PJW Banned

[Carl in Michigan]

This leftist nonsense isn't going to stop. They are losing and they are desperate to silence alternate points of view

 

[OldLady]

This leftist nonsense isn't going to stop. They are losing and they are desperate to silence alternate points of view

So this guy, whoever he is, has no other platform but Facebook? No website of his own? No place else he can hang out? (Don't invite him here, please).

 

[Penelope]

He is probably here already. Yes, I see the banned Alex Jones as well.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This leftist nonsense isn't going to stop. They are losing and they are desperate to silence alternate points of view

So this guy, whoever he is, has no other platform but Facebook? No website of his own? No place else he can hang out? (Don't invite him here, please).

Look up. You might see the point passing over your head.

 

[impuretrash]

This leftist nonsense isn't going to stop. They are losing and they are desperate to silence alternate points of view

So this guy, whoever he is, has no other platform but Facebook? No website of his own? No place else he can hang out? (Don't invite him here, please).

I'm sure he will be banned from Youtube soon, and get blacklisted from paypal too. Will that make you happy?

 

[emilynghiem]

Earth to Death Angel
Note that Facebook and Instagram are free market companies.
If they are offering services under their terms, they have the
right to enforce those.

What I will agree with protestors on:
If a company falsely ADVERTISES or MISREPRESENTS
that it is open to all users regardless of views or content,
as long as you meet given standards of use such as not to abuse or harass,
and the people banned DID NOT VIOLATE any of these rules but
barring from services was due to "discriminate against the person"
and not because of their actions breaking rules, then this is
a violating act of discrimination similar to barring gay customers
because of "who they are and what they believe"
as OPPOSED TO just refusing service to specific requests
(such as gay weddings that go outside the agreed services and against
the beliefs of the business operators).

In both cases:
A. it is wrongful discrimination to refuse to serve customers
just because of their beliefs
B. but it is within the discretion of business service providers
to refuse certain content if their policies make it clear they
have this discretion. Such as a disclaimer that the service
providers may refuse to accommodate content they find
in conflict with their own philosophies or beliefs.

C. To make this perfectly fair and distinct between A and B,
I strongly urge that customers and businesses sign MEDIATION WAIVERS
and DISCLAIMERS in advance, where they agree that any conflict
concerning beliefs or content be resolved by free mediation to the
satisfaction of both parties, in order to prevent any legal action
or costs to any party to disputes; and if such disputes cannot
be resolved, the parties agree to refrain from conducting
business together so that beliefs of both are respected equally.

If businesses require customers to sign these waivers in advance
before using services, then any dispute either has to be resolved
amicably and consensually by mediation, or they don't do business together.

 

[ozro]

How come facebook can ban people but won't let folks that want to leave voluntarily.

 

[impuretrash]

Earth to Death Angel
Note that Facebook and Instagram are free market companies.
If they are offering services under their terms, they have the
right to enforce those.

What I will agree with protestors on:
If a company falsely ADVERTISES or MISREPRESENTS
that it is open to all users regardless of views or content,
as long as you meet given standards of use such as not to abuse or harass,
and the people banned DID NOT VIOLATE any of these rules but
barring from services was due to "discriminate against the person"
and not because of their actions breaking rules, then this is
a violating act of discrimination similar to barring gay customers
because of "who they are and what they believe"
as OPPOSED TO just refusing service to specific requests
(such as gay weddings that go outside the agreed services and against
the beliefs of the business operators).

In both cases:
A. it is wrongful discrimination to refuse to serve customers
just because of their beliefs
B. but it is within the discretion of business service providers
to refuse certain content if their policies make it clear they
have this discretion. Such as a disclaimer that the service
providers may refuse to accommodate content they find
in conflict with their own philosophies or beliefs.

C. To make this perfectly fair and distinct between A and B,
I strongly urge that customers and businesses sign MEDIATION WAIVERS
and DISCLAIMERS in advance, where they agree that any conflict
concerning beliefs or content be resolved by free mediation to the
satisfaction of both parties, in order to prevent any legal action
or costs to any party to disputes; and if such disputes cannot
be resolved, the parties agree to refrain from conducting
business together so that beliefs of both are respected equally.

If businesses require customers to sign these waivers in advance
before using services, then any dispute either has to be resolved
amicably and consensually by mediation, or they don't do business together.

Facebook is chock full of horrific animal abuse videos and even videos of children being strangled, run over and beaten. That sort of content is very popular with southeast asians for some reason. But that's not what's being censored. Opinions are. the opinions of western conservatives.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The more these anti free speech fascists ban people for their political thought the more they create a backlash
that will eventually draw even more followers to the cause. Not smart at all.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

So, they just drive the formation of information enclaves. The goal is ofcourse to control the web in general. Not possible but they are trying very hard in Europe with passage of Articles 11 & 13.
It is coming though. These companies can see it and are leaning forward on the compliance they are pushing for.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This leftist nonsense isn't going to stop. They are losing and they are desperate to silence alternate points of view

Alternative facts?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This leftist nonsense isn't going to stop. They are losing and they are desperate to silence alternate points of view

Alternative facts?

Yes. That's what you try to push. But that's not what I said. Facts are FACTS. Points of view is what your side is desperately trying to squelch

 

[Wry Catcher]

The more these anti free speech fascists ban people for their political thought the more they create a backlash
that will eventually draw even more followers to the cause. Not smart at all.

Is the Russian influence on our electoral process acceptable to you?

It seems Vlad&Co. have done quite well in developing a following in the US. Agent provocateurs have created more followers to echo the the propaganda, aka, the BIG LIES so that Russia (Putin) can pick the POTUS.

 

[Likkmee]

He is probably here already. Yes, I see the banned Alex Jones as well.

Once AOC gets in office tRump and Jones will start TruTube. Deutsche bank is in !

 

[emilynghiem]

Earth to Death Angel
Note that Facebook and Instagram are free market companies.
If they are offering services under their terms, they have the
right to enforce those.

What I will agree with protestors on:
If a company falsely ADVERTISES or MISREPRESENTS
that it is open to all users regardless of views or content,
as long as you meet given standards of use such as not to abuse or harass,
and the people banned DID NOT VIOLATE any of these rules but
barring from services was due to "discriminate against the person"
and not because of their actions breaking rules, then this is
a violating act of discrimination similar to barring gay customers
because of "who they are and what they believe"
as OPPOSED TO just refusing service to specific requests
(such as gay weddings that go outside the agreed services and against
the beliefs of the business operators).

In both cases:
A. it is wrongful discrimination to refuse to serve customers
just because of their beliefs
B. but it is within the discretion of business service providers
to refuse certain content if their policies make it clear they
have this discretion. Such as a disclaimer that the service
providers may refuse to accommodate content they find
in conflict with their own philosophies or beliefs.

C. To make this perfectly fair and distinct between A and B,
I strongly urge that customers and businesses sign MEDIATION WAIVERS
and DISCLAIMERS in advance, where they agree that any conflict
concerning beliefs or content be resolved by free mediation to the
satisfaction of both parties, in order to prevent any legal action
or costs to any party to disputes; and if such disputes cannot
be resolved, the parties agree to refrain from conducting
business together so that beliefs of both are respected equally.

If businesses require customers to sign these waivers in advance
before using services, then any dispute either has to be resolved
amicably and consensually by mediation, or they don't do business together.

Facebook is chock full of horrific animal abuse videos and even videos of children being strangled, run over and beaten. That sort of content is very popular with southeast asians for some reason. But that's not what's being censored. Opinions are. the opinions of western conservatives.

Unless they misrepresent their policies to paid users and advertisers,
can't any private individual or company decide what they want or don't
want on their servers or through their networks.

Fox News picks and chooses which anchors or which advertisers or messages,
which letters from the audience get airtime etc. It's not a public channel open to just anyone.

impuretrash from what I understand:
The legal disputes where there was standing to enforce laws and policies
involved MISREPRESENTATION of the services.

So yes, if they claimed not to discriminate on the basis of content and did,
that is a violation of their advertised policies.

If they claimed not to sell or abuse user information for marketing or profit,
for example, but did such abuses of private information, yes that has been
used as the basis of taking legal action for violations of user policy.

For content, however, I am more in agreement
with Constitutionalist Mark Levin who argues that
we don't want to get into this business of trying to
regulate anyone's discretionary choices on freedom of speech and of the press.

You don't want govt REGULATING media, so whatever
Fox News or Facebook publish or don't publish, you don't
want to go down that road. Because, as Mark Levin says it:
NOTHING IS REQUIRING YOU TO USE THESE NETWORKS OR PLATFORMS.

What I will CLARIFY is IF these outlets
MISREPRESENT, VIOLATE OR ABUSE their own POSTED terms
and user agreements and/or advertising policy
SURE they can be sued for breach of contracts like any other company.

So they just need to clarify VERY specifically their right to regulate
content through their platforms and not claim to be equally inclusive or exclusive.

If they claim not to post illegal activities, yes
they should take every effort to remove those.
The problem is if extra costs or resources are needed,
then platforms such as Facebook cannot completely remove content
but can only block the public access. If you bring up the old links,
you can still find those images left online, and no group has been
able to solve this since the backlog is so huge it would take years.

(My solution to that is to enlist the efforts of all spammers, online
frauds, identity theft hackers, and make it part of their restitution
to pay the cost of hiring IT staff to remove all these images offline)

 

[impuretrash]

The more these anti free speech fascists ban people for their political thought the more they create a backlash
that will eventually draw even more followers to the cause. Not smart at all.

Is the Russian influence on our electoral process acceptable to you?

It seems Vlad&Co. have done quite well in developing a following in the US. Agent provocateurs have created more followers to echo the the propaganda, aka, the BIG LIES so that Russia (Putin) can pick the POTUS.

Are you really trying to say that ONLY people who fall victim to "russian propaganda" might develop an opinion contrary to the status quo?

 

[impuretrash]

Earth to Death Angel
Note that Facebook and Instagram are free market companies.
If they are offering services under their terms, they have the
right to enforce those.

What I will agree with protestors on:
If a company falsely ADVERTISES or MISREPRESENTS
that it is open to all users regardless of views or content,
as long as you meet given standards of use such as not to abuse or harass,
and the people banned DID NOT VIOLATE any of these rules but
barring from services was due to "discriminate against the person"
and not because of their actions breaking rules, then this is
a violating act of discrimination similar to barring gay customers
because of "who they are and what they believe"
as OPPOSED TO just refusing service to specific requests
(such as gay weddings that go outside the agreed services and against
the beliefs of the business operators).

In both cases:
A. it is wrongful discrimination to refuse to serve customers
just because of their beliefs
B. but it is within the discretion of business service providers
to refuse certain content if their policies make it clear they
have this discretion. Such as a disclaimer that the service
providers may refuse to accommodate content they find
in conflict with their own philosophies or beliefs.

C. To make this perfectly fair and distinct between A and B,
I strongly urge that customers and businesses sign MEDIATION WAIVERS
and DISCLAIMERS in advance, where they agree that any conflict
concerning beliefs or content be resolved by free mediation to the
satisfaction of both parties, in order to prevent any legal action
or costs to any party to disputes; and if such disputes cannot
be resolved, the parties agree to refrain from conducting
business together so that beliefs of both are respected equally.

If businesses require customers to sign these waivers in advance
before using services, then any dispute either has to be resolved
amicably and consensually by mediation, or they don't do business together.

Facebook is chock full of horrific animal abuse videos and even videos of children being strangled, run over and beaten. That sort of content is very popular with southeast asians for some reason. But that's not what's being censored. Opinions are. the opinions of western conservatives.

Unless they misrepresent their policies to paid users and advertisers,
can't any private individual or company decide what they want or don't
want on their servers or through their networks.

Fox News picks and chooses which anchors or which advertisers or messages,
which letters from the audience get airtime etc. It's not a public channel open to just anyone.

impuretrash from what I understand:
The legal disputes where there was standing to enforce laws and policies
involved MISREPRESENTATION of the services.

So yes, if they claimed not to discriminate on the basis of content and did,
that is a violation of their advertised policies.

If they claimed not to sell or abuse user information for marketing or profit,
for example, but did such abuses of private information, yes that has been
used as the basis of taking legal action for violations of user policy.

For content, however, I am more in agreement
with Constitutionalist Mark Levin who argues that
we don't want to get into this business of trying to
regulate anyone's discretionary choices on freedom of speech and of the press.

You don't want govt REGULATING media, so whatever
Fox News or Facebook publish or don't publish, you don't
want to go down that road. Because, as Mark Levin says it:
NOTHING IS REQUIRING YOU TO USE THESE NETWORKS OR PLATFORMS.

What I will CLARIFY is IF these outlets
MISREPRESENT, VIOLATE OR ABUSE their own POSTED terms
and user agreements and/or advertising policy
SURE they can be sued for breach of contracts like any other company.

So they just need to clarify VERY specifically their right to regulate
content through their platforms and not claim to be equally inclusive or exclusive.

If they claim not to post illegal activities, yes
they should take every effort to remove those.
The problem is if extra costs or resources are needed,
then platforms such as Facebook cannot completely remove content
but can only block the public access. If you bring up the old links,
you can still find those images left online, and no group has been
able to solve this since the backlog is so huge it would take years.

(My solution to that is to enlist the efforts of all spammers, online
frauds, identity theft hackers, and make it part of their restitution
to pay the cost of hiring IT staff to remove all these images offline)

Let me get this straight. We absolutely DON'T want the govt to regulate and censor free speech but we absolutely DO want to give that power to massive multinational corporations who have NO loyalty to any nation.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Is the Russian influence on our electoral process acceptable to you?

It seems Vlad&Co. have done quite well in developing a following in the US. Agent provocateurs have created more followers to echo the the propaganda, aka, the BIG LIES so that Russia (Putin) can pick the POTUS.

Great meme, bro. Is banning someone like Stephen Crowder from social media really the same as delivering a blow to
Vlad Putin and election meddling? Not even remotely!

James Clapper has recently claimed that Russia has routinely tried to interfere in our elections since the '60s.

Sounds to me like regardless of what You Tube or Facebook does the Russians will try to somehow influence or cause
confusion in our elections. You just are trying to rationalize social media banning speech it does not like and that's called disingenuous.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The more these anti free speech fascists ban people for their political thought the more they create a backlash
that will eventually draw even more followers to the cause. Not smart at all.

Is the Russian influence on our electoral process acceptable to you?

It seems Vlad&Co. have done quite well in developing a following in the US. Agent provocateurs have created more followers to echo the the propaganda, aka, the BIG LIES so that Russia (Putin) can pick the POTUS.

Are you really trying to say that ONLY people who fall victim to "russian propaganda" might develop an opinion contrary to the status quo?

Not at all. As a liberal I'm always open to rational improvement to the S.Q. I don't fear change, I welcome it; nor do I fear challenging change when it occurs to me that the change (for example the Ryan Tax Fraud) is clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[impuretrash]

The more these anti free speech fascists ban people for their political thought the more they create a backlash
that will eventually draw even more followers to the cause. Not smart at all.

Is the Russian influence on our electoral process acceptable to you?

It seems Vlad&Co. have done quite well in developing a following in the US. Agent provocateurs have created more followers to echo the the propaganda, aka, the BIG LIES so that Russia (Putin) can pick the POTUS.

Are you really trying to say that ONLY people who fall victim to "russian propaganda" might develop an opinion contrary to the status quo?

Not at all. As a liberal I'm always open to rational improvement to the S.Q. I don't fear change, I welcome it; nor do I fear challenging change when it occurs to me that the change (for example the Ryan Tax Fraud) is clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Trump's election was the biggest challenge to the status quo in decades and it terrifies you.