEARS old anyway.. Old news..
It is nowhere near one of his main focuses.. Just something to cry about..

It's true though IMO

[Spendulus]

the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority

Right.. So anti-white racism is still just perfectly fine with reddit..
Perfect for the narrative..

And who defines what?

One might be racial type A and for a radius of a hundred miles, find the population was 90% B, C, or D. And in another location, B, C or D have that issue. I can think of having lived in three such areas myself, each with a different far-majority race. Never even considered it a problem. Never.

Reddit, google, Youtube and the like would apply a ruleset concocted in San Francisco and Los Angeles to the entire US, and the entire world. Might be a problem there?

[Spendulus]

...Nobody should be forced to give him a platform if they don't want to.

Actually, yes they should, if they are operating as a non-editorial public data utility.

Bit of the "have your cake and eat it too" problem here.

[suchmoon]

You say that, but then they get denied services like DDoS protection, hosting, email, banking, etc. I guess they should just reinvent the internet if they want to speak huh?

LOL. I've always wondered what kind of person would be the reason for a "no shirt no shoes no service" sign. Now I know.

I mean you can always sue the providers of these services for discrimination if you really have your shoes and your shirt on and they're just being mean to you. Or use Tor. Or start an AM radio station.

Actually, yes they should, if they are operating as a non-editorial public data utility.

TECSHARE doesn't know the answer to this but maybe you do:

[...] it still wouldn't work if users and/or advertisers leave the platform as you can see now happening with Facebook. So then what - are you gonna force Nike and Starbucks to pay for the content you like?

[eddie13]

I'm not sure what to think about these companies using selective censorship like they are.. I can kinda see both sides of the coin legally.. But I still hate them.. 
Too much government involved either way imo.. If it was an actual free market I wouldn't give a shit..

No question the big tech companies are teaming up to influence the election, influence politics, and influence public opinion in general..

[TECSHARE]

I'm not sure what to think about these companies using selective censorship like they are.. I can kinda see both sides of the coin legally.. But I still hate them..  
Too much government involved either way imo.. If it was an actual free market I wouldn't give a shit..

No question the big tech companies are teaming up to influence the election, influence politics, and influence public opinion in general..

No, you got it wrong, corporate oligarchical totalitarianism is the free market, an ideological monoculture is diversity, and book burning is providing a public platform! Totalitarianism is great, as long at it is our totalitarianism. We are too dumb to realize we are also on the same ramp to the slaughter house once this is accepted, but that's ok because we are progressive therefore we want to destroy everything anyway because we hate ourselves, the world, and you should too. Collective suicide is great. Its fer yer health.

[Spendulus]

Here's the problem: he's not a scientist and taking his words as "scientific stuff" is an intellectual failure on the part of those who do. He's a social media personality and professional speaker. Nobody thinks science is "white supremacy." Actual scientists have debunked the majority of his claims and the rest of us can see them for what they actually are: inflammatory nonsense designed to give white supremacists (his primary audience) a boner.

Here's what the professor Molyneux based much of his "research" on has to say about him:[/b]

"These people are just coattail-hangers. They don't have anything new to contribute to the debate - they just try and make the debate spectacular. I've invested a huge amount of time on this issue, read all the best thinkers, and wouldn't think it would be worth my time."
..
"I've never seen him in the literature as having made any supplementary points to the points Jensen made, and his reputation is such that one suspects he oversimplifies the debate. You have a limited amount of time in your life, and if you look at what every nut says about every issue, you'll never have time to do anything else."
....

But the very same professor that Flynn got the data from, in the very same article you quote from, has a bit more to say.

"...if there's free speech, some people will be naïve enough to endorse views I think are [not rational]… If you were to tell me over the phone today the theory of evolution was wrong and every little fish was created by God, I would think, 'How pathetic.' But I certainly wouldn't try and shut you up. I might think to myself, 'I hope he doesn't get hold of some naïve young person who'll believe him, but I wouldn't stop you.'"

HE SPECIFICALLY DISAGREES WITH YOU AND REDDIT that Molyneux should be suppressed.

[eddie13]

Here's the problem: he's not a scientist and taking his words as "scientific stuff" is an intellectual failure on the part of those who do. He's a social media personality and professional speaker. Nobody thinks science is "white supremacy." Actual scientists have debunked the majority of his claims and the rest of us can see them for what they actually are: inflammatory nonsense designed to give white supremacists (his primary audience) a boner.

Here's what the professor Molyneux based much of his "research" on has to say about him:[/b]

"These people are just coattail-hangers. They don't have anything new to contribute to the debate - they just try and make the debate spectacular. I've invested a huge amount of time on this issue, read all the best thinkers, and wouldn't think it would be worth my time."
..
"I've never seen him in the literature as having made any supplementary points to the points Jensen made, and his reputation is such that one suspects he oversimplifies the debate. You have a limited amount of time in your life, and if you look at what every nut says about every issue, you'll never have time to do anything else."
....

But the very same professor that Flynn got the data from, in the very same article you quote from, has a bit more to say.

"...if there's free speech, some people will be naïve enough to endorse views I think are [not rational]… If you were to tell me over the phone today the theory of evolution was wrong and every little fish was created by God, I would think, 'How pathetic.' But I certainly wouldn't try and shut you up. I might think to myself, 'I hope he doesn't get hold of some naïve young person who'll believe him, but I wouldn't stop you.'"

HE SPECIFICALLY DISAGREES WITH YOU AND REDDIT that Molyneux should be suppressed.

The article from nutildah also says such things as...
"no one should listen to anything Stefan Molyneux has to say on the topic. But not necessarily because he's wrong."
And..
"I'm a socialist"




Stef's discussion of the topic stemmed in the first place from this thing that happened...

"The father of DNA says he still believes in a link between race, intelligence. His lab just stripped him of his titles."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/14/father-dna-says-he-still-believes-link-between-race-intelligence-his-lab-just-stripped-him-his-titles/

Father of DNA stripped of honorary titles after saying he still believes in link between race and intelligence
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/father-of-dna-stripped-of-honorary-titles-after-says-he-still-believes-in-link-between-race-and-intelligence

A New York laboratory has cut its ties with James Watson, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA, over “reprehensible” comments in which he said race and intelligence are connected.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/james-watson-scientist-honors-stripped-reprehensible-race-comments


I think he might be a real scientist... nutildah?

We were talking about censorship right?
Stripped of his titles over inconvenient truth.. A fine example of censorship..

Wrongthink..

[suchmoon]

I'm not sure what to think about these companies using selective censorship like they are.. I can kinda see both sides of the coin legally.. But I still hate them.. 
Too much government involved either way imo.. If it was an actual free market I wouldn't give a shit..

No question the big tech companies are teaming up to influence the election, influence politics, and influence public opinion in general..

What's the end game? Why would big companies go against the big-business-friendly tax-cutting anti-regulation president?

They've been happy to allow all sorts of nutjobbery until recently... seems like a shift in public opinion is happening and forcing the tech giants to rethink their business model and not the other way around. If they could make more money by allowing those pseudo scientists and other bullshit to continue - I don't doubt they would.

[TECSHARE]

I'm not sure what to think about these companies using selective censorship like they are.. I can kinda see both sides of the coin legally.. But I still hate them..  
Too much government involved either way imo.. If it was an actual free market I wouldn't give a shit..

No question the big tech companies are teaming up to influence the election, influence politics, and influence public opinion in general..

What's the end game? Why would big companies go against the big-business-friendly tax-cutting anti-regulation president?

They've been happy to allow all sorts of nutjobbery until recently... seems like a shift in public opinion is happening and forcing the tech giants to rethink their business model and not the other way around. If they could make more money by allowing those pseudo scientists and other bullshit to continue - I don't doubt they would.

Public opinion isn't just shifting, these companies are the ones shifting it. You think this is just about right vs left. This is about the establishment vs everyone. It is one big club, and you ain't in it regardless of your delusions otherwise. You are just a tool being used until they build the system up enough to the point that they can dispose of you like a used jizz rag, then you will join the 2nd class citizens in being silenced.

Of course then it will be too late to do anything about it by the time you realize how fucking retarded you were. Then there will be no one to resist it with you because you helped silence the ones who would have, because you were fooled into thinking they were your enemy. You are allowing your personal dislike of ideas you disagree with blind you to the fact that you are building your own cage.

[suchmoon]

Public opinion isn't just shifting, these companies are the ones shifting it. You think this is just about right vs left. This is about the establishment vs everyone. It is one big club, and you ain't in it regardless of your delusions otherwise. You are just a tool being used until they build the system up enough to the point that they can dispose of you like a used jizz rag, then you will join the 2nd class citizens in being silenced.

Of course then it will be too late to do anything about it by the time you realize how fucking retarded you were. Then there will be no one to resist it with you because you helped silence the ones who would have, because you were fooled into thinking they were your enemy. You are allowing your personal dislike of ideas you disagree with blind you to the fact that you are building your own cage.

Thank you for explaining what I do and how I think but your useless rant doesn't answer anything in my post, which wasn't even addressed to you to begin with. I think at this point it's safe to say that you're wasting your time trying to scare me with your doomsday shit but I'll happily pretend to be impressed by it if that scratches your itch.

[TECSHARE]

Thank you for explaining what I do and how I think but your useless rant doesn't answer anything in my post, which wasn't even addressed to you to begin with. I think at this point it's safe to say that you're wasting your time trying to scare me with your doomsday shit but I'll happily pretend to be impressed by it if that scratches your itch.

It was in fact an answer, just not one you want to hear. I am not trying to scare you, I am well aware your head is lodged far too firmly up your own ass to have sensible fear over the results of what you are promoting. I was warning about how these kinds of activities would result in civil war in the US for years, and you mocked the idea, and now that this reality is manifesting you turn around and say I WANT and was PROMOTING civil war.

You can lie to everyone else, you can lie to yourself, but none of that is going to protect you from the results of your lies. Maybe you will have the nuts to remember that idiot you thought I was actually turned out to be you when it does come to pass, but I doubt it.

[suchmoon]

now that this reality is manifesting

What is manifesting? Civil war?

[Spendulus]

...
I think he might be a real scientist... nutildah?

We were talking about censorship right?
Stripped of his titles over inconvenient truth.. A fine example of censorship..

Wrongthink..

Hello, world of Lysenko!

Science subjugated to politics. Truth is lies, freedom is chains.

History tells us this does not end well.

[eddie13]

What's the end game?

Ultimate power over the peasant classes..

They've been happy to allow all sorts of nutjobbery until recently... seems like a shift in public opinion is happening and forcing the tech giants to rethink their business model and not the other way around.

Nah... They are just always upping their propaganda and censorship game more and more..
Google search results have been biased forever..
Youtube changed their search algorithm a long time ago to promote only "mainstream" news..
Facebook bans anything they can get away with that isn't progressive..

It's been going on for a very long time..

[suchmoon]

What's the end game?

Ultimate power over the peasant classes..

Seems very nebulous. ~10-15 years ago the social media as we know it didn't really exist. Was it created specifically to control the peasants or did it somehow get subverted? As far as I can tell people voluntarily join it and even give up their privacy for whatever it is they get from it. I would understand advocating against that loss of privacy and against the use of social media in general, but instead we have this bizarre desire even by conservatives to get in on the whole scheme. Something doesn't compute here.

[TECSHARE]

Seems very nebulous. ~10-15 years ago the social media as we know it didn't really exist. Was it created specifically to control the peasants or did it somehow get subverted? As far as I can tell people voluntarily join it and even give up their privacy for whatever it is they get from it. I would understand advocating against that loss of privacy and against the use of social media in general, but instead we have this bizarre desire even by conservatives to get in on the whole scheme. Something doesn't compute here.

Traps work best with bait.

[eddie13]

What's the end game?

Ultimate power over the peasant classes..

Seems very nebulous. ~10-15 years ago the social media as we know it didn't really exist. Was it created specifically to control the peasants or did it somehow get subverted? As far as I can tell people voluntarily join it and even give up their privacy for whatever it is they get from it. I would understand advocating against that loss of privacy and against the use of social media in general, but instead we have this bizarre desire even by conservatives to get in on the whole scheme. Something doesn't compute here.

People are brainless NPC attention whores addicted to likes.. Most people are completely oblivious sheep..
Look at what tiktok is doing to our young generation.. Sexualizing them, indoctrinating them, getting them addicted to the likes..

The NSA/CIA have big interest in social media and big tech companies.. Something like they "never imagined people would voluntarily carry tracking devices in their pocket everywhere they go and update the internet about everything they do including current pictures"... Can't find the quote..
Like the Chinese social credit score system.. They spy on everything..
Those seeking ultimate power love the big data.. Those in charge of big data know what they have..
Always seeking more ways to get more data.. It's part of their arsenal..

Social media is also a very valuable tool for everyone to use to disseminate information and advertise..
With things like elections it is also very valuable to conservatives to advertise and get their messages out.. Get seen..
It is even valuable to anarchist philosophers to spread their message.. To have an audience..
If you are going to commit your life to speaking about libertarianism, or whatever, you need the views for ads and/or donations so you can make a living doing it.. Life isn't free..

It's the best way of reaching out to the masses, no matter your message, and the big tech companies are onboard with pushing narratives because they want in on the power side and they make government deals to get tax breaks and such..

Facebook isn't going to get a tax hike from leftists if they cooperate with them..
These big companies probably don't pay much of shit in taxes..

[suchmoon]

~

Seems very fucked up to (1) recognize that social media is evil but (2) use it to indoctrinate the "sheep" as long as it's the "correct" doctrine. Would it be ok to run ponzi schemes or sell meth to finance conservative campaigns?

[Spendulus]

What's the end game?

Ultimate power over the peasant classes..

Seems very nebulous. ~10-15 years ago the social media as we know it didn't really exist. Was it created specifically to control the peasants or did it somehow get subverted? As far as I can tell people voluntarily join it and even give up their privacy for whatever it is they get from it. I would understand advocating against that loss of privacy and against the use of social media in general, but instead we have this bizarre desire even by conservatives to get in on the whole scheme. Something doesn't compute here.

Actually, well, reverse that last statement. This is exactly what computation - computers - are doing.

Software has a way of starting off exciting and innovative, and then as it ages, say at five to ten years of maturity, morphing into total evil. This is new, but we are observing it. Google, Facebook, Twitter, many others. Can one observe a trend over time, and what is that trend?

[TECSHARE]

~

Seems very fucked up to (1) recognize that social media is evil but (2) use it indoctrinate the "sheep" as long as it's the "correct" doctrine. Would it be ok to run ponzi schemes or sell meth to finance conservative campaigns?

Any medicine can become a toxic poison. Any tool can be turned into a weapon. I can build a house with a hammer, or use it to cave your skull in, it doesn't make the hammer bad. Your premise is null on its face.

[eddie13]

~

Seems very fucked up to (1) recognize that social media is evil but (2) use it to indoctrinate the "sheep" as long as it's the "correct" doctrine. Would it be ok to run ponzi schemes or sell meth to finance conservative campaigns?

So it's hypocritical for anyone who disagrees with the way youtube and facebook are ran to use them?

Would it be unethical to speak about democracy in china?

[Gyfts]

~

Seems very fucked up to (1) recognize that social media is evil but (2) use it to indoctrinate the "sheep" as long as it's the "correct" doctrine. Would it be ok to run ponzi schemes or sell meth to finance conservative campaigns?

Social media isn't evil by any means but it gives people an amplified voice and removes any filter. Having the cloak of anonymity will void people of any humanity they had left because they face no repercussion for the words they say. Twitter's a good example of hard left groups that tend to be an echo chamber of people recyling the same political content amongst themselves with no sort of scrutiny causing confirmation bias. Then on the other hand Facebook tends to have conservative circles that regurgitate the same brain dead snowflake/libtard memes.

It makes people toxic. Politicians jump on the bandwagon too trying to make good edgy tweets for news bites.

[Spendulus]

~

Seems very fucked up to (1) recognize that social media is evil but (2) use it to indoctrinate the "sheep" as long as it's the "correct" doctrine. Would it be ok to run ponzi schemes or sell meth to finance conservative campaigns?

Social media isn't evil by any means but it gives people an amplified voice and removes any filter. Having the cloak of anonymity will void people of any humanity they had left because they face no repercussion for the words they say. Twitter's a good example of hard left groups that tend to be an echo chamber of people recyling the same political content amongst themselves with no sort of scrutiny causing confirmation bias. Then on the other hand Facebook tends to have conservative circles that regurgitate the same brain dead snowflake/libtard memes.

It makes people toxic. Politicians jump on the bandwagon too trying to make good edgy tweets for news bites.

Social media certainly can be evil.

[Viper1]

I looked at his wikipedia page

Ofcourse the wikipedia page is slander..

I watched a total of one of his "race" videos half a year ago or so. It was crystal clear to me from the way he used misrepresented the stats he was presenting what his agenda was and that he wasn't trying to present a well balanced perspective on the issue. I particularly loved how he was constantly doing the "I'm not saying... " in the video. When someone goes overboard with that sort of thing, you know that's exactly what they're saying. Maybe it was just easier for me to spot what he was doing given I was familiar with the issue and data. Won't shed a tear over someone like that getting the boot.

[Viper1]

However, there's no such thing as a right to social media.

That's always the excuse given by those that are at least secretly happy with the "book burning". Social media has become the new "town center". The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner things can be put in place that take that into account for the benefit of everyone.

[suchmoon]

If you want the government to mandate that social media companies have to give a platform to everybody or even just certain individuals, write your representatives in congress and convince them to pass such a law.

Don't forget a new tax to finance it. Or maybe just borrow more from China, this seems to be the new conservative approach. Because sure as shit the "town square" isn't gonna sustain itself if they're forced to publish stuff that no advertiser wants to be associated with.

[TECSHARE]

[Appeal to authority, straw man arguments, ad homnem attacks]

There wasn't one logically valid point in this whole screed. People have a right to equal representation under the law, and that is what they are NOT getting. These companies enjoy protections carved out for public forums, which literally yes gives users a RIGHT to use them as much as they allow anyone else with differing ideological views. If they want to operate as publishers then they need to operate within the law and be regulated as publishers. They want to benefit from protections of open forums while they curate content. They don't have a right to do this.

However, there's no such thing as a right to social media.

That's always the excuse given by those that are at least secretly happy with the "book burning". Social media has become the new "town center". The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner things can be put in place that take that into account for the benefit of everyone.

Fuck you.

It's a statement of fact.

If you want the government to mandate that social media companies have to give a platform to everybody or even just certain individuals, write your representatives in congress and convince them to pass such a law.

No, fuck you little girl. We want the government to mandate these companies be held responsible under the laws that already exist. You enjoy warming yourself in front of the fire while you can.

Don't forget a new tax to finance it. Or maybe just borrow more from China, this seems to be the new conservative approach. Because sure as shit the "town square" isn't gonna sustain itself if they're forced to publish stuff that no advertiser wants to be associated with.

More strawman arguments. Boo fucking hoo. If they want the liability protections of being a public square they need to actually operate as a public square. Shed some more tears for the oligarchs and corporate overlords. Maybe it will put out the fire on the burning books.

[tvbcof]

They are a monopoly, they are acting as publishers, and violating their own terms of service, so no, they aren't free to do whatever they want. This is illegal and action needs to be taken against these modern book burners.

It's worth considering also that almost everything that makes these types of businesses possible was funded at the time of it's creation by taxpayers.  This includes the internet itself (DARPA) and a plethora of public educational institutions and research organization who take a lot of tax dollars (e.g., NASA, ARL, etc.)  It was also countless hours of volunteer time and effort on the part of scientists and developers who very often are mortified at what their work has become...or would be if they were still alive.

These slimeball leaches (Jewtube (under the management of Google who probably only got off the ground via In-Q-Tel or the like), Twitter, etc) are riding on the shoulders of giants...and dribbling piss down their necks.

Even if Molyneux is a pretentious and boring bozo he still should not be censored and terminated.  It's been about 4 years since I suffered through even a part of one of his vids, so if he got into CP or some such material since then then I would retract my statement.  I kind of doubt that.

[suchmoon]

More strawman arguments. Boo fucking hoo. If they want the liability protections of being a public square they need to actually operate as a public square. Shed some more tears for the oligarchs and corporate overlords. Maybe it will put out the fire on the burning books.

Just an observation - a public square with mandated content would likely require to be publicly funded. Personally I don't care if that whole steaming pile of social media disappears.

[TECSHARE]

More strawman arguments. Boo fucking hoo. If they want the liability protections of being a public square they need to actually operate as a public square. Shed some more tears for the oligarchs and corporate overlords. Maybe it will put out the fire on the burning books.

Just an observation - a public square with mandated content would likely require to be publicly funded. Personally I don't care if that whole steaming pile of social media disappears.

You have flipped this on its head. They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content. Furthermore if they want to limit content, they can, they just need to hold the same liabilities all publishers are held to. These practices are not only illegal under laws regulating publishers and open forums, they violate these sites terms of service, they are also anti-competitive and tortious interference. Furthermore they are explicitly using this position to manipulate elections, and provide millions of dollars of value of in kind campaign contributions. There is simply no way to interpret what is happening now as legal or desirable.

[suchmoon]

They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content.

"We're not robbing the bank. We demand open access to the vault."

[eddie13]

Ok...
So even if Stef did some content on race and IQ many years ago that you may not agree with, it is obviously not the reason he was recently terminated from youtube.. As I said, those topics were done years ago..
He never called anybody niggers or said any such thing like whites are superior.. If anything he said that Asians and Jews have the superior average intelligence, something a white supremacist would never admit.. He is no nutjob/wackjob/alt-right/kkk/Nazi of any sort, but think whatever you want..

That is just being used here as an excuse to agree with political deplatforming by the big tech companies pushing an agenda..
Great news for you if you agree with the Marxist agenda.. Congratulations..

Not me.. I'm a lover of freedom of speech, and I believe that the truth will prevail in an open contest of ideas..
The way I see it, if something is false or incorrect, their is no reason to be afraid of it because it will be crushed by truth.. So let all ideas fly and see what comes out on top..

I guess some people here agree with censorship of ideas that are contrary to their own, and that's kinda sad to me, but I sure don't want them banned for those views as they do in turn..

Reddit, fabebook, and youtube etc. are great for censoring speech of libertarians and pushing the Marxist agenda.. Cool story..
IMO even if it is legal, it is vastly unethical and immoral.. But I guess not if you agree with it..

If you can't see almost every big tech company from Wikipedia to Google attempting to influence public opinion then I would contend that you are blinded by your favorite narrative...

I don't think anything is going to change anytime soon.. I'm mostly just sitting back and watching the downfall of the west..
Looks like a 4th Marxist reich happening these days to me.. It may be wise of you to be seen to be on it's side, but not me.. My morality of truth is worth more to me than fear of the new brownshirts, the BLM..

Ban guns, burn books, censor all "racism" except against whites no matter how blatant, blame all their problems on someone else, create hate..
The writing is on the wall..

[TECSHARE]

They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content.

"We're not robbing the bank. We demand open access to the vault."

No, your metaphor is completely fallacious. What are people robbing by maintaining equal access exactly? Oh right you just invented that for your dumb metaphor to sound like it made any sense just on a superficial level. It is more like "You can't bank here, we don't serve your kind." These companies not only have special government funding, they enjoy legal protections that other publishers don't. Tax money has already gone to develop these companies and continues to flow into them.

You should take a break from sucking so much corporate cock, you are going to damage the cartilage in your knees if you spend so much time down there. Funny how the left has completely inverted all of the principles they used to stand for and have turned them upside down and inside out. The left is now anti-free speech, pro-corporate, pro-violence, pro-war, racist, and authoritarian. They can't help but constantly inject themselves into everyone else's business with the ultimate goal of just destroying everything in sight because they are so miserable, so why should anyone else be happy right? Don't forget to wipe the slob off your face corporate cum dumpster.

[suchmoon]

They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content.

"We're not robbing the bank. We demand open access to the vault."

No, your metaphor is completely fallacious. What are people robbing by maintaining equal access exactly?

No one is robbing anything. Can't you read? People just want access to the vault. Maybe they'll have a barbecue there.

[TECSHARE]

No one is robbing anything. Can't you read? People just want access to the vault. Maybe they'll have a barbecue there.

[senseless metaphor]

"Your metaphor makes no sense."

[even more senseless reply hiding your failure at using logic with a completely failed attempt at humor]

Of course this is SOP for you any time you talk yourself into a corner with your nonsense, you just do a little juke spin and run away and hope no one notices how brain dead you are.

[Spendulus]

They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content.

"We're not robbing the bank. We demand open access to the vault."

No, your metaphor is completely fallacious. What are people robbing by maintaining equal access exactly?

No one is robbing anything. Can't you read? People just want access to the vault. Maybe they'll have a barbecue there.

I agree 1000%. They just WANT ACCESS TO THE VAULT. Where did all the goodies from the vault go? Oh, IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOMEONE ELSE THAT TOOK THEM!!!!

[Viper1]

However, there's no such thing as a right to social media.

That's always the excuse given by those that are at least secretly happy with the "book burning". Social media has become the new "town center". The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner things can be put in place that take that into account for the benefit of everyone.

Fuck you.

It's a statement of fact.

If you want the government to mandate that social media companies have to give a platform to everybody or even just certain individuals, write your representatives in congress and convince them to pass such a law.

oooooo.. Did I hit a nerve there? I guess you are one of those typical liberals that thinks you're better than everyone else and want to dictate to them what they can and can't say. And your "fact" is bullshit. We have a right to nothing and everything.. "Rights" are just shit we as society have made up in order to function and to have rules, laws and the like. But I noticed you didn't address the town center thing. What's wrong. You need a safe space so the bad men won't say something you don't like. Grow the fuck up and think beyond your nose in terms of the path this shit is going down.

[PrimeNumber7]

What's the end game? Why would big companies go against the big-business-friendly tax-cutting anti-regulation president?

Social Media companies are very profitable in large part because their employees are very productive. Their employees are very productive because of their heavy use of automation, and of their creation of predictive models that can quickly classify data, allowing actions to be taken on these classifications that would not otherwise be possible.

The above gives employees a unique power over their employers. Employees at Social Media companies are overwhelmingly left-leaning, and are not 'left of center'.

Social media companies don't need low taxes to be profitable, nor do they need low regulations; they need productive employees. There is only so much companies can pay their employees to keep them happy, and attract additional talent, and many tech companies have resorted to unique perks.

[tvbcof]

What's the end game? Why would big companies go against the big-business-friendly tax-cutting anti-regulation president?

Social Media companies are very profitable in large part because their employees are very productive. Their employees are very productive because of their heavy use of automation, and of their creation of predictive models that can quickly classify data, allowing actions to be taken on these classifications that would not otherwise be possible.

The above gives employees a unique power over their employers. Employees at Social Media companies are overwhelmingly left-leaning, and are not 'left of center'.

Social media companies don't need low taxes to be profitable, nor do they need low regulations; they need productive employees. There is only so much companies can pay their employees to keep them happy, and attract additional talent, and many tech companies have resorted to unique perks.

I would agree with this.  Well stated and accurate IMHO.  I would add, though, that the big tech corporations are often awash with cash and they don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else.  Since they are by the nature of the internet 'global', they spend plenty of effort (lobbying funds) to limit their tax liabilities.  One method is to not repatriate profits until such time as a 'repatriation tax holiday' can be engineered.  These are normally advertised as a 'one time' thing to benefit 'the people', but in practice they tend to be periodic.  More and more 'globalism' has done away with the need to even bother with this type of fraud.

One of the giant corporations that I had some exposure to used to borrow most of the money they needed for U.S. operations while the profits were never repatriated as far as I could tell.  All of the high-IQ tech geeks could never figure this stuff out (and are every bit as allergic to the idea of 'conspiracy theories' as your average sheep).  It was funny to see the boss-men _not_ explain this at one of the giant weekly meetings on campus and to see all the geeks scratching their heads...for a few seconds until they forgot all about it.

[eddie13]

No agenda at all...

[Viper1]

OK, so show me where in the constitution or any legal code for that matter that says people have a right to social media.

I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently not though. I love it when people throw out things like the constitution or laws etc as a means to refute some argument. It's a worthless standpoint since that is driven by society as a whole and what they want, the rights they want etc. Try again. Oh wait, nevermind, I seem to remember you think you have rights by virtue of just being born.

instead of just comparing people you don't like to Nazis.

Where did I say that? Please do show me. Or maybe that's just your way of shoving what I'm saying off into a corner cause you don't like it. Bravo.

[Gyfts]

...
No agenda at all...

Might be because of an agenda, or it might be jumping on the bandwagon as all companies are afraid of pissing off the mob and being canceled. Does anyone actually cares about the BLM movement, or are they just pandering?  

[suchmoon]

No one is robbing anything. Can't you read? People just want access to the vault. Maybe they'll have a barbecue there.

[senseless metaphor]

"Your metaphor makes no sense."

[even more senseless reply hiding your failure at using logic with a completely failed attempt at humor]

Of course this is SOP for you any time you talk yourself into a corner with your nonsense, you just do a little juke spin and run away and hope no one notices how brain dead you are.

I think it makes about as much sense as claiming that mandating "access" to post certain content (which those sites otherwise don't want) is not equal to mandating that content.

They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content.

[Viper1]

OK, so show me where in the constitution or any legal code for that matter that says people have a right to social media.

I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently not though. I love it when people throw out things like the constitution or laws etc as a means to refute some argument. It's a worthless standpoint since that is driven by society as a whole and what they want, the rights they want etc. Try again. Oh wait, nevermind, I seem to remember you think you have rights by virtue of just being born.

instead of just comparing people you don't like to Nazis.

Where did I say that? Please do show me. Or maybe that's just your way of shoving what I'm saying off into a corner cause you don't like it. Bravo.

OK let's try this again. You said the fact that there is no right to social media was bullshit. So I'm asking you to please educate me where the law says there is a right to social media. Don't dance around. Just produce an argument that affirms your statement. It shouldn't be that hard if you are right.

That's always the excuse given by those that are at least secretly happy with the "book burning". Social media has become the new "town center". The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner things can be put in place that take that into account for the benefit of everyone.

Seeing as how social media wasn't even around the last time there were major book burnings (Nazi Germany), I have to wonder what the fuck are you actually talking about. "Secretly happy with the book burning?" What book burning? Where? You're equating videos hosted by YouTube being taken off YouTube with someone's books being forcibly confiscated and then burned. This is a bit retarded of a comparison.

Stefan Molyneux does have books but you're a fucking idiot if you actually think I want them burned.

You can attempt to "try again" all you want by once again attempting to frame the issue in a way so you can "win". But you're willfully ignoring the bigger philosophical issues and the impact of all of this on society. The fact that you won't even engage on that front tells me you're happy with corporations via activist groups telling you what to believe and what's right and wrong.

Amazon is refusing to publish books or at least I've heard of one recently. Social media "censoring" content. If you can't see the direction all of this is going then you've got your head buried in the sand.

[Spendulus]

....
Seeing as how social media wasn't even around the last time there were major book burnings (Nazi Germany), I have to wonder what the fuck are you actually talking about. "Secretly happy with the book burning?" What book burning? Where? You're equating videos hosted by YouTube being taken off YouTube with someone's books being forcibly confiscated and then burned. This is a bit retarded of a comparison.

Stefan Molyneux does have books but you're a fucking idiot if you actually think I want them burned.

What's the equal for an ebook to a physical book burning of physical books?

It consists of removing the ebook from availability, which has three primary ways.

A) Not providing the ebook's source in google or other search algorithms.
B) Not providing the ebook when the end user has the correct location.
C) Removing the DNS of the correct location.

[eddie13]

...
No agenda at all...

Might be because of an agenda, or it might be jumping on the bandwagon as all companies are afraid of pissing off the mob and being canceled. Does anyone actually cares about the BLM movement, or are they just pandering?  

They are the ones pushing the agenda, creating the mob.. The media and big tech companies are causing it, not just pandering to it..
It's top down, not bottom up..

Top down from way way way up top.. Those seeking ultimate power over many countries.. One world government shit..
Everything the left does is almost always traceable to their efforts to create an ultimate authoritarian one world government if you can open your eyes wide enough to see the big picture..

This effort is divide and counquer.. Overthrow those that seek liberty and resist control..
Get them all to vote for anti-"racism", free stuff, protections, open boarders, and toss out the constitution and eventually sovereignty while they are at it..

[eddie13]

I'm all for net neutrality, but I'm against social media companies being forced to service customers they feel are bad for business.

Uhhhh....
Net neutrality is more protections for the big data companies like FB, netflix, google, youtube, etc...
It just has a nice and fancy sounding name... Another trick.. Like the "patriot act" or the "affordable care act"..

Don't even get me started on how netflix is also aligned with the agenda shoving...

[Viper1]

You can attempt to "try again" all you want by once again attempting to frame the issue in a way so you can "win". But you're willfully ignoring the bigger philosophical issues and the impact of all of this on society. The fact that you won't even engage on that front tells me you're happy with corporations via activist groups telling you what to believe and what's right and wrong.

Amazon is refusing to publish books or at least I've heard of one recently. Social media "censoring" content. If you can't see the direction all of this is going then you've got your head buried in the sand.

Nice dance moves. Amazon has the right to not publish whatever the fuck they want. I don't think you actually understand what "freedom of speech" means.

You're really just a simpleton aren't you, incapable of looking at the higher level issues with all this. You probably think this is all right wing whining. So here. Here's some others talking about the same broader issue although they're focused more on FB in this video.

https://youtu.be/EQICXcPBG8c

Far smarter people than you and me are raising alarm bells about the control mega corporations have over open discourse which is what shapes peoples views on things.

[Spendulus]

You can attempt to "try again" all you want by once again attempting to frame the issue in a way so you can "win". But you're willfully ignoring the bigger philosophical issues and the impact of all of this on society. The fact that you won't even engage on that front tells me you're happy with corporations via activist groups telling you what to believe and what's right and wrong.

Amazon is refusing to publish books or at least I've heard of one recently. Social media "censoring" content. If you can't see the direction all of this is going then you've got your head buried in the sand.

Nice dance moves. Amazon has the right to not publish whatever the fuck they want. I don't think you actually understand what "freedom of speech" means.

....
Seeing as how social media wasn't even around the last time there were major book burnings (Nazi Germany), I have to wonder what the fuck are you actually talking about. "Secretly happy with the book burning?" What book burning? Where? You're equating videos hosted by YouTube being taken off YouTube with someone's books being forcibly confiscated and then burned. This is a bit retarded of a comparison.

Stefan Molyneux does have books but you're a fucking idiot if you actually think I want them burned.

What's the equal for an ebook to a physical book burning of physical books?

It consists of removing the ebook from availability, which has three primary ways.

A) Not providing the ebook's source in google or other search algorithms.
B) Not providing the ebook when the end user has the correct location.
C) Removing the DNS of the correct location.

The equivalent would be somebody deleting the content of your computer or mobile device and the action being sanctioned by the government. I'm all for net neutrality, but I'm against social media companies being forced to service customers they feel are bad for business.

Start your own social media service. Literally anyone can do so. Problem solved.

That just plain isn't correct. Also it's a misdirection. I listed three ways that are perhaps the modern equal of book burning. You are going off about social media companies. Not that I agree with you on that, either.

[TECSHARE]

"6 eBay Executives And Employees Charged With Threatening Natick Couple"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NacqQW-SC7I

Mind you, this is just ebay. Think about what a company with 100 times their resources could do.

[TECSHARE]

You asked a question. I answered it. This thread is about social media, not about your digital book burning fantasies.

"6 eBay Executives And Employees Charged With Threatening Natick Couple"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NacqQW-SC7I

Mind you, this is just ebay. Think about what a company with 100 times their resources could do.

"Forcing NPCs to buy your stuff"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYsyTq8pF2g

Of equal relevance to this discussion.

You haven't answered shit. You are advocating for corporate authoritarian rule, which is pretty weird for a Communist. You think this is funny because you have the mistaken impression you are on the "side" that will benefit. As soon as these companies get what they want the first thing they are going to do is aim the gun at people exactly like you.

This isn't about them being "forced" to publish things they don't like. Oh poor corporations! This is about them not obeying existing laws, preventing content from being published outside of their TOS, in illegally monopolistic ways, and in ways that serve as illegal in kind campaign contributions. They aren't just restricting content, they are trying to define what reality is.

[TECSHARE]

[virasog]

I have heard that youtube is taking down channels which promote bitcoins or talk about bitcoins and crypto currencies ? Is there any such policy of youtube recently introduced  ? I never see it written  anywhere on the terms and condition page of youtube.
I am not happy to know Stefan Molyneux youtube account ban  

[Spendulus]

This isn't about them being "forced" to publish things they don't like. Oh poor corporations! This is about them not obeying existing laws, preventing content from being published outside of their TOS, in illegally monopolistic ways, and in ways that serve as illegal in kind campaign contributions. They aren't just restricting content, they are trying to define what reality is.

OK. So then sue them, or better yet, create your own social media platform. Nobody's stopping you. Problem solved.

Reddit taking out The Donald will result in legal action. There's no way their actions are not a blatant pre-election political action. Whether the legal action is from the government or private citizens doesn't really matter, does it? Nobody's stopping us. Problem solved.

[Spendulus]

Reddit taking out The Donald will result in legal action. There's no way their actions are not a blatant pre-election political action. Whether the legal action is from the government or private citizens doesn't really matter, does it? Nobody's stopping us. Problem solved.

What kind of legal action? What law has been broken?

There's been an executive order already issued on this matter.  Everyone knows that Reddit's excuse of violent talk on the Trump forum is bullshit. Trump's forums were shut down as a blatant anti-Conservative, pro-Democrat action. We all know that, including the lying liars that act puzzled and bewildered that anyone could ever suggest such a thing.

Sure, Reddit can be the test case. After 300M in legal fees, let's see how they are doing.

Nobody's stopping Bill Barr.

Problem solved.

[TwitchySeal]

One could also argue that this post is neither unpopular or unpolitical.

[TECSHARE]

One could also argue that this post is neither unpopular or unpolitical.

If you would open your fucking eyes lots of people are trying to tell you this isn't just about politics, but why let that get in the way of you masturbating over how much think "your team" is winning right?

[TwitchySeal]

One could also argue that this post is neither unpopular or unpolitical.

If you would open your fucking eyes lots of people are trying to tell you this isn't just about politics, but why let that get in the way of you masturbating over how much think "your team" is winning right?

Each subreddit has their own set of rules.  I'm not surprised a local mod removed the post from your screen shot. It's a controversial opinion, but it's not unpopular.

This kind of reminds me of when you were complaining about click bait tabloid articles being removed from r/science, where the first three rules are:

- Must be peer-reviewed research
- No summaries of summaries, rehosts, reviews, or reposts
- No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles

[Spendulus]

Reddit taking out The Donald will result in legal action. There's no way their actions are not a blatant pre-election political action. Whether the legal action is from the government or private citizens doesn't really matter, does it? Nobody's stopping us. Problem solved.

What kind of legal action? What law has been broken?

There's been an executive order already issued on this matter.  Everyone knows that Reddit's excuse of violent talk on the Trump forum is bullshit. Trump's forums were shut down as a blatant anti-Conservative, pro-Democrat action. We all know that, including the lying liars that act puzzled and bewildered that anyone could ever suggest such a thing.

Sure, Reddit can be the test case. After 300M in legal fees, let's see how they are doing.

Nobody's stopping Bill Barr.

Problem solved.

LOL. This is what right wing fantasies have come to now? Reddit getting sued by the federal government for removing a Trump shitposting group?

First of all, Trump issued the executive order because he was mad his tweets were being fact checked. He doesn't give a fuck about other people.

Second of all, you still didn't name a law that has been broken, or how Reddit's actions open themselves up to a lawsuit even after Trump's executive order. Here's a good starting point to build your case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

You just want increased government regulation over free speech and business, which is the antithesis of what Republicans are supposed to be about.

Have fun watching nothing happen.

No, I chose not to thread your needle. Just like I didn't buy the argument that "Antifa is a movement, not an organization. It's untouchable!" That argument did not go too well, did it?

You see, a lot of people see through these ruses quite clearly. That claiming violent posts was only an excuse to cancel the Trump subreddits.

I'm willing to wait and let you see how this is going to play out. I don't need to convince you. I am curious, though, if you have actually read the executive order you linked to, and what in it you object to and think is unfair or toothless.

You clearly are standing AGAINST an executive order of the POTUS. You are laughing at it. I am only a spectator, viewing things, and wondering why in the world someone would have such an attitude.

Of course, I certainly understand that Trump's millions of advocates who used the Reddit group were shitposting.

Because, orange man bad. Right?

[Spendulus]

....
I suppose you could see forming a legal argument as "threading a needle" as that is quite often the case. I'm laughing at the executive order because Trump is just mad he got fact checked on Twitter. ...

I get the impression that you really laughed at it, and that precluded actually reading it. Because the substantive legal arguments that will form the basis of enforcement actions ARE THE CONTENT.

[TECSHARE]

One could also argue that this post is neither unpopular or unpolitical.

If you would open your fucking eyes lots of people are trying to tell you this isn't just about politics, but why let that get in the way of you masturbating over how much think "your team" is winning right?

Each subreddit has their own set of rules.  I'm not surprised a local mod removed the post from your screen shot. It's a controversial opinion, but it's not unpopular.

This kind of reminds me of when you were complaining about click bait tabloid articles being removed from r/science, where the first three rules are:

- Must be peer-reviewed research
- No summaries of summaries, rehosts, reviews, or reposts
- No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles

You know what this reminds me of? That time you sucked off Joseph Stalin. This is beyond politics. These social media companies are attempting to be the arbiters of what is truth, what is science, and what is fact. That is unacceptable, and people like you are too busy savoring the dong you are slurping on to realize you aren't part of the winning team. It is one big club, and you ain't in it.

[Spendulus]

....
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think about it. But if the CEO of Reddit isn't worried about it, then I'm not worried about it either.

Got it. Reddit will stand up in righteousness for it's ability play partisan politics during the countdown to the election, and you're with them.

Bad choice, methinks. But as I started out and said, the ability to prosecute Antifa members was also ridiculed, and we're at what now, 200+ arrests?

Regardless, let's revisit this topic in, say 90 days.

[TECSHARE]

"Facebook Folds: Will Now Police Speech After Advertiser Exodus"

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/facebook-folds-will-now-police-speech-after-advertiser-exodus

[Spendulus]

....
One could also argue ....

Each subreddit....

You know what this reminds me of? That time you sucked off Joseph Stalin. ....

I get it. The Stalin statue remains standing because...

[TwitchySeal]

....
One could also argue ....

Each subreddit....

You know what this reminds me of? That time you sucked off Joseph Stalin. ....

I get it. The Stalin statue remains standing because...

Much like the Che statue it was only up for a few months before being taken down 10 years ago.  The plan was to relocate it, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/09/29/d-day-memorial-board-to-relocate-stalin-sculpture/

Statues of Stalin and Confederate soldiers are interesting to compare when you think about it.

Stalin was at one point a valuable Allie to the United States and many Confederate Soldiers were actually members of the US military.

Both ended up becoming an enemy of the United States and are known for committing crimes against humanity.

[Spendulus]

....
One could also argue ....

Each subreddit....

You know what this reminds me of? That time you sucked off Joseph Stalin. ....

I get it. The Stalin statue remains standing because...

Much like the Che statue it was only up for a few months before being taken down 10 years ago.  The plan was to relocate it, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/09/29/d-day-memorial-board-to-relocate-stalin-sculpture/

Statues of Stalin and Confederate soldiers are interesting to compare when you think about it.

Stalin was at one point a valuable Allie to the United States and many Confederate Soldiers were actually members of the US military.

Both ended up becoming an enemy of the United States and are known for committing crimes against humanity.

That's a bit like arguing WW2 German soldiers were bad and evil people. They weren't, they were just men who were drafted or enlisted under extreme peer pressure.

You might be thinking of the LEADERS of military forces, but I doubt it. You likely just think Confederate soldiers were bad, right?

[TwitchySeal]

....
One could also argue ....

Each subreddit....

You know what this reminds me of? That time you sucked off Joseph Stalin. ....

I get it. The Stalin statue remains standing because...

Much like the Che statue it was only up for a few months before being taken down 10 years ago.  The plan was to relocate it, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/09/29/d-day-memorial-board-to-relocate-stalin-sculpture/

Statues of Stalin and Confederate soldiers are interesting to compare when you think about it.

Stalin was at one point a valuable Allie to the United States and many Confederate Soldiers were actually members of the US military.

Both ended up becoming an enemy of the United States and are known for committing crimes against humanity.

That's a bit like arguing WW2 German soldiers were bad and evil people. They weren't, they were just men who were drafted or enlisted under extreme peer pressure.

You might be thinking of the LEADERS of military forces, but I doubt it. You likely just think Confederate soldiers were bad, right?

Those influential enough to get a monument. 

[Spendulus]

....
One could also argue ....

Each subreddit....

You know what this reminds me of? That time you sucked off Joseph Stalin. ....

I get it. The Stalin statue remains standing because...

Much like the Che statue it was only up for a few months before being taken down 10 years ago.  The plan was to relocate it, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/09/29/d-day-memorial-board-to-relocate-stalin-sculpture/

Statues of Stalin and Confederate soldiers are interesting to compare when you think about it.

Stalin was at one point a valuable Allie to the United States and many Confederate Soldiers were actually members of the US military.

Both ended up becoming an enemy of the United States and are known for committing crimes against humanity.

That's a bit like arguing WW2 German soldiers were bad and evil people. They weren't, they were just men who were drafted or enlisted under extreme peer pressure.

You might be thinking of the LEADERS of military forces, but I doubt it. You likely just think Confederate soldiers were bad, right?

Those influential enough to get a monument. 

I'm in agreement on the LEADERS=BAD, just a side note. There are a great many statues and monuments in China and Russia showing the "valiant struggle of the toiling masses." They are propaganda, but I've always found them quite interesting.

[Sutters Mill]

I think companies like Youtube and reddit and so on will just end up shooting themselves in the foot with these bannings as people will just flock to other competitor sites so all this is doing is bolstering them. It's futile anyway as you can't shut everyone up. Unless people are posting things that are illegal they should just let people be and encourage people to just block users on sites like YouTube and Twitter if they don't like what people are saying. Banning people just because they say something liberals don't like shouldn't be going on and I hope people do start using other sites where they allow free speech. Places like Twitter have just become like an echo chamber for idiots and people screaming into the void desperate to be heard. Half the time the only things that are trending negativity and trying to get people 'cancelled'.

[Gyfts]

I think companies like Youtube and reddit and so on will just end up shooting themselves in the foot with these bannings as people will just flock to other competitor sites so all this is doing is bolstering them.

People say this but don't realize the type of monopoly that large social media companies have. Facebook and Twitter are the top two social media sites and there isn't a single other platform that's going to get close. Instagram maybe, but that isn't used often in political discourse, and it's owned by Facebook regardless so the policies are going to be identical. People can flock over where ever they want, their voices aren't going to be heard.

It's futile anyway as you can't shut everyone up. Unless people are posting things that are illegal they should just let people be and encourage people to just block users on sites like YouTube and Twitter if they don't like what people are saying.

The issue of companies adopting a policy like this is that it creates a toxic platform that invites controversies and drives advertisers out. Reddit had this problem when they had subreddits that were dedicated to posting hate against fat people (r/fatpeoplehate) and underage girls (r/jailbait). Both communities were banned ages ago, and both communities were probably "technically" legal.

Banning people just because they say something liberals don't like shouldn't be going on and I hope people do start using other sites where they allow free speech. Places like Twitter have just become like an echo chamber for idiots and people screaming into the void desperate to be heard. Half the time the only things that are trending negativity and trying to get people 'cancelled'.

Agreed. Twitter's favorite pastime is digging up 15 year old statements and trending the hashtag ___isoverparty because cancel culture is mortally virtuous apparently.

[Spendulus]

I think companies like Youtube and reddit and so on will just end up shooting themselves in the foot ....Half the time the only things that are trending negativity and trying to get people 'cancelled'.

Even though these companies each has four feet, that's not nearly enough for all the shots they are firing...

[TECSHARE]

"Twitter Bans Goya Bean Memes to Hide Silent Majority's Support for Trump"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwqEzHiYSgY

[TECSHARE]

"Twitter says it censored photo of Goya products 'in error'"

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/twitter-goya-foods-chief-executive

Yeah, its always "in error", just like the last 800 times thing like this happened "by mistake".

[TECSHARE]

Something a lot of you here could benefit from reading.

[Spendulus]

...
Something a lot of you here could benefit from reading.

There sum of them big words there...

[TwitchySeal]

Something a lot of you here could benefit from reading.

The predictit.org infographic or that mess of a blog that you linked the graphic to?

First paragraph written by anonymous zerohedge blogger:

With the 2020 U.S. presidential election fast approaching, many people will be glued to the 24-hour news cycle to stay up to date on political developments. Yet, as Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu details below, when searching for facts, our own cognitive biases often get in the way.

First paragraph written by someone called 'Marcus Lu':

With the 2020 U.S. presidential election fast approaching, many people will be glued to the 24-hour news cycle to stay up to date on political developments. Yet, when searching for facts, our own cognitive biases often get in the way.

Stop reading just headlines and quit giving these bottom feeders traffic.  You don't need them to stand between you and more direct sources.  

[cryping]

I used to watch his videos for his stance on socialism

[Spendulus]

....

First paragraph written by anonymous zerohedge blogger:

......

... quit giving these bottom feeders traffic.  You don't need them to stand between you and more direct sources.  

Bottom Feeders? You mean those pesky guys you can't shut down, or your repressive totalitarian cult groups can't shut down?

[TECSHARE]

[img width=  400]https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/PredictIt_Part1_07.jpg[/img]

Something a lot of you here could benefit from reading.

The predictit.org infographic or that mess of a blog that you linked the graphic to?

First paragraph written by anonymous zerohedge blogger:

With the 2020 U.S. presidential election fast approaching, many people will be glued to the 24-hour news cycle to stay up to date on political developments. Yet, as Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu details below, when searching for facts, our own cognitive biases often get in the way.

First paragraph written by someone called 'Marcus Lu':

With the 2020 U.S. presidential election fast approaching, many people will be glued to the 24-hour news cycle to stay up to date on political developments. Yet, when searching for facts, our own cognitive biases often get in the way.

Stop reading just headlines and quit giving these bottom feeders traffic.  You don't need them to stand between you and more direct sources.  

How about you learn to read first before you criticize me eh fuckstick?

"Yet, as Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu details below,..."

That author is from Visual Capitalist, not Zero Hedge, as I have explained about a billion times they are mostly an aggregator, and Visual Capitalist is well respected. So is Zero Hedge, except to choads like you who shit their pants and cry every time some one links them and you want to distract from the contents of said link.

[TwitchySeal]

[img width=  400]https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/PredictIt_Part1_07.jpg[/img]

Something a lot of you here could benefit from reading.

The predictit.org infographic or that mess of a blog that you linked the graphic to?

First paragraph written by anonymous zerohedge blogger:

With the 2020 U.S. presidential election fast approaching, many people will be glued to the 24-hour news cycle to stay up to date on political developments. Yet, as Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu details below, when searching for facts, our own cognitive biases often get in the way.

First paragraph written by someone called 'Marcus Lu':

With the 2020 U.S. presidential election fast approaching, many people will be glued to the 24-hour news cycle to stay up to date on political developments. Yet, when searching for facts, our own cognitive biases often get in the way.

Stop reading just headlines and quit giving these bottom feeders traffic.  You don't need them to stand between you and more direct sources.  

How about you learn to read first before you criticize me eh fuckstick?

"Yet, as Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu details below,..."

That author is from Visual Capitalist, not Zero Hedge, as I have explained about a billion times they are mostly an aggregator, and Visual Capitalist is well respected. So is Zero Hedge, except to choads like you who shit their pants and cry every time some one links them and you want to distract from the contents of said link.

Marcus lu wrote "Yet, as Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu details below, when searching for facts, our own cognitive biases often get in the way."

It seems like one blogger discussing a blog written by a another blogger.

And then they added Visual Capitalist branding to the predictit.org infographic, and then had tons of other blogs, like zerohedge, post the same stuff with back links.  

These sites all have the same mo:  clickbait headlines, low quality unoriginal content with little regard for the truth and tons of seo manipulation.  Don't be duped.

[TECSHARE]

Marcus lu wrote "Yet, as Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu details below, when searching for facts, our own cognitive biases often get in the way."

It seems like one blogger discussing a blog written by a another blogger.

And then they added Visual Capitalist branding to the predictit.org infographic, and then had tons of other blogs, like zerohedge, post the same stuff with back links.  

These sites all have the same mo:  clickbait headlines, low quality unoriginal content with little regard for the truth and tons of seo manipulation.  Don't be duped.

Duped by what exactly? Was any of the content of the article inaccurate? You know the ironic part is you are exhibiting at least a couple of the cognitive biases listed in the infographic you clearly didn't even read.

[Spendulus]

Marcus lu wrote "Yet, as Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu details below, when searching for facts, our own cognitive biases often get in the way."

It seems like one blogger discussing a blog written by a another blogger.

And then they added Visual Capitalist branding to the predictit.org infographic, and then had tons of other blogs, like zerohedge, post the same stuff with back links.  

These sites all have the same mo:  clickbait headlines, low quality unoriginal content with little regard for the truth and tons of seo manipulation.  Don't be duped.

Duped by what exactly? Was any of the content of the article inaccurate? You know the ironic part is you are exhibiting at least a couple of the cognitive biases listed in the infographic you clearly didn't even read.

But ORANGEMANBAD.

[Sutters Mill]

I think companies like Youtube and reddit and so on will just end up shooting themselves in the foot with these bannings as people will just flock to other competitor sites so all this is doing is bolstering them.

People say this but don't realize the type of monopoly that large social media companies have. Facebook and Twitter are the top two social media sites and there isn't a single other platform that's going to get close. Instagram maybe, but that isn't used often in political discourse, and it's owned by Facebook regardless so the policies are going to be identical. People can flock over where ever they want, their voices aren't going to be heard.

I realize it, but people trickling away can grow into a ravenous ravine gushing users away eventually, especially when more and more users are being censored and even banned which forces them to go elsewhere. These big companies can lose their dominance also. Remember myspace??? If something better comes along then social media sites can go the way of the dodo or myspace. I don't think Facebook and Twitter are invincible, though if anything did threaten their dominance they'd probably just buy buy them out like Facebook bought Instagram and Whatsapp amongst other things.

It's futile anyway as you can't shut everyone up. Unless people are posting things that are illegal they should just let people be and encourage people to just block users on sites like YouTube and Twitter if they don't like what people are saying.

The issue of companies adopting a policy like this is that it creates a toxic platform that invites controversies and drives advertisers out. Reddit had this problem when they had subreddits that were dedicated to posting hate against fat people (r/fatpeoplehate) and underage girls (r/jailbait). Both communities were banned ages ago, and both communities were probably "technically" legal.

I think this is more of an issue of how those companies advertising system works and they should be able to find a way not to show ads for Coca Cola and McDonalds on problematic users or pages. I remember the first youtube adpocalypse and they the just kind of did a blanket ban on anything that might barely cross the line, including using profanity and so on, but what they should have done it just let advertisers choose what sort of channels or content they want to be associated with. I get that Coca Cola and Disney don't want to be advertising on ISIS videos and people with edgy content, but there are also advertisers who do want to advertise with the edgier crowd and there is a huge market for that content.

Banning people just because they say something liberals don't like shouldn't be going on and I hope people do start using other sites where they allow free speech. Places like Twitter have just become like an echo chamber for idiots and people screaming into the void desperate to be heard. Half the time the only things that are trending negativity and trying to get people 'cancelled'.

Agreed. Twitter's favorite pastime is digging up 15 year old statements and trending the hashtag ___isoverparty because cancel culture is mortally virtuous apparently.

Yup, this stuff is getting very pathetic. There should be some sort of statute of limitations on this sort of stuff. People shouldn't have to apologize for things they said ten years ago. I mean how far back do we go??? I used to piss the bed and suck on my mom's tits so should that be held against me at some point? Back in high school practically half the school used to use the word 'gay' to mean something shitty. If I'd have had twitter back then I'm sure I would have used it, but I wasn't homophobic then and I'm not now. People say stupid shit but it's their intent that should be looked at. The blackface controversy is another thing. There's a very big difference between actual blackface which is obviously meant to denigrate and mock an entire race based on gross stereotypes and then comedians doing an impression of a person who happens to be black. I mean, there are actual KKK members and people who would love to hurt you because of your skin color but I don't think Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon are two of them. I actually think it would be more discriminatory if comedians actually did a blanket ban on making jokes that involve black people bbut libtards are gonna libtard.

[Spendulus]

I think companies like Youtube and reddit and so on will just end up shooting themselves in the foot with these bannings as people will just flock to other competitor sites so all this is doing is bolstering them.

People say this but don't realize the type of monopoly that large social media companies have. Facebook and Twitter are the top two social media sites and there isn't a single other platform that's going to get close. Instagram maybe, but that isn't used often in political discourse, and it's owned by Facebook regardless so the policies are going to be identical. People can flock over where ever they want, their voices aren't going to be heard.

I realize it, but people trickling away can grow into a ravenous ravine gushing users away eventually, especially when more and more users are being censored and even banned which forces them to go elsewhere. These big companies can lose their dominance also. Remember myspace???....

Future operating systems likely will obsolesce the very ideal of a "portal" into a social network.

Remember AOL? Protegy? Compuserve?

[Barnabe]

I think companies like Youtube and reddit and so on will just end up shooting themselves in the foot with these bannings as people will just flock to other competitor sites so all this is doing is bolstering them.

People say this but don't realize the type of monopoly that large social media companies have. Facebook and Twitter are the top two social media sites and there isn't a single other platform that's going to get close. Instagram maybe, but that isn't used often in political discourse, and it's owned by Facebook regardless so the policies are going to be identical. People can flock over where ever they want, their voices aren't going to be heard.

I realize it, but people trickling away can grow into a ravenous ravine gushing users away eventually, especially when more and more users are being censored and even banned which forces them to go elsewhere. These big companies can lose their dominance also. Remember myspace???....

Future operating systems likely will obsolesce the very ideal of a "portal" into a social network.

Remember AOL? Protegy? Compuserve?

They grow big and then fall, it's like a cycle. I don't know if these companies begin to get out of touch, but it seems to be a reçurent pattern.

[TECSHARE]

"Big Tech CENSORED Trump Video About Doctors And COVID, This Is The BIGGEST Censorship Scandal EVER"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXE0Txdzzo

[tvbcof]

"Big Tech CENSORED Trump Video About Doctors And COVID, This Is The BIGGEST Censorship Scandal EVER"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXE0Txdzzo

Looks like a choreographed play act to me...and Tim Pool's presence lends support to that hypothesis.

The Streisand effect will make sure everyone sees it.  The bitter clinger Trump-tards will be get even more of a victim-hood injection (which is actually quite rational if this was a real thing and not kabuki theater.)  Trump will have a 'reaction' which will be 'bad' for the poor put-upon  big tech international conglomerates and further demonstrate to the left-wing mouth breathers that Trump is 'just like Hitler.'

[KingScorpio]

Wow.. Very sad..

Worlds current most influential philosopher, self-proclaimed annarcocapitalist, Bitcoin believer and supporter, hero of freedom, shut down by THEM...  

This is very very bad news for freedom...

I know Youtube has the freedom to do whatever they choose, but this is a huge setback for truth IMO..

They are cowards..

Videos can still be found on BitChute.. https://www.bitchute.com/channel/freedomainradio/

A great video he just made in the last few days..
"KILLING HISTORY" AN EXAMINATION OF MARXISM WITH DR DUKE PESTA AND STEFAN MOLYNEUX


BITCOIN VS. GOLD: THE FUTURE OF MONEY - PETER SCHIFF DEBATES STEFAN MOLYNEUX

i got terminated in quore for completely unoffensive stuff, these tech corporations are getting like fashist dictatorships

[Barnabe]

Wow.. Very sad..

Worlds current most influential philosopher, self-proclaimed annarcocapitalist, Bitcoin believer and supporter, hero of freedom, shut down by THEM...  

This is very very bad news for freedom...

I know Youtube has the freedom to do whatever they choose, but this is a huge setback for truth IMO..

They are cowards..

Videos can still be found on BitChute.. https://www.bitchute.com/channel/freedomainradio/

A great video he just made in the last few days..
"KILLING HISTORY" AN EXAMINATION OF MARXISM WITH DR DUKE PESTA AND STEFAN MOLYNEUX


BITCOIN VS. GOLD: THE FUTURE OF MONEY - PETER SCHIFF DEBATES STEFAN MOLYNEUX

i got terminated in quore for completely unoffensive stuff, these tech corporations are getting like fashist dictatorships

I think the problem is that they are playing two roles and want to have the best of both worlds.

The want to be a platform, so they don't have to be responsible for what people upload to their platform, but they also want full ideological control of what is published (deleting what they don't like).
Since online social media has become part of the public dialogue, I think governments should set a basic set of rules for each important platform (set by a number of users maybe ?) and force them to choose between a publisher business model and a hosting business model. A host would not be responsible for what is published on their platform (but should not be able to control in anyway or create artificial/decisions bias in their algorythms and a publisher would have full control, but would be responsible for their content.