Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
Look... I don't get the bank or the PayPal thing, unless I'm missing something in the translation. But let's talk about YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Would it be ok if he got on YouTube and clearly incited violence against a certain group? Would that fall under freedom of speech and that's all there is to that? It's one thing saying something in the street or at a corner bar where your audience is limited, and the worse thing that could happen is someone doesn't like what you're saying and beats the crap out of you. It's quite another to take advantage of two new developments of the 21st century.... social media, and gullible, itchy trigger finger bastards.

Why the dogged insistence of using the easy, go-to, blanket protection of something like freedom of speech to defend and (wink wink) turn your head on people who are determined to stoke the flames of hatred, mistrust, and division among the easily persuaded? Aren't we capable as a society to discern between what is truly meant by freedom of speech and what shouldn't be allowed? Is that too complicated a task? It's pretty obvious that many people nowadays are weak-minded, and represent easy prey for those with a powerful platform and a big mouth. It's too simplistic to brush that off with constitutional amendments which, again... were meant for the good of man, and under those times and circumstances. Not meant to be used as a crutch by opportunistic hate-mongers.

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook may be social platforms. But they have to answer to regulatory authorities whose task is either necessary and good, or overreaching and evil.... depending on what your beliefs are.
Banks have closed accounts of various people and said "We're not doing business with you", it's happened to MULTIPLE people ditto with PayPal, ditto with some other online pay services. If someone makes money via a platform and has a Patreon or Discord or whatever and then people aren't able to purchase wears or contribute to speech they agree with/support then that's not "the free market at work" it's censorship.

People HAVE gotten on YouTube and clearly incited violence and so long as it fits a certain ideology it's ok. Alex Jones HASN'T called for violence, at one point in time he believed in something that was wrong, he said some things which he regrets and has had to pay for. Is there no redemption anymore? If redemption is not available to those who are shut out from "polite society" I've got to tell you I don't believe that to be a good thing and I don't believe that ends well. I vehemently disagree about technology making this different, the printing press was used as a weapon by our Founding Fathers in the Revolutionary War.


At the end of the day when it comes to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, they and the government need to finalize whether those services are "Publishers" or "Platforms". If they're "publishers", fine kick people off as the publishers are liable for what they allow....if they're platforms then much like the phone company can't cut your service because of a phone conversation you've had they're stuck with who uses their platform.


I'm just going to err on the side of liberty which will mean I have to maintain a certain level of faith in humanity to conduct themselves with a certain degree of decorum and I have to be ok with it if they don't.

I think liberty, as with other ideological topics, gets abused, distorted, and misused. But you're clear in your opinion. You're going to "maintain a certain level of faith in humanity..."

Unfortunately, it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt again and again and again, that this "faith" is misplaced with many people and many groups of people. It's not even about conducting themselves "with a certain degree of decorum." It's about behaving with the elemental aspects of decency. No one should need a college course to know what these are. Again... it's all too easy to shrug off horrific, dehumanizing behavior and throw it into the "freedom of expression" bin. It's lazy... and it's convenient. It's also a sort of "get out of jail free card", in case any one of us should incur in that type of behavior. But again... this is my opinion.

It's puzzling to me how we can focus on a crackpot's removal from Facebook, YouTube, whatever... and concentrate on how that individual's rights were violated... while thinking nothing of the damage he/she's doing to society NEEDLESSLY. Hey... if you've got an ax to grind and you're taking it out on Facebook, it's still not right. But what did anyone connected to Sandy Hook ever do to Alex Jones that would bring on that barrage of hurtful and damaging falsehoods? When shit like this happens, the least I'm caring about is how poor old Jones is being banned from Twitter. In fact, it makes me wonder how slimeballs like this ever get the audience they do.

You insist on this agenda where it's ok for others to "incite violence so long as it fits a certain ideology." Sorry... I'm not convinced, nor do I believe it's that clear-cut. But again... we'll never agree. I'm sure you'll dredge up obscure, little-known examples of someone CLEARLY inciting violence on YouTube and getting away with it, because they are either anti-Trumpers, or belong to some group you don't agree with. But see... here's the thing. I don't work that way. I judge what I see and hear. And I've seen and heard enough of Alex Jones to come to my own personal conclusion that the guy's a douche bag, and should not be given a platform for public expression, because the guy causes a lot of harm to society. I don't go looking for counter examples to compare him with, because I'm just judging Alex Jones.