Social media sites shut down infowars

[_Some Schmo]

Right now there is no alternative social media venue that isn't private like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. To be censored from those platforms is to be erased from the public debate. in my opinion, there needs to be a strong argument for doing so that shows the public interest is far better served by this censorship than by the protection of civil liberties.

It's that simple, in my opinion.

So, in spirit, we agree.

I wondered when the "gay cake" issue would be raised. There's a huge difference, however, between not wanting to sell a person a cake based on their sexual preference (obvious bigotry/discrimination) and a responsible media platform choosing to filter out objectively false/destructive content.

[_Water Dog]

I don’t see that sane media companies are any more obliged than homophobic bakers to convey messages they don’t agree with. I’m surprised that conservatives aren’t consistent on that one.

If you're going to troll with hypocrisy, at least make it an apples to apples comparison. Legally, could a telecom company deny phone service to someone based on who they vote for? Or based on the content of their conversations? No, legally, they couldn't do that. There is this thing called the Communications Act. The end result of this is that certain social media mediums will be subject to regulation, as they should be.

[_Kishkumen]

If you're going to troll with hypocrisy, at least make it an apples to apples comparison. Legally, could a telecom company deny phone service to someone based on who they vote for? Or based on the content of their conversations? No, legally, they couldn't do that. There is this thing called the Communications Act. The end result of this is that certain social media mediums will be subject to regulation, as they should be.

So does this mean that pundits are not allowed to shout down their guests and end the segment to get rid of them? At what point does this policing get out of control?

The thing is, you need to establish in advance whether the question under discussion is one of principle or law. I was speaking to the principle. You come back with the law. So, it seems that you are the one having difficulty making apples to apples comparisons, bub.

[Reflexzero]

Using the baker theme, wouldn’t a more apt analogy be something along the lines of Walmart deciding to not allow a baker to stand inside a Walmart, selling their pastries?

[Guest]

My own personal opinion is bakeries should be required to serve everyone if they're a public business, and they should be required to bake the same type of general wedding cake for gays as they do for heteros.

I look forward to your completely irrational reasoning for how another private business doesn't enjoy a consistent "personal opinion" from you.

I'm happy to give my personal opinion about another private business if you want me to. I'm not sure what you're bitching about here.

However, they should not be required to put any overtly homoerotic art on the cake if requested.

what a nonsensical line to draw. Any other arbitrary morals you want to codify?

How did this shift from my personal opinion to me wanting to codify it?

It's really no different than an interracial couple being denied a wedding cake, and I'm sure the same arguments were made back then.

Apart from the diminishing notion of trying to "same" with civil rights, know that it is really different because being gay is not immutable.
But hey, I get it, you're like a lot of people who confuse political power with being correct.

You really think being gay is not immutable in all cases? Does that come from personal experience? Is being heterosexual not immutable for you?

Also, I don't think being an insane fear mongerer is covered by non-discrimination laws.

You might be right, but it is covered by the 1st amendment.

Of course it is. Nobody says it isn't.

[_canpakes]

[_Kishkumen]

Using the baker theme, wouldn’t a more apt analogy be something along the lines of Walmart deciding to not allow a baker to stand inside a Walmart, selling their pastries?

Or, better yet, Amazon not allowing third parties to use their platform to sell Nazi paraphernalia?

I mean, shouldn't they have to allow these guys to sell any nasty garbage anyone wants? Shouldn't we force them to? Is it fair for PBS to sell old episodes of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood when ajax is not allowed to sell Hitler t-shirts?

[_EAllusion]

I don’t see that sane media companies are any more obliged than homophobic bakers to convey messages they don’t agree with. I’m surprised that conservatives aren’t consistent on that one.

If you're going to troll with hypocrisy, at least make it an apples to apples comparison. Legally, could a telecom company deny phone service to someone based on who they vote for? Or based on the content of their conversations? No, legally, they couldn't do that. There is this thing called the Communications Act. The end result of this is that certain social media mediums will be subject to regulation, as they should be.

It's nice that you want affirmative action for conservative conspiracy theorists, but Facebook and Google do have a legal right to deny service to content they find objectionable. Best you stick to the principle, as you are dead wrong on the law.

[_Water Dog]

So does this mean that pundits are not allowed to shout down their guests and end the segment to get rid of them? At what point does this policing get out of control?

The thing is, you need to establish in advance whether the question under discussion is one of principle or law. I was speaking to the principle. You come back with the law. So, it seems that you are the one having difficulty making apples to apples comparisons, bub.

I'm speaking to the principle as well, given that social media is not currently subject to the law. But they will be, you can bet on that. Not if, but when. And the irony is that's been something liberals have been pushing a lot harder than conservatives, internet regulation. Fairness Doctrine. All that stuff. But again you continue comparing apples to oranges. You don't understand the difference between regulating access vs. use? Telling someone they can't have a phone vs. telling someone what they can and can't say while on the phone? These two things have nothing to do with each other. And both of them are wrong.

Sure, according to current law, these social media companies can collude with each other to block Alex Jones or whoever they want according to their personal political views. Speaking to the principle, who made them abrogators of free speech?

The hypocrisy is baffling. I mean, not really, liberals being the serial hypocrites that they are. I'm just saying it deserves pointing out. Liberals wanted to FORCE a baker to make gay wedding cakes. Liberals wanted to FORCE employees to join and pay dues to unions. And let's not forget, when I say "FORCE," what I mean is that liberals wanted to literally stick a gun in these people's faces and give them two options, their way, or death. You will make me my gay wedding cake, or the state will send men with guns over here to literally kill you.

Now all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that liberals are these purists, these free-market libertarians, when it comes to social media monopolies silencing right-wing political voices? Yah, okay. That's not true, nobody is believing you. You're just doing what you always do, which is to bully and intimidate and use force and coercion to get your way because you don't give a piss about democracy. You're a bunch of thugs and bandits. It just so happens that in this case, you like the power dynamic. And we know damn well that if it was Peter Thiel running Facebook instead, and he was doing the opposite and silencing liberal voices, y'all would be literally rioting in the street and rubbing your feces over things.

How do you then respond? Oh, you'll try to gaslight me. Because I actually do believe in liberty. In principle, I really do believe in free markets. So you try to use my principles against me. This is not comparable with wedding cakes and union dues. Apples and oranges. A person can go get a wedding cake elsewhere. Their access to the "market" is not frustrated by a particular baker refusing to bake certain types of cakes. In this case it's literally the opposite situation. The market is precisely what's being denied access to. Imagine if gay people were told they can't buy cakes at all period, anywhere. Prohibited from entering a bakery. Nobody is suggesting that Facebook should agree with or promote Alex Jones, provide him with special services that are against their conscience. Facebook is like a phone company. They provide a medium, a unique and one of a kind medium that has become a feature of modern society. Like Ma Bell, who was broken up. He can't switch to another medium, there isn't one. Facebook is the medium. Denying someone access is like denying someone access to a phone. Sure, there are letters. That's not the same thing. Which is why access to phones is considered a right in modern society, and it's baked into the law. I would genuinely like to quit Facebook for a number of reasons, this being one, the privacy issues for another. Why don't I? Because I would only be punishing myself. It would make no sense. Society has transformed around Facebook. If I don't get on Facebook, I simply don't have access to certain types of human communication.

And what's this about, anyway? Is it really about private political opinions? They are "offended" by Alex Jones? NO! It's about money. Facebook, Google, Apple, et al, every single one of these companies has a massive financial interest in corporatism, globalism, and a collusive financial relationship with the political establishment. Trade imbalances with China, India? Good for them. Cheap slave labor to build their phones and provide development support. Internet regulation? Good for them, shields them from startups and competition. Subsidies for things like green energy, postal service? Great for them. Tesla depends on it. Amazon depends on it. Google is trying to break into the deregulated energy markets.

Follow the money.

This has nothing to do with Alex Jones. That guy is a tin foil turd with no influence. An obscure radio show host. Going after him is a chess move, a precursor to silencing other voices in an attempt to control voting outcomes. And y'all are worried about Russians? These guys are doing literally what you're supposedly fearful of the Russians doing, and you cheer it on! ROFL. So disingenuous.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm speaking to the principle as well, given that social media is not currently subject to the law.

Ah, OK. If you want to shuffle back to the principle after bringing up the law, be my guest.

But they will be, you can bet on that. Not if, but when. And the irony is that's been something liberals have been pushing a lot harder than conservatives, internet regulation. Fairness Doctrine. All that stuff. But again you continue comparing apples to oranges. You don't understand the difference between regulating access vs. use? Telling someone they can't have a phone vs. telling someone what they can and can't say while on the phone? These two things have nothing to do with each other. And both of them are wrong.

Remind me how we got from companies voluntarily denying to host Alex Jones to Democrats forcing people not to say something on YouTube. We have skipped a few steps in there. Probably because you want to ignite a fire of fear based on the choices of a few media companies.

Sure, according to current law, these social media companies can collude with each other to block Alex Jones or whoever they want according to their personal political views. Speaking to the principle, who made them abrogators of free speech?

Political views? LOL! How about the understandable desire not to host a guy who goads his followers to violence?

The hypocrisy is baffling. I mean, not really, liberals being the serial hypocrites that they are. I'm just saying it deserves pointing out. Liberals wanted to FORCE a baker to make gay wedding cakes. Liberals wanted to FORCE employees to join and pay dues to unions. And let's not forget, when I say "FORCE," what I mean is that liberals wanted to literally stick a gun in these people's faces and give them two options, their way, or death. You will make me my gay wedding cake, or the state will send men with guns over here to literally kill you.

I suppose it is more consistent of (pseudo-)conservatives to murder gay people and uppity workers out of sheer hatred or greed. You've got me there. No hypocrisy, just out in the open evil. Just like Trump. This is quite an education. Theocracy, rampant greed. Today's GOP. But, hey, at least they are for the freedom of the theocrats and the financial elites to abuse others.

You're just doing what you always do, which is to bully and intimidate and use force and coercion to get your way because you don't give a piss about democracy. You're a bunch of thugs and bandits. It just so happens that in this case, you like the power dynamic. And we know damn well that if it was Peter Thiel running Facebook instead, and he was doing the opposite and silencing liberal voices, y'all would be literally rioting in the street and rubbing your feces over things.

If you can't stand the heat, get out the kitchen, son. Yep. I am a thug and a bandit. A tough guy. You sure must be a big man to call me out on the Intertubez or what have you, because I am that big awful intimidating guy that makes everyone piss their pants in fear. Watch out for me. Everyone knows I took out the Mopologists.

How do you then respond? Oh, you'll try to gaslight me.

Hey, I've got lots of options, and lots of sweet time. Just continue to rile me up like this. It's your funeral. I might say something harsh to you. I might disagree with you. You never know. One thing's for sure, you will end up in tears. Of laughter? Insanity? Grief? Remains to be seen.

Because I actually do believe in liberty. In principle, I really do believe in free markets. So you try to use my principles against me.

How dare I? Wow. You are so virtuous. And here I would disagree with you. Use violence against (i.e., disagree with) your pure, high-minded fortitude. You must be a hero. And look at what a slime-ball I am. I use those wonderful, angelic principles against you, just like Satan. Wow.

This is not comparable with wedding cakes and union dues. Apples and oranges. A person can go get a wedding cake elsewhere. Their access to the "market" is not frustrated by a particular baker refusing to bake certain types of cakes. In this case it's literally the opposite situation. The market is precisely what's being denied access to. Imagine if gay people were told they can't buy cakes at all period, anywhere. Prohibited from entering a bakery. Nobody is suggesting that Facebook should agree with or promote Alex Jones, provide him with special services that are against their conscience. Facebook is like a phone company. They provide a medium, a unique and one of a kind medium that has become a feature of modern society. Like Ma Bell, who was broken up. He can't switch to another medium, there isn't one. Facebook is the medium. Denying someone access is like denying someone access to a phone. Sure, there are letters. That's not the same thing. Which is why access to phones is considered a right in modern society, and it's baked into the law. I would genuinely like to quit Facebook for a number of reasons, this being one, the privacy issues for another. Why don't I? Because I would only be punishing myself. It would make no sense. Society has transformed around Facebook. If I don't get on Facebook, I simply don't have access to certain types of human communication.

I have heard that Twitter is the new thing. Or, wait, was it Snapchat? I can't recall. There are so many of these indispensable services that everyone has to belong to in order to rate as a human being these days. If anyone wants to reach me, they have to catch me on Google+. If the cops are lookin' for me, because I am fighting virtuous free market, libertarian heroes like you, they look for me on Google+. If I need emergency services, I just go to the Google+ page for the local EMT and send them an email. Google+ is just like a utility that way. All of the most crucial things are there. If I do not have them, it may mean I'm dead. Well, as good as dead anyhow.

Thankfully George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, and the lizard men are going to kidnap me and insert a Google+ chip with wifi in my head so that they can read my thoughts and tell me what to say. If they haven't already.

And what's this about, anyway? Is it really about private political opinions? They are "offended" by Alex Jones? NO! It's about money. Facebook, Google, Apple, et al, every single one of these companies has a massive financial interest in corporatism, globalism, and a collusive financial relationship with the political establishment. Trade imbalances with China, India? Good for them. Cheap slave labor to build their phones and provide development support. Internet regulation? Good for them, shields them from startups and competition. Subsidies for things like green energy, postal service? Great for them. Tesla depends on it. Amazon depends on it. Google is trying to break into the deregulated energy markets.

Follow the money.

I think you forgot to mention Bohemian Grove in there. So, now I see the TRUTH. This was a conspiracy all along to silence Alex Jones. Because he was too close to revealing the truth. Then the jig would be up. They had to shut him down so they could make more money, but not virtuous free-market money, the kind Alex Jones makes by deceiving people, instilling fear in them, and then selling them unregulated dietary supplements. But evil bad money made off of cat videos and shooting Tesla cars playing David Bowie into space.

I am sure this Alex Jones vs. Facebook thing is a lost battle for truth, justice, and the American way. Alex Jones and QAnon were about to blow this thing wide open. Now we have to return to the usual business of corporate tycoons paying no taxes as they exploit slave labor in China. Trump wanted to stop it, but it was the only place he could get a good deal on campaign flags and posters.

Going after him is a chess move, a precursor to silencing other voices in an attempt to control voting outcomes.

And.... here is where you truly jumped the shark.

You know, if you haven't you should really read Umberto Eco's The Prague Cemetery. Man, it really does remind me of our present times. I'm more with you than you think. It's kind of fun to sit back and watch us both make ourselves look like complete idiots. If this were serious, I would be worried. The issues may be serious, but our approach to the whole thing is onanism. I can't take you or myself very seriously.