It feels oppressive when Facebook, Twitter and Youtube start banning content based on political bias

[Confounding]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Not that I support content banning, but a lot of the reporting on this is overblown. Much of what is happening are algorithms taking down content unintentionally. A quick email to the company will get the content restored.

And other reporting, like the whining PragerU does, is nothing at all. YouTube has a content filter, turned off by default, that blocks a lot more than just conservative media.

 

[Confounding]

Not that I support content banning, but a lot of the reporting on this is overblown. Much of what is happening are algorithms taking down content unintentionally. A quick email to the company will get the content restored.

And other reporting, like the whining PragerU does, is nothing at all. YouTube has a content filter, turned off by default, that blocks a lot more than just conservative media.

Alex Jones was banned from all three of those platforms. Also Facebook is deleting content related to AGW denial. How far is it going to go?

 

[MarcATL]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Post the reasons given from these platforms for dropping Alex Jones and co' and I'll let you know if I think they're right or not to do so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Okay.

Can someone exain to me how claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax is "political"?

How about, insisting a pizza place is running a child trafficking ring? How is that, "political"?

What do conspiracy theories about 9/11 and incitements to violence have to do with one's beliefs on the size or role of government in legislation amd policy?

I just don't think this defense applies.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The internet giants will takeover for CNN....while crying about loss of liberties for all they will control the speech to stear and control the narrative.
That’s what 21st century Liberals do all day everyday.
“Free speech for those who agree with my speech.”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The internet giants will takeover for CNN....while crying about loss of liberties for all they will control the speech to stear and control the narrative.

No. Alex Jones is free to operate his website in plain view and host all of the content he desires.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, if USMB can ban or edit content of the people on here, then why can't Facebook? I mean, there have been people who were banned for saying hateful things and trolling, so if Facebook feels the same way about some of the content on their platform, shouldn't they be able to ban or edit people like USMB does?

 

[depotoo]

Not that I support content banning, but a lot of the reporting on this is overblown. Much of what is happening are algorithms taking down content unintentionally. A quick email to the company will get the content restored.

And other reporting, like the whining PragerU does, is nothing at all. YouTube has a content filter, turned off by default, that blocks a lot more than just conservative media.

No, it’s not. It is the left reporting posts when they don’t agree with them and getting the poster banned or suspended for nothing.

 

[Confounding]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Okay.

Can someone exain to me how claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax is "political"?

How about, insisting a pizza place is running a child trafficking ring? How is that, "political"?

What do conspiracy theories about 9/11 and incitements to violence have to do with one's beliefs on the size or role of government in legislation amd policy?

I just don't think this defense applies.

Alex Jones posts a lot more than just his most outrageous content. Just be real with me for a minute. You actually don't believe there was any political motivation behind what happened, at all?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Well, if USMB can ban or edit content of the people on here, then why can't Facebook? I mean, there have been people who were banned for saying hateful things and trolling, so if Facebook feels the same way about some of the content on their platform, shouldn't they be able to ban or edit people like USMB does?

USMB is not biased like FB, Google, and Twitter are.

The big social media companies are suppressing one political view while promoting another.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, if USMB can ban or edit content of the people on here, then why can't Facebook? I mean, there have been people who were banned for saying hateful things and trolling, so if Facebook feels the same way about some of the content on their platform, shouldn't they be able to ban or edit people like USMB does?

USMB is not biased like FB, Google, and Twitter are.

The big social media companies are suppressing one political view while promoting another.

They are a private company, and as such are allowed to control what does and doesn't appear on their platform.

 

[miketx]

Of course it's politically motivated. Comparing what has happened to Jones to banning someone here is a stretch. This imo is the beginning of a new wave of corporate censoring aimed not at stopping kids from seeing porn, or x rated videos, but of stopping websites that do not follow the liberal narrative that Trump is satan reincarnated as Hitler and must be stopped at any cost.

If liberals manage to take control of the both houses and the Presidency, which is the sole theme behind this stifling of Jones, and others, I think they will be sorry later. Having watched for a long time and seen the unintended consequences of many actions, my own included, I think I can safely say that the Utopian paradise many believe they will have once all of us are silenced, will extract a toll on their children. Not that I wish that, but that's how I see it. They'll see some of their children finding out just what mom and dad bought for them. It's a shame we have so many stupid and evil people.

 

[Tilly]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Okay.

Can someone exain to me how claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax is "political"?

How about, insisting a pizza place is running a child trafficking ring? How is that, "political"?

What do conspiracy theories about 9/11 and incitements to violence have to do with one's beliefs on the size or role of government in legislation amd policy?

I just don't think this defense applies.

To which incitement to violence are you referring?

 

[bendog]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Okay.

Can someone exain to me how claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax is "political"?

How about, insisting a pizza place is running a child trafficking ring? How is that, "political"?

What do conspiracy theories about 9/11 and incitements to violence have to do with one's beliefs on the size or role of government in legislation amd policy?

I just don't think this defense applies.

I just don't thing 1st Amend analysis applies, because the social media platforms are private entities. And if you subscribe to the constitutional analysis theory of looking at the text of the constitution under the meaning of the language used in the 18th century, this shows the genius of the people who wrote and voted to ratify.

Alex Jones has a right to knowingly lie about facts at sandy hook and Pizzagate. People have a right to sue him for damages, and win if they can prove he caused them to be injured. (Tough sledding though)

And the people who own facebook and other platforms have right to make money from people wanting to use their sites. If they decide Alex Joes, or anyone else, costs them more users than he gains them, they should be able to not carry his posts.

And Jones has a remedy. Because it costs so little to create a blog ... he can continue on ... on his own.

The founders believed in a marketplace of ideas. So long as ideas could be freely accessed, people would decide what they chose to act upon.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Jones is just pissed that he no longer has a site he doesn't have to pay for to broadcast his b.s.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Facebook is more like a corkboard at the grocery store. Everyone is free to put something up, but then the assistant manager comes

along and sees business cards from people he personally doesn't like and pulls them down.

That's about what's going on here.

 

[Confounding]

Jones is just pissed that he no longer has a site he doesn't have to pay for to broadcast his b.s.

He's pissed because it's a huge hit to his ability to spread his message and make money.

 

[Mac1958]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Yes, they have a right to do it.

And no, let's not pretend they're truly in favor of freedom of expression, the most liberal of ideals.

None of the Regressive Left is, because the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

 

[bendog]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Yes, they have a right to do it.

And no, let's not pretend they're truly in favor of freedom of expression, the most liberal of ideals.

None of the Regressive Left is, because the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Wellllllll, it's not like they're a monopoly or anything. It's not like the right lacks funds.