Facebook suspends InfoWars

[Fartsniffage]

I don't think Facebook/Google/et al. care so much that Alex was using their platform.

The real problem, from their point of view, is the negative press and attention that Alex Jones attracts. Social media/internet companies want to create the impression that they are taking action to police their platforms. They don't want their brands to be seen as corrosive/toxic to social discourse or a harbor for extremist views.

Advertisers (the source of the bulk of Facebook/Google's revenue) have similar motivations. They don't want their logo next to things like pro-ISIS or white nationalist videos. This has been going on for a while, but it really started picking up steam with the advertiser boycott of YouTube back in 2017.

the problem is that there are tons of anti-white etc etc videos and video makers whom are scott-free.

So report them.

[North Calaveras]

the problem is that there are tons of anti-white etc etc videos and video makers whom are scott-free.

So report them.

that's not the #$@#$! point...

it's that they are not taken down, or rarely are...

[Fartsniffage]

So report them.

that's not the #$@#$! point...

it's that they are not taken down, or rarely are...

Even after you have reported them?

[Dogmeat]

So report them.

that's not the #$@#$! point...

it's that they are not taken down, or rarely are...

These corporations are massive, and so either have to rely on algorithms that can produce false positives (like banning your video for mentioning that your parents survived a genocide), or complaints.

InfoWars got a lot of complaints.

[Washington Resistance Army]

that's not the #$@#$! point...

it's that they are not taken down, or rarely are...

These corporations are massive, and so either have to rely on algorithms that can produce false positives (like banning your video for mentioning that your parents survived a genocide), or complaints.

InfoWars got a lot of complaints.

Algorithms and bots are an awful way of handling such things. That just makes brigading stupidly easy.

[Liriena]

I think this is willfully ignoring how the public space and public square has become privatized due to capitalism and social media companies and so on. It's as dubious as pretending that if the government suddenly up and decided to privatize all the roads and sold them to corporate elites that it wouldn't be censorship to ban any form of socialism being discussed on them.

It is reliant on pretending corporations are a different kind of authority than government and what they do shouldn't count as oppressive even if when a government did it, it would be. It is a fundamentally pro-corporate point, which is what the people critical of left wing hypocrisy on the issue are alluding to.

ESPECIALLY in the context of corporations and government lobbying, the fusion of the elites into an oligarchic state with some elements privatized, revolving door between corporate and state positions, collapse of social mobility in favor of corporate aristocracy and so on. These corporations ARE our government, it is merely that large swathes of our government are aristocrats and lords and ladies who are beyond our control and act without seeking our consultation or representation.

It is an institution of power working to suppress ideas they don't like. That the people doing it are lords and ladies up and declaring you can no longer say these things on their extensive amount of property doesn't make it less statist or less state censorship, it merely means you haven't adequately updated your view of the state and the privatized nature of it, in ways antithetical to democracy and the public interest.

In the context of a corporate oligarchy "It's private property so they can do what they like" is shilling for a return to feudalism.

The king up and decides to ban all forms of speech they don't like on their property on penalty of exile.
Is this censorship?

No, ur wrong, it's his property and blah blah blah.

Nah dude, it's censorship. Thinking otherwise means you have to buy into the fundamental and flawed conceits capitalism peddles;

That corporate power is separate and distinct from government power, that it should not be subject to the same rules and treatment, that corporations do not require representatives and workplace democracy instead of government by dictat of the ceos, that it is a separate thing from government and should be viewed separately and subject to different expectations and rules.

By buying into this "It's not censorship" thing, you are essentially going against everything market socialism stands for and the principles it is built on, that the capitalist is comparable to the monarch, that leadership requires representation to be valid, that power structures in and of themselves are comparable and so on.

The power structure here is not subject to collective will and representation. That is a bad thing, not a reason to excuse its excesses and abuses as not counting, those excesses and abuses are in fact a symptom of that fundamental problem and recognizing them and how they are undesirable is vital to convincing the public to turn against them and demand they submit to the public will.

This is legitimately a great post.

Gonna agree with my dude WRA. That was a good post and it did make me reconsider my stance to some degree.

[Ifreann]

Reiterating my mastermind idea of a UN run non-profit global social network.

[Herskerstad]

Given that others have been suspended and given the reason they talked about Alex Jones, then yeah. It's starting to reek of ideological bias. Hope Trump will go full antitrust on them given that they already make Standard Oil look like a charity.

[Liriena]

Reiterating my mastermind idea of a UN run non-profit global social network.

I'm listening. :3

[Costa Fierro]

Given that others have been suspended and given the reason they talked about Alex Jones, then yeah. It's starting to reek of ideological bias. Hope Trump will go full antitrust on them given that they already make Standard Oil look like a charity.

To be frank though, Facebook isn't the one and only social media platform so going after it using anti-trust laws would set rather dangerous precedents and basically spell the end for the government's ability to disassemble monopolies, because if the government misuses anti-trust laws in order to disassemble companies that the President or any other politician dislikes, that's easily considered not only an abuse of power, but also would result in corporate America heavily lobbying to have anti-trust laws abolished.

Furthermore, we're reached a new and rather interesting legal grey area in which we have to determine whether or not the internet is the realm of the government, and therefore subject to federal or national law, or it exists beyond the reach of the government and therefore is up to individual platform owners to decide.

[Harmonian Hegemony]

This is legitimately a great post.

Thanks dude.

Try not to get a cramp from jerking each other off there.

[Ostroeuropa]

that's not the #$@#$! point...

it's that they are not taken down, or rarely are...

Even after you have reported them?

Yes, even after you report anti-white or anti-male stuff, it rarely gets taken down. Our society, especially our institutions, are more tolerant of some sexisms and racisms than others.

KillAllMen tweets -> nothing.
Teaching a dog to sieg heil -> fines.

Also, look at Jeong and her tweets.

[The Greater Low Countries]

Even after you have reported them?

Yes, even after you report anti-white or anti-male stuff, it rarely gets taken down. Our society, especially our institutions, are more tolerant of some sexisms and racisms than others.

KillAllMen tweets -> nothing.
Teaching a dog to sieg heil -> fines.

Also, look at Jeong and her tweets.

Thank you.
It seems like people think they need to get even with whites and males but that's not true. My religion of Christianity does not teach of attacking those who have attacked you, but that all humankind is equal under the law and should be equal in society. I'm sure this is not just a Christianity thing, but there are many of us people fighting for equality and nothing more.

Also, the fringe-right have pointed out that the news media is pressuring the social media companies to enforce their terms of service.

I do believe Jones and InfoWars violated the terms of service of YouTube (and again, I know nothing about Facebook, so I don't know what happened there) due to my assumptions about YouTube's definition of hate speech; however, the question is now, "What constitutes 'hate speech,' is this definition fair, and is it enforced correctly and appropriately?"

[Vassenor]

Last time I checked "the world is biased against white males" isn't actually the topic of this thread though.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Last time I checked "the world is biased against white males" isn't actually the topic of this thread though.

Different standards for moderation does come into it though

[Petrasylvania]

Last time I checked "the world is biased against white males" isn't actually the topic of this thread though.

When not enough threads talk about women as anything but Handmaids have to expand the pretenses for a tirade.

[Des-Bal]

Last time I checked "the world is biased against white males" isn't actually the topic of this thread though.

Selective enforcement is closely tied to the issue. If Alex Jones would have gotten a pass had he produced the same kind of rhetoric but subscribed to different ideologies then that absolutely colors the issue.

[Sick Jumps]

Given that others have been suspended and given the reason they talked about Alex Jones, then yeah. It's starting to reek of ideological bias. Hope Trump will go full antitrust on them given that they already make Standard Oil look like a charity.

Facebook is not a monopoly. Politically motivated anti-trust action is not an appropriate response.

Facebook is also in the legal right here. It's their web application running on their datacenters. All of Facebook's users agree to Facebook's terms of service. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Thanks dude.

Try not to get a cramp from jerking each other off there.

The fuck are you all mad about lol

[Ifreann]

Reiterating my mastermind idea of a UN run non-profit global social network.

I'm listening. :3

Have every country chip in for all the servers and staff and what have you. Facebook, but without Mark Zuckerberg watching everything you do and reading every message you send so that he can learn how to act like a real human better target advertisements at you. Facebook, but people like Alex Jones can get banned right away, because there's no need to worry about losing money by alienating his fans.

[Sovaal]

Thanks dude.

Try not to get a cramp from jerking each other off there.

Hey man no need to get mad about getting none.

[Sick Jumps]

Twitter says InfoWars account will remain online despite violating its rules

[Liriena]

I still think Alex Jones deserves to be kicked out of platforms like Youtube and Facebook. Not because of his dumb political views, but because of his actions towards the Sandy Hook families.

[Petrasylvania]

Twitter says InfoWars account will remain online despite violating its rules

Now if it was say, Ed Schultz, the right wingers would scream about capitulation.

[Liriena]

Twitter says InfoWars account will remain online despite violating its rules

Twitter operates by the same logic Reddit does: maintaining ad revenue is more important than enforcing its own ToS.