Latest Round of Censorship from the Left

[Norman]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

 

[Coyote]

]

Coyote, do you believe a printing press refusing to print an article and/or burning books is an example of pro free speech or anti free speech activity?

Quit pretending to be a retard. We all know what free speech means, and it certainly does NOT mean only government allowing speech. Your point completely failed because you believe we are speaking about LEGAL aspects of free speech when in fact we are talking about free speech in general. It was very stupid, like a fat bitch complaining that it's fine to be fat because after all it is legal.

So let's cut through crap here: you believe privately owned entities should be forced to comply with government mandated right of free speech?

All of them? Or just those you claim favor the left?

Of course that means all of my examples are accurate.

 

[Norman]

]

Coyote, do you believe a printing press refusing to print an article and/or burning books is an example of pro free speech or anti free speech activity?

Quit pretending to be a retard. We all know what free speech means, and it certainly does NOT mean only government allowing speech. Your point completely failed because you believe we are speaking about LEGAL aspects of free speech when in fact we are talking about free speech in general. It was very stupid, like a fat bitch complaining that it's fine to be fat because after all it is legal.

So let's cut through crap here: you believe privately owned entities should be forced to comply with government mandated right of free speech?

All of them? Or just those you claim favor the left?

Of course that means all of my examples are accurate.

Where did I say that?

I simply stated the leftist entities are anti-American, anti free speech, and against all civilization.

What to do about it, that's what the discussion should be about. But idiots are not even getting far enough to admit to themselves the entities have conducted draconian anti-American free speech violations.

 

[Coyote]

If you are running a public platform and not allowing everybody to participate, you are anti freedom of speech

Nope. You’re welcome to express your own speech on your own property or at your own cost.

Some people just want to be freeloaders and force others to propagate their speech. That’s not how it works in a free country.

You are free to eat as much food as you want, doesn't mean you aren't a fatass.

You are free to destroy 14 years of philosophy in a gigantic book burning, does not mean you aren't anti freedom of speech.

This is not very difficult for someone with an IQ over 80, which excludes most leftists apparently. Of course in this case the legality of matter is not so straight forward. Youtube may have violated the Canadian law, where discriminating based on political ideology is illegal.

Doubtful they violated Canadian law. I am not sure how the law works on platforms, but if it is like public accommodations laws, they can't discriminate against certain categories, and if they claim to be a public platform for free speech, they shouldn't, law or not.

But they are privately owned, and if you change them to publishers, they responsible for the content and can be sued.

If you look at YouTube, fb and Twitter, there is no shortage of conservative voices. So the discrimination based on that is a hard case to make.

As a private entity they have a right to control what they determine is inappropriate content, whether it is porn, violence or hate as long as it is applied evenly.

 

[Coyote]

]

Coyote, do you believe a printing press refusing to print an article and/or burning books is an example of pro free speech or anti free speech activity?

Quit pretending to be a retard. We all know what free speech means, and it certainly does NOT mean only government allowing speech. Your point completely failed because you believe we are speaking about LEGAL aspects of free speech when in fact we are talking about free speech in general. It was very stupid, like a fat bitch complaining that it's fine to be fat because after all it is legal.

So let's cut through crap here: you believe privately owned entities should be forced to comply with government mandated right of free speech?

All of them? Or just those you claim favor the left?

Of course that means all of my examples are accurate.

Where did I say that?

I simply stated the leftist entities are anti-American, anti free speech, and against all civilization.

What to do about it, that's what the discussion should be about. But idiots are not even getting far enough to admit to themselves the entities have conducted draconian anti-American free speech violations.

Hyperbole much?

 

[mdk]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

Perhaps it would help if we put this into the context of public access demands such as faced by the infamous bakers, who did not want their business products used to celebrate an idea they found repugnant. When that happened, the usual suspects went completely bonkers, demanded that the business be punished severely, didn't care that there were many other businesses glad to work with the offended customers, and insisted that the business owners had better keep their private opinions completely separated from their business, or else. These sites are selling a product (a platform on which to express ideas), but want to pick and choose what ideas are expressed, much like the bakers wished to pick and choose how their products were used. Not a perfect analogy and not meant to be, but this is shaping up to be a classic case of how much control a business has over who uses their product and how it's used. The fact that the product in this case is a messaging platform and not baked goods is ultimately irrelevant.

It's kind of interesting to watch the flip flopping. Those who self righteously demanded that the bakers be forced to have their products used in ways they found repugnant now want a private business to be able to refuse service to those whose ideas offend the business owners. On the other side we have those who wanted the bakers protected now wanting the messaging platform owners forced to accommodate ideas they find repugnant.

These threads are always quite illuminating. It exposes those that truly support business rights, property rights, and, individual liberty from those that merely pay lip service when it's politically convenient. It's as hilarious as it is hypocritical.

 

[Shelzin]

If you look at YouTube, fb and Twitter, there is no shortage of conservative voices. So the discrimination based on that is a hard case to make.

You haven't watched the Rogan vids yet obviously.

 

[Coyote]

At the end of the day you don't a have a right to a social media account or to be hosted on another's server. Perhaps your time would be better spent creating a rival platform instead of endlessly moaning about how bitterly unfair you feel treated.

And that might be one area, the ability to create rivals where there could be legitimate complaint...some of them function like monopolies.

 

[Coyote]

If you look at YouTube, fb and Twitter, there is no shortage of conservative voices. So the discrimination based on that is a hard case to make.

You haven't watched the Rogan vids yet obviously.

I did, but that is their opinion.

 

[Norman]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

Perhaps it would help if we put this into the context of public access demands such as faced by the infamous bakers, who did not want their business products used to celebrate an idea they found repugnant. When that happened, the usual suspects went completely bonkers, demanded that the business be punished severely, didn't care that there were many other businesses glad to work with the offended customers, and insisted that the business owners had better keep their private opinions completely separated from their business, or else. These sites are selling a product (a platform on which to express ideas), but want to pick and choose what ideas are expressed, much like the bakers wished to pick and choose how their products were used. Not a perfect analogy and not meant to be, but this is shaping up to be a classic case of how much control a business has over who uses their product and how it's used. The fact that the product in this case is a messaging platform and not baked goods is ultimately irrelevant.

It's kind of interesting to watch the flip flopping. Those who self righteously demanded that the bakers be forced to have their products used in ways they found repugnant now want a private business to be able to refuse service to those whose ideas offend the business owners. On the other side we have those who wanted the bakers protected now wanting the messaging platform owners forced to accommodate ideas they find repugnant.

These threads are always quite illuminating. It exposes those that truly support business rights, property rights, and, individual liberty from those that merely pay lip service when it's politically convenient. It's as hilarious as it is hypocritical.

The only thing the thread shows is how anti-American and against freedom of speech far left idiots such as yourself are.

 

[Coyote]

If you are running a public platform and not allowing everybody to participate, you are anti freedom of speech

Nope. You’re welcome to express your own speech on your own property or at your own cost.

Some people just want to be freeloaders and force others to propagate their speech. That’s not how it works in a free country.

You are free to eat as much food as you want, doesn't mean you aren't a fatass.

You are free to destroy 14 years of philosophy in a gigantic book burning, does not mean you aren't anti freedom of speech.

This is not very difficult for someone with an IQ over 80, which excludes most leftists apparently. Of course in this case the legality of matter is not so straight forward. Youtube may have violated the Canadian law, where discriminating based on political ideology is illegal.

This isn’t about first amendment. This is about people demanding something for free and getting pissed that the platforms don’t want to support their nonsense.

That’s it. End of story.

Bunch of lazy ass losers.

This is leftists acting like authoritarian dictators, banning speech they don't like, in a gigantic anti free speech, anti-American move.

That's it, end of story. Most people already got that when they read the thread title. When will you get to the baseline so we may actually discuss what to do about it and who to vote for in November to kick the asses of the anti-Americans?

You mean like Trump defunding groups or agencies that he doesn't like? Throwing CNN out of press briefings because they ask "mean": questions?

That's completely fine, those are private meetings that exclude 99.9999% of people, and there is no problem with defunding agencies.

And so we begin a long explanation about how is okay for Republicans to exclude anyone they want but not websites.

Tulsa Police arrest local teacher in 'I can't breathe' shirt for obstruction after Trump's campaign asked officers to remove her

At the request of the Donald Trump campaign, Tulsa police say they arrested a woman in an “I can’t breathe” shirt after she wouldn’t willingly leave a secure area for

www.tulsaworld.com

Lady was removed from the event because of what her t shirt said.

Good example.

 

[Shelzin]

If you look at YouTube, fb and Twitter, there is no shortage of conservative voices. So the discrimination based on that is a hard case to make.

You haven't watched the Rogan vids yet obviously.

I did, but that is their opinion.

Opinion? It's not opinion people are getting banned for saying "Men aren't woman" and "Learn to code"... That's... Crazy... And you think they'll stop at that?

 

[mdk]

At the end of the day you don't a have a right to a social media account or to be hosted on another's server. Perhaps your time would be better spent creating a rival platform instead of endlessly moaning about how bitterly unfair you feel treated.

And that might be one area, the ability to create rivals where there could be legitimate complaint...some of them function like monopolies.

Rival sites already exist, but getting people to actually use them is an entirely different kettle of fish. Besides, switching platforms is far too annoying. Why go to all that trouble when you can get the gubmint and their regulatory tentacles all up in the matter?

 

[mdk]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

Perhaps it would help if we put this into the context of public access demands such as faced by the infamous bakers, who did not want their business products used to celebrate an idea they found repugnant. When that happened, the usual suspects went completely bonkers, demanded that the business be punished severely, didn't care that there were many other businesses glad to work with the offended customers, and insisted that the business owners had better keep their private opinions completely separated from their business, or else. These sites are selling a product (a platform on which to express ideas), but want to pick and choose what ideas are expressed, much like the bakers wished to pick and choose how their products were used. Not a perfect analogy and not meant to be, but this is shaping up to be a classic case of how much control a business has over who uses their product and how it's used. The fact that the product in this case is a messaging platform and not baked goods is ultimately irrelevant.

It's kind of interesting to watch the flip flopping. Those who self righteously demanded that the bakers be forced to have their products used in ways they found repugnant now want a private business to be able to refuse service to those whose ideas offend the business owners. On the other side we have those who wanted the bakers protected now wanting the messaging platform owners forced to accommodate ideas they find repugnant.

These threads are always quite illuminating. It exposes those that truly support business rights, property rights, and, individual liberty from those that merely pay lip service when it's politically convenient. It's as hilarious as it is hypocritical.

The only thing the thread shows is how anti-American and against freedom of speech far left idiots such as yourself are.

There are numerous capitalistic and free market answers if you feel you're being treated awfully, but you are far too busy pussy-aching on the internet to implement any of them.

 

[colfax_m]

If you are running a public platform and not allowing everybody to participate, you are anti freedom of speech

Nope. You’re welcome to express your own speech on your own property or at your own cost.

Some people just want to be freeloaders and force others to propagate their speech. That’s not how it works in a free country.

You are free to eat as much food as you want, doesn't mean you aren't a fatass.

You are free to destroy 14 years of philosophy in a gigantic book burning, does not mean you aren't anti freedom of speech.

This is not very difficult for someone with an IQ over 80, which excludes most leftists apparently. Of course in this case the legality of matter is not so straight forward. Youtube may have violated the Canadian law, where discriminating based on political ideology is illegal.

This isn’t about first amendment. This is about people demanding something for free and getting pissed that the platforms don’t want to support their nonsense.

That’s it. End of story.

Bunch of lazy ass losers.

In the old days people would walk to the town square - that they didn't own or build, and were free to speak whatever they wished without fear of Government interference,
They were not getting somethin for free the town square was their public platform and were not thought to be lazy ass losers.

Today with the help of the Government, Platforms such as Facebook have replaced the public square.
Absolutely not possible to trust Zuckerberg and his algorithms to properly police the town square.

People like you would agree if, I dunno lets say Facebook put Steve Bannon in charge of the algorithms

Town squares are public property, owned and maintained by the people of the area.

Facebook is not public property. The government does not own or maintain it.

The difference is monumental.

 

[colfax_m]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

Because rights really only apply to rights that one has inherently, asking someone to subsidize your right makes it not an actual right, yes?

No, the right still exists regardless of anyone’s desire to subsidize it or not.

The freedom of speech does not hinge on whether YouTube hosts a video.

 

[Coyote]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

Perhaps it would help if we put this into the context of public access demands such as faced by the infamous bakers, who did not want their business products used to celebrate an idea they found repugnant. When that happened, the usual suspects went completely bonkers, demanded that the business be punished severely, didn't care that there were many other businesses glad to work with the offended customers, and insisted that the business owners had better keep their private opinions completely separated from their business, or else. These sites are selling a product (a platform on which to express ideas), but want to pick and choose what ideas are expressed, much like the bakers wished to pick and choose how their products were used. Not a perfect analogy and not meant to be, but this is shaping up to be a classic case of how much control a business has over who uses their product and how it's used. The fact that the product in this case is a messaging platform and not baked goods is ultimately irrelevant.

It's kind of interesting to watch the flip flopping. Those who self righteously demanded that the bakers be forced to have their products used in ways they found repugnant now want a private business to be able to refuse service to those whose ideas offend the business owners. On the other side we have those who wanted the bakers protected now wanting the messaging platform owners forced to accommodate ideas they find repugnant.

It's funny because I was thinking of the baker as well, but in a different way. I am not sure you are making equivalent examples.

In example, it is how the product is eventually used.

In the other example, it is the product itself.

If a business serves the public, it can't discrimminate based on the customer.

But it also can't be forced to make something it does not ordinarily make.

So a baker can't discriminate based on the attributes of the customer for a product he ordinarily produces for other customers, but he can't be forced to make a cake a cake he does not ordinarily make. He needs to provide a wedding cake but he can't be forced to decorate it like a phallus.

Likewise, a social platform cant discrimminate against the attributes of it's customers, but it can refuse to allow certain types of content, as long as it is across the board. In other words, it cant discriminate because the customer is Antifa or White Supremacist, only if the content itself violates their ToS.

You cant force them to host porn, violence, etc. But they have no say in what person person ultimately chooses to do with the content.

 

[colfax_m]

At the end of the day you don't a have a right to a social media account or to be hosted on another's server. Perhaps your time would be better spent creating a rival platform instead of endlessly moaning about how bitterly unfair you feel treated.

And that might be one area, the ability to create rivals where there could be legitimate complaint...some of them function like monopolies.

Rival sites already exist, but getting people to actually use them is an entirely different kettle of fish. Besides, switching platforms is far too annoying. Why go to all that trouble when you can get the gubmint and their regulatory tentacles all up in the matter?

This is exactly the point. Anyone can make a website. What these people (Molyneux and the rest) are demanding isn’t speech, it’s an audience. They don’t want to speak on platforms without an audience.

 

[Coyote]

At the end of the day you don't a have a right to a social media account or to be hosted on another's server. Perhaps your time would be better spent creating a rival platform instead of endlessly moaning about how bitterly unfair you feel treated.

And that might be one area, the ability to create rivals where there could be legitimate complaint...some of them function like monopolies.

Rival sites already exist, but getting people to actually use them is an entirely different kettle of fish. Besides, switching platforms is far too annoying. Why go to all that trouble when you can get the gubmint and their regulatory tentacles all up in the matter?

This might be rumor, but I thought fb squashed rivsls....

 

[Norman]

Molyneux's statement on the silencing.


"This is Stefan Molyneux. As you may have heard, 14 years of my life, thousands of videos, billions of comments, hundreds of millions of views, and nearly a million subscribers have been destroyed, has been erased from |YouTube.

The accusation is the usual one, that I'm fermenting violence and hatred and so on, which is not true at all. I have consistently promulgated the non-aggression principle and called for reason and evidence as the methodology by which we can resolve social disputes and differences. It doesn't seem to have mattered, of course, the reality is that the book burning is underway. Myself and many other dissidents and anti-communist intellectuals and speakers have also had channels destroyed across a wide variety of platforms within the span of only one hour in what I assume is a highly coordinated effort to silence us. And it is a blow, don't get me wrong, it is a huge blow, it is a huge challenge, and the goal of course is to remove the middle, to remove those of us who are looking for peaceful solutions, rational solutions, philosophical solutions, to social differences. To take us out so that there is no center to society and everyone can gravitate to the extremes wherein the tinderbox of violence can be lit in a revolutionary conflagration of brutality.

And I'm going to strongly urge you, my friends, to resist that temptation, resist that temptation to go to the extremes, to go to hostility, to go to rage, to go to violence. It is not too late. There is still incredible technology that we can use to further the rational and philosophical discussion of issues within society and I'm begging you please stay in the conversation. It is my dedication and my foundational goal to maintain, and possibly even grow, this philosophical conversation despite the inevitable blowbacks that philosophers always receive from the powers that be, so please help me out.

It's going to be a pretty harsh winter and a pretty big reorientation. I'm going to beg you, please, my friends, go to freedomain.com. Help me out. I will come back stronger and better and we can avoid the escalation that could burn us all to the ground."