DiscussMormonism.com

A coordinated ban of Infowars between independent companies. How, what's the word, collusive?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... alex-jones

LOL. I'm no fan of Alex Jones, the man is a nut. But what's that saying, "I don't agree with what that man's saying, but I'll die to protect his right to say it," or something to that effect?

Other, related news.

Candice Owens, a black woman, takes two of Sarah Jeong's racist tweets against white people and posts them on Twitter changing out the word "white" for "jew" and is, in a completely unexpected turn of events, banned. Say something racist against white people, not only do you not get banned, you get hired by the New York Times.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1BRKjeVpbjwxw

But that's not all. Apparently there has been a huge standoff in Oregon that nobody cares to report on. Gee, when the Bundy's did something similar it was headlining news on every outlet.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/anarchy-br ... 1533331454

https://www.breitbart.com/big-governmen ... ce-agents/

So, we have collusion between social media companies to silence someone they don't like, to infringe free speech rights, we have selective enforcement of rules based on racial animus, and we have selective reporting of events based on political and racial animus. Interesting to see who ultimately wins this war.

Water Dog wrote:we have collusion between social media companies to silence someone they don't like, to infringe free speech rights

Social media companies as presently constituted have no obligation to give a platform to crazy and frankly paranoid fantasies, any more than I have an obligation to allow a person to stick posters on my front wall propagating the said crazy and frankly paranoid fantasies.

No free speech rights are violated, any more than they are when Fox News does not give Bernie Sanders his own weekly breakfast show.

The person in question remains free to post whatever he wants on his own website, subject to the law, to write and publish a book, or a newspaper, to send emails to his fans, make speeches to rallies, or whatever else he wants to do.

Find another way to get this guy victim status.

Interesting that a Trump supporter would reference 1984 without mentioning Trump and his administration.

Water Dog wrote:https://www.breitbart.com/

That's all you need to read in the OP to dismiss it entirely.

Water Dog wrote:But that's not all. Apparently there has been a huge standoff in Oregon that nobody cares to report on. Gee, when the Bundy's did something similar it was headlining news on every outlet.

Except FOX, Brietbart, Daily Caller, Town Hall, and all the other dumb sources you follow.

So the guy who reads Breitbart is concerned about the NYT hiring Jeong?

Yeah, it's a tough call. On the one hand, we like to believe the boy who cried wolf will be ignored after two or three goes at it, as the market figures it out. But crying wolf twenty seven times a day, 365 days a year, and the market runs for the hills every time? I don't know what the morally correct answer is, but at this point, I'm about convinced that republicans are on a self-reinforcing sugar surge, and if some censorship comes into play, I don't feel to bad. I'm actually curious if there's something like a feedback loop here. I'm all for seeing if we can break it up.

Geez, luckily we have the massive intellects of our resident Trump fondlers to keep us all so informed. I never realized private corporations like Facebook and YouTube were there to provide me a platform to say anything I want without consequences. Well, we better get the government involved to regulate those private businesses and force them to let let anyone say whatever they want without consequence otherwise these corporations are somehow infringing on our free speech rights. What in the world did people do before social media!?!?!?! Maybe that same regulatory board can force all bakers to carry gay themed cakes while we are at it.

Christ, you guys are getting more and more pathetic with the faux outrage and attempts to paint yourselves as the victims because the racist, conspiracy theorist, fake news pushing nuts you look to for guidance are getting treated like the garbage they are. Referencing Brietbart was the icing to that layer cake of stupidity and straw grasping.

Water Dog wrote:So, we have collusion between social media companies to silence someone they don't like, to infringe free speech rights ...

Dog. Srsly. Are you really going to try to convince me that you believe in this sort of pathetic snowflake line of BS? No one has silenced Jones and InfoWars. They have their website; they can shell out their own money to amplify their conspiracy crap, and no-one needs to be forced to serve as a public repeater for their oatmeal-brained pablum.

If you want to stand with the wet-diapered, teary-faced eunuchs who are playing their victim card on this one, then that's on you. Here's to hoping that the mom's basement set can grow a pair of balls someday and tear themselves away from 4chan long enough to find both a date and a job.

Gadianton wrote:...if some censorship comes into play, I don't feel to bad.... I'm all for seeing if we can break it up.

At least one of you is willing to be honest about it, thanks! Now that we're being honest, the more interesting discussion to have is how far are you willing to go?