Purges on social media sites

aardvark64

War Hero
There's no I in team, but there is in Afghanistan. Remind me which Herrick you were on and where you served. It might surprise you, but some of the people on this site have served in Afghanistan, often more than once.
There is if you shout about often enough...




There is also an 'i' in 'equipe' but you have to be French or FFL to appreciate it...

The OP did make a good point, there's a perfectly good thread for casting doubt on his service history:
You're a poo-poo head etc
 
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.
I don't think there is a rise of the XRW, what you're maybe seeing is an understandable move to the right by the "silent majority" who are sick to the back teeth of having the XLW agenda howled at them day and night. Case in point, the countryside is now apparently racist, f**k off!
I was thinking more globally than about the UK. Steve Bannon and Breitbart are obvious examples.
 
I did enjoy tuning into Milo Y on his YouTube channel during the elections, he was excellent at trolling.... but the the GOP stabbed him in the back and he broke the rules to often and got shit canned.
Left wing agenda or a case of not following the rules?
I suspect the later.
 

cowgoesmoo

Old-Salt
[
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.

Maybe you should read up on section 230 of the Communication Decency Act 1996 before you start calling people thick. Its pretty obvious you don't understand how it works :rolleyes:
 

cowgoesmoo

Old-Salt
What legal actions are they shielded from for allowing free speech?
Being held liable for content that's posted on their platform. ARRSE would be in trouble if you libelled someone on here but Twitter wouldn't if you did it on there. They have this under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US as they are deemed as a platform if they dont exert any editorial control over the content (e.g deleting content which the owners don't agree with). If you want that protection you have to remain impartial, if you want to take a position you lose the protection and have to moderate accordingly.
 
Being held liable for content that's posted on their platform. ARRSE would be in trouble if you libelled someone on here but Twitter wouldn't if you did it on there. They have this under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US as they are deemed as a platform if they dont exert any editorial control over the content (e.g deleting content which the owners don't agree with). If you want that protection you have to remain impartial, if you want to take a position you lose the protection and have to moderate accordingly.

Someone put up a link to the law earlier, it doesnt appear to say that they have to allow free speech.
 

endure

GCM
Censors are intolerant control freaks

I used to be a mod on a fairly large rather robust forum a while ago.

One of our users thought the same as you do and so he decided to set up his own censorship free forum.

Within hours of putting it online people were threatening him, his wife and kids and posting pictures of them all on his forum.

It was shut down within 24 hours.

You only see the half of it on a well moderated forum.
 

cowgoesmoo

Old-Salt
Why would he? It's US legislation.
Because its the legal framework that the large social media companies operate under, and is the core issue of what the OP was complaining about. Its literally what keeps Facebook, Twitter etc from being sued out of existence.
 
Because its the legal framework that the large social media companies operate under, and is the core issue of what the OP was complaining about. Its literally what keeps Facebook, Twitter etc from being sued out of existence.
Can you copy and paste the bit that says they have to allow free speech to keep the protection, because I cant see it.
 
The Red Pill forums have been quarantined for hate speech.

The Red Pill forums generally advocate 'feminism has taken over, it is not worth it for a man to get married anymore, so enjoy it - shag as many sluts as possible and make as much money as possible before you die, leave women to sort their own shit out'

Hardly hate Speech, but because it currently criticises the status quo it cannot be allowed.

Just responding to shrieking mums net harpies rather than considering the actual content.
 
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.
Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc claim "town square" exemption and say they are a platform, not a publisher. By censoring, shadow banning etc ie choosing content they are a publisher

In UK parlance, they say they are like BT & RM as they deliver content - BT & RM don't inspect and reject calls/letters
 
Because its the legal framework that the large social media companies operate under, and is the core issue of what the OP was complaining about. Its literally what keeps Facebook, Twitter etc from being sued out of existence.
Somebody needs to let Weibo and Wechat in on that one, then . . .
 
Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc claim "town square" exemption and say they are a platform, not a publisher. By censoring, shadow banning etc ie choosing content they are a publisher

In UK parlance, they say they are like BT & RM as they deliver content - BT & RM don't inspect and reject calls/letters
The flipside being that BT and the posties deliver content to individuals, they don't broadcast the content of calls/letters for everyone to hear/read.

Trying to police 21st century tech with 20th century laws and attitudes is not going to end well, the same as the argument over whether downloading films, games etc. is theft. You can argue it is theft as the person involved has obtained something they have not paid for. You can also argue that it is not theft as no one has been deprived of any property.
 
Woke Facebook is under attack as woke Zuckenburg not Woke & Left enough - his crime is wanting free speech, but with "Hate, Offensive" warnings

Even his employees are against him

Interestingly Piers Morgan has left Facebook due to their censorship & far-left agenda. Zuck has lost control of the monster he created

News Yesterday reports emerged Parler did a mass closure of accounts/groups
 
The flipside being that BT and the posties deliver content to individuals, they don't broadcast the content of calls/letters for everyone to hear/read
From a legal point of view it's the delivery of content that matters, not who may see it. USA "town square" in UK is akin to speakers corner
 
If anyone was wondering why the servers of Twitter should be hit with the largest weapon in the arsenal. Roald Dahl is currently trending on Twitter as he was a massive racist misogynistic homophobe. As was Enid Blyton apparently.
 
[



Maybe you should read up on section 230 of the Communication Decency Act 1996 before you start calling people thick. Its pretty obvious you don't understand how it works :rolleyes:
As it happens I did. Nowhere in that does it state that they can’t allow or disallow content as they see fit. They do not have to abide by any notion of free speech. Just the same as this forum or any other doesn’t.
 

Latest Threads

Top