Purges on social media sites

Clinically impossible
[He] Hates the fact am a veteran
Go on then, why would a genuine veteran ‘hate the fact that you are a veteran’?

Seems an odd claim to make but then again, those always needing to tell the world about their veteran status or their career/income/wealth success generally have neither. They are odd people with odd claims.
 
Ignoring the who the poster is, he's got a good point.

The mass manipulation of social media by a very small number of companies is a collosally powerful and dangerous thing.

I think there's an important link between media control and the rise of the XLW over the last few years.
There is also an important link between media control and the rise of the XRW. Both sides know that if you want to win you need to control the message.
 
There is also an important link between media control and the rise of the XRW. Both sides know that if you want to win you need to control the message.
I'm not seeing this rise of the XRW at all. The BNP are dead, all we have are a small smattering of brain dead hooligans who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.
 

cowgoesmoo

Old-Salt
I’m not really sure why privately owned websites are expected to allow unlimited freedom of speech. Posting in the comments section of a local or national newspaper isn’t a human right.
Because if they don't then are deemed to be exerting editorial control over the content on their platform, which under US law makes them liable for anything published on it. The large tech companies currently have an exemption as they are a deemed to be platform providers, and so must remain politically neutral and only remove content which violates their stated ToS. The issue at the moment is that they are removing content which doesn't violate their T&Cs however it does disagree with the left-leaning political zeitgeist (which is editorial control) whilst simultaneously claiming to be politically neutral to benefit from the platform exemptions to avoid being held liable. They can't have it both ways.
 
Because if they don't then are deemed to be exerting editorial control over the content on their platform, which under US law makes them liable for anything published on it. The large tech companies currently have an exemption as they are a deemed to be platform providers, and so must remain politically neutral and only remove content which violates their stated ToS. The issue at the moment is that they are removing content which doesn't violate their T&Cs however it does disagree with the left-leaning political zeitgeist (which is editorial control) whilst simultaneously claiming to be politically neutral to benefit from the platform exemptions to avoid being held liable. They can't have it both ways.
The actual issue regarding T&Cs is that they are changing , so posters and forums have suddenly violated T&Cs just by not removing content that may be years old.
 
They get purged constantly. Anything that isn't the party line gets deleted fast
And?? They’re privately owned and run, just as this forum is. If the owners don’t like it then it doesn’t stay. If posters don’t like it then go and find a forum that will let your posts stay.

It’s not a free speech argument, however much you’d like it to be.
 
And?? They’re privately owned and run, just as this forum is. If the owners don’t like it then it doesn’t stay. If posters don’t like it then go and find a forum that will let your posts stay.

It’s not a free speech argument, however much you’d like it to be.
But even the newer kids on the block, like Discord and Parler, have become almost arbitrary in their approach lately, and a lot of people transferred to those platforms because they were allowing actual free and freer speech.
 

cowgoesmoo

Old-Salt
And?? They’re privately owned and run, just as this forum is. If the owners don’t like it then it doesn’t stay. If posters don’t like it then go and find a forum that will let your posts stay.

It’s not a free speech argument, however much you’d like it to be.
It is most definitely a free speech issue - platforms like Facebook and YouTube are shielded from legal action in return for allowing free speech (within their stated T&Cs) and operating in an impartial and apolitical way that DOES NOT reflect any political views held by the owners. Its that simple - if they want x they must do y. If they want to reflect the politics of their owners then then they lose their legal protection and face the same consequences as somewhere like ARRSE does for any libellous or slanderous content which they host. The big SM platforms are milking x but blatently refusing to do y.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes it's happening. One channel I was watching tonight on YouTube was taken down mid live stream. The video was a detailed analysis of the the interaction of various people during President Trump's inauguration.
Damn I missed that:slow:
 
But even the newer kids on the block, like Discord and Parler, have become almost arbitrary in their approach lately, and a lot of people transferred to those platforms because they were allowing actual free and freer speech.
To repeat, they are privately owned platforms. It’s not a free speech issue, however much you’d like it to be. Don’t like the rules, don’t post. It’s that simple.
 
It is most definitely a free speech issue - platforms like Facebook and YouTube are shielded from legal action in return for allowing free speech (within their stated T&Cs) and operating in an impartial and apolitical way that DOES NOT reflect any political views held by the owners. Its that simple - if they want x they must do y. If they want to reflect the politics of their owners then then they lose their legal protection and face the same consequences as somewhere like ARRSE does for any libellous or slanderous content which they host. The big SM platforms are milking x but blatently refusing to do y.
No, it really isn’t. Why people are too thick to understand this escapes me. These sites are owned by individuals or groups who have their own take on life or agendas. You said it yourself; within their T&Cs, and they’re free to alter those at any time as they have no responsibility to guarantee free speech.

If they don’t like it then it doesn’t go on their site or gets culled as the owners’ attitudes shift. Don’t like the rules as they stand, feel free to post somewhere else or set up your own channel/site/ whatever.

Putting a video on YouTube or posting on Facebook is not a human right or a free speech issue if it gets chinned off for being political one way or the other (or for any other reason that the site owners choose) and I have no idea why you’d think it was.
 
Last edited:
Im not a scouser you buffoon.

You’re not a veteran, you’ve never served in the armed forces, you’ve been a cadet at best, the rest is just fantasy.

Big timing about how well you are paid generally indicates you’re a big timing bluffing cùnt, which would fit your profile.
Regardless of the nature of the OP (I've no idea) the point is valid. It's at the very core of the major issue right now, which is whether the free states of the West allow their citizens to express their views without public excoriation, imposed poverty, arrest, imprisonment (or, in the case of many more ...er,Eastern regimes; death).

Those aren't fantasy levels of punishment; they're taking place now, at varying levels. If, for instance, Starkey, can't get another income stream, he could be totally broke and living on some pal's sofa. One noxious journo tried to break Roger Scruton - tried and failed, thankfully.

It happens to anybody who expresses an opinion contrary to the Outraged, the Offended - on 'twitter' or facebook, usually, and it's a phenomenon which is immensely obscene. But because it can't be stopped - what's now public knowledge can't be rolled back, rather like the A-Bomb - it will continue to limit, more limit and further limit public discourse. ARRSE itself has experienced this, and we can expect more and more stringent limits on what we can say here; not because what we say isn't truthful or right, but because it might offend the 0.001 percent of the watching Mitarbeiters.
 

endure

GCM
No, it really isn’t. Why people are too thick to understand this escapes me. These sites are owned by individuals or groups who have their own take on life or agendas. You said it yourself; within their T&Cs, and they’re free to alter those at any time as they have no responsibility to guarantee free speech.

If they don’t like it then it doesn’t go on their site or gets culled as the owners’ attitudes shift. Don’t like the rules as they stand, feel free to post somewhere else or set up your own channel/site/ whatever.

Putting a video on YouTube or posting on Facebook is not a human right or a free speech issue if it gets chinned off for being political one way or the other and I have no idea why you’d think it was.

A long time ago in a land far away there used to be bulletin boards. One of them was run by a guy in Nottingham. It was quite comprehensive in that it had 3 incoming lines and a bulletin board system which allowed us to leave comments.

Occasionally some of those comments were deleted by the owner. When questioned about the deletions the owner pointed out that the BB was his property and if the posters didn't like it they were perfectly free to set up their own.

The concept of free speech doesn't mean that other people have to provide you with a platform for free.

If you're so determined to put across your point of view better get your wallet out.
 
It is most definitely a free speech issue - platforms like Facebook and YouTube are shielded from legal action in return for allowing free speech (within their stated T&Cs) and operating in an impartial and apolitical way that DOES NOT reflect any political views held by the owners. Its that simple - if they want x they must do y. If they want to reflect the politics of their owners then then they lose their legal protection and face the same consequences as somewhere like ARRSE does for any libellous or slanderous content which they host. The big SM platforms are milking x but blatently refusing to do y.
What legal actions are they shielded from for allowing free speech?
 
A long time ago in a land far away there used to be bulletin boards. One of them was run by a guy in Nottingham. It was quite comprehensive in that it had 3 incoming lines and a bulletin board system which allowed us to leave comments.

Occasionally some of those comments were deleted by the owner. When questioned about the deletions the owner pointed out that the BB was his property and if the posters didn't like it they were perfectly free to set up their own.

The concept of free speech doesn't mean that other people have to provide you with a platform for free.

If you're so determined to put across your point of view better get your wallet out.
I agree wholly. I used to post an alternative view on a very pro-Republican Irish (actually American) site. This would probably be regarded as 'trolling' on most specific-interest websites, but I thought that I had a view which could be informative to the membership. Most of the contributors thought otherwise, and although I always posted what I knew, or thought I knew to be the truth, I was Disappeared. Interestingly, I have had lengthy conversations with a very erudite, friendly and completely (academically) hostile figure ever since. But not on that means.

The early days of this means of communcation were like that; even the History Channel (an American organisation) had very definite views on what was actual 'history' and what should be learned by the larvae.

Yeah, ok. I moved here. Bummer.
 
What about the XRW? Look at the US - who's group is it that can't turn up to anything without looking like they're about reenact Desert Storm?
Usually in response to something which has angered them because it has been apparently in contradiction to the USA Constitution - which is as important to them as our society's fundamental forms of legal constitution. They're taught about this by their parents, their schools and their buddies next door. If anyone wants to change all of that, they're going to have to persuade them to change - nothing wrong with that - but it's a pretty good model, and it's supported by the vast majority of Americans. Just as ours, the Australians' and the friggin' New Zealanders is. Don't start on the Canadians, please.
 

Latest Threads

Top