After various Alex Jones and Infowars sites were deplatformed yesterday at YouTube, Facebook, Apple, Twitter and Spotify, today LinkedIn has deplatformed Jones.
It doesn't get more absurd and shocking than this. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this point.
Paul Joseph Watson comments:
Here's where the "hate speech" argument falls flat.
They deleted Alex Jones from LinkedIn. LinkedIn! Unpersonned him 1984-style, Communist Chinese social credit score-style.
He uploaded zero content to LinkedIn.
This was a politically motivated, coordinated purge by Big Tech.-RW
You know Alex Jones is loving this
ReplyDeleteThese are still private companies using their own money to run their businesses the way they damned see fit, right? I'm just making sure.
ReplyDeleteYou mean companies that were born of and maybe still using new money from the federal reserve via investors.
DeleteThis argument would fly if the economic system in US were free market. It isn't. What we have in US is corporatism - the big corporations and the government are intertwined. Thus big corporations are effectively acting as arms of the government. So, no, they should not be allowed to run their businesses the way their political masters see it.
DeleteYes. And we are criticizing them. Is that all right, Your Majesty?
DeleteSome of these arguments seem alarmingly similar to those deployed by the advocates of anti-discrimination laws and net neutrality. That private business is not really private, but is in reality a “public concern” and therefore can/should be forced to operate in the “public interest.”
DeleteIt seems crazy to advocate this view as a strategy for ultimately LIMITING the influence of the state. And the threat it’s supposedly designed to combat, censorship, is virtually innocuous in the age of the internet. People like Alex Jones are their own platform. The harder they try to clamp down on him, the more people will take his bullshit seriously.
Criticizing? Like they care. They will simply shut you off if you start doing any noticeable damage to them. They are already doing it. (I got banned on Facebook a few years ago, just for expressing my political views. Alex Jones is one of the most visible people they got to silence, but not the first, by far.)
DeleteWhat we need to be doing is organizing. By the way, check my bio. I had run-ins with communist totalitarians in the past. They lost.
This is why conseravtard and libertarianism always loses. These companies need to be declared public utilities or something similar. Torres once again shows his stupidity.
DeleteRe: Tom Woods,
Delete--- And we are criticizing them. Is that all right, Your Majesty? ---
It's not even implied in my rhetorical question that you are not allowed to criticize their decisions, so don't start ripping your clothes in anger. Read the following:
--- Lab Manager: These companies need to be declared public utilities ---
You see how Trumpistas align themselves with their leftard fellow travelers by construing these PRIVATE companies as public utilities. That's the very reason why I am positing that some here -including you, professor- are quick to conflate two completely different things the very moment someone's 'weetle fweelings' are hurt. No one is entitled to a free platform, not even me.
Libertarianism loses because we do not have a successful platform of our own. A public utility would take orders from the government. I'll bet Lab Manager would not be in charge of that program. Which is probably a good thing.
DeleteBTW, there are no "open borders" or laws against discrimination with private property or libertarianism.
Re: Evan Smiley,
Delete── That private business is not really private, but is in reality a “public concern” and therefore can/should be forced to operate in the “public interest.” ──
Those arguments sound more like clumsy iterations of the "Ya Didn't Build That!" canard. Trumpistas are leftists, except they walk on the other side of the same Statist road as their fellow travelers who fancy themselves Democratic Socialists.
Sure he is and the tech lackeys really must be getting some serious heat to just throw their credibility away like some national enquirer rag on a single alt content source.
ReplyDeleteCensorship isnt even being hidden now. USSA has already arrived in all its socialist glory
The media is the enemy.
ReplyDelete"The answer to 1984 is 1776," Alex Jones gravel in his voice.
ReplyDeleteI still maintain that Facebook and Youtube are violating their own terms of service as an announce public forum. If they want to expressly announce that they are in the business of suppressing and removing posts that are contrary to the CNN/MSNBC line, they are free to do that. But that's not what their terms of service say.
ReplyDeleteRob, you should read their terms again. Those companies have a reputation to maintain. It sucks, sure, but it's their capital they put on the line, not yours or mine.
DeleteYoutube Terms of Service:
DeleteHate speech policy
We encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view, but we don't permit hate speech.
Hate speech refers to content that promotes violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as:
race or ethnic origin
religion
disability
gender
age
veteran status
sexual orientation/gender identity
There is a fine line between what is and what is not considered to be hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but if the primary purpose of the content is to incite hatred against a group of people solely based on their ethnicity, or if the content promotes violence based on any of these core attributes, like religion, it violates our policy.
https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guidelines
Re: Bob Roddis,
DeleteSo, where is the controversy, exactly? Is it in how the company defines hate speech or how YOU define it?
@Bob Roddis
DeleteI don’t see how that matters if they’re not actually defrauding anyone.
Re: Francisco Torres
Delete...their capital they put on the line, not yours or mine.
They have the right to do whatever they want...for sure. But, what would be interesting (and we will never know), is if "hosting" Alex Jones and InfoWars is "costing" them more than "profiting" them. If it is their capital, then in some way they must be losing eyeballs or commercials, as their ROI must be impacted, based on your logic.
But, why react now and in unison? Moreover, if it was a "competition" wouldn't these platforms be worried about losing those eyeballs to their competition? (As an aside...maybe this is some more Trumpanista 4-D chess where it builds up "livetube" or something...lol...jk).
I think Robert makes a good point...if I could "host" a similar platform...it may be shut down by other means. We will see with the Unz Review. He's done a hellauva job trying to backfill videos and content. So, at least someone has the ability to build such a platform.
Is it in how the company defines hate speech or how YOU define it?
DeleteThis is very simple and plain language. I don't think this language is ambiguous or technical in the slightest:
Hate speech refers to content that promotes violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as:
race or ethnic origin
religion
disability
gender
age
veteran status
sexual orientation/gender identity
Average people can easily determine what this means in regular conversations. This question sounds like a sidestep I'd hear from an MMTer when they know they are losing.
I don’t see how that matters if they’re not actually defrauding anyone.
DeleteFraud would be based upon a claim that Youtube made intentional misrepresentations when an agreement was reached. Here, I believe there was an offer from Youtube which was accepted by the various people who uploaded creating a binding contract. There is both consideration going to Youtube from their advertising plus detrimental reliance by the uploaders. Youtube then breached the agreement.
I also think Youtube could change their terms of service at any time regarding future uploads or simply go out of business. They are under no obligation to stay in business and maintain everyone's uploads. But I think they know that the only basis to zap someone is to claim "hate speech" which in most cases is obviously a bogus claim and a breach of the terms of service.
Womper room.
ReplyDelete1. We need to keep in mind that no one but us understands AnCap/PPS or Austrian School analysis. Once someone grasps either, they become an advocate. If the light bulb doesn't go off in their head when exposed to our ideas, they remain clueless. Our opponents are morons, including our censors.
ReplyDelete2. I need to investigate further but it would seem to me that a baseless zapping of someone for hate speech who didn't emit any hate speech might create an actionable case of defamation. Not to give anyone ideas or anything.