Current Events > I really don't like this slope we're slipping down

(+) Yeah! (+)

First they came for the Nazis and I did not speak up because I was not a Nazi.

Then they came for the_donald and I didn't speak up because I never subscribed or posted on the_donald

Then they came for the Qanon conspirators and I didn't speak up because I never believed in Qanon.

Then they didn't come for me because it turns out they were just going after awful people and life is so much better now.

---

would someone like to tell my why i shouldn't cheer on the banning of people spouting nazi conspiracy theories and organizing and supporting insurrectionists

---

Eliza3 posted...

Guys, we shouldn't cheer when criminals get arrested for committing heinous crimes. That might give the justice system the idea that they could do anything they want and be celebrated for it! ()

So just to be clear, you think companies destroying competition and setting up monopolies is a good thing?

EnvoyOfTheLight posted...

It's not a slippery slope if there is no progression, is the thing. What's been celebrated so far is telling bigots to shut the fuck up. When you see that extend beyond bigotry, when, fucking, twitter bans avocado toast or something, make another topic.

It's a progression, cancellation hasn't always been a thing. The issue is who's doing the cancelling; again, it's the corporate company of twitter that decides who goes and who stays, and you don't have any issue with that? The "it's okay because they were bad anyway" line of thinking has been so ingrained on the internet that it seems like no one cares about this dangerous path.

ArchNemo posted...

So just to be clear, you think companies destroying competition and setting up monopolies is a good thing?

Holy strawman! You're not trying to "be clear." You're trolling.

---

Eliza3 posted...

Holy strawman! You're not trying to "be clear." You're trolling.

"He's not wrong, but his reasons for saying it probably are.

But as much as people want to say "you have no right to an account" you also have no other options, and they don't want you to have any other options and will crush anything they deem as competition. People really shouldn't be defending this type of behaviour.

But hey, as long as it harms people who disagree with you who cares, right?"

My original post.

Orchestrion posted...

Of course this is an alt whining about being called a Nazi

Maybe people like you should stop calling people Nazis then.

ArchNemo posted...

"He's not wrong, but his reasons for saying it probably are.

But as much as people want to say "you have no right to an account" you also have no other options, and they don't want you to have any other options and will crush anything they deem as competition. People really shouldn't be defending this type of behaviour.

But hey, as long as it harms people who disagree with you who cares, right?"

My original post.

I didn't reply or engage with your original post. You replied to me when I was saying that people facing the consequences of their shitty actions is something that I deem perfectly acceptable.

---

Nama posted...

It's a progression, cancellation hasn't always been a thing. The issue is who's doing the cancelling; again, it's the corporate company of twitter that decides who goes and who stays, and you don't have any issue with that? The "it's okay because they were bad anyway" line of thinking has been so ingrained on the internet that it seems like no one cares about this dangerous path.

There's no progression towards any danger, which is the whole point of you calling it a slippery slope. Your 'danger' is entirely conjecture; you have a point when a bad thing actually happens, because literally all that's happening right now is deplatformed bigots.

---

isn't it such an awfully big coincidence that all the supposed "true free speech" communities inevitably turn into nazi shitholes. because as it turns out, the only people who want to be around nazis are other nazis. which means that they aren't exactly good for business if they drive everyone else away.

---

Eliza3 posted...

I didn't reply or engage with your original post. You replied to me when I was saying that people facing the consequences of their shitty actions is something that I deem perfectly acceptable.

But TCs point is essentially what I said. Yeah, it's possible that he's saying it because they're censoring his crappy political opinions, but it doesn't mean what he's saying is wrong.

"destroying competition"
*website refuses to follow the rules set in place by its host but because its a competitor it should be given a free pass*

---

Akagami_Shanks posted...

"destroying competition"
*website refuses to follow the rules set in place by its host but because its a competitor it should be given a free pass*

Uh, facebook and google actively drive anyone who tries to compete with them out of business or forces them to sell.

I agree with you, TC.

Unfortunately, these blokes are preoccupied with your board information rather than focusing and addressing the point. That's literally their MO on all things that remotely challenged their group think.

---

ArchNemo posted...

But TCs point is essentially what I said. Yeah, it's possible that he's saying it because they're censoring his crappy political opinions, but it doesn't mean what he's saying is wrong.

When these companies are wrongly squashing competition, I criticize them. When they're banning terrorists, I celebrate.

---

TC is right. The power to ban Nazis and other such shit eaters should belong to the masses, not to capitalists.

---

Vicious_Dios posted...

I agree with you, TC.

Unfortunately, these blokes are preoccupied with your board information rather than focusing and addressing the point. That's literally their MO on all things that remotely challenged their group think.

It's fine. They're trying to make the topic about me, but I'll address it. The only times I've been called a nazi is during topics like this. I will defend anyone's right to speak, doesn't mean I agree with everyone. I merely want to point out how I think it's crazy how we've all accepted how corporately owned and controlled the internet has become, and the power it wields in the public discourse. We're all conditioned to implicitly accept every cancelled person as a bigot, nazi, -phobe, terrible person that deserves it.

Nama posted...

We're all conditioned to implicitly accept every cancelled person as a bigot, nazi, -phobe, terrible person that deserves it.

Then you should easily be able to give us 3 examples of people who were kicked off of social media for being a bigot/nazi/-phobe terrible person when they clearly weren't.

---

Nama posted...

It's fine. They're trying to make the topic about me, but I'll address it. The only times I've been called a nazi is during topics like this. I will defend anyone's right to speak, doesn't mean I agree with everyone. I merely want to point out how I think it's crazy how we've all accepted how corporately owned and controlled the internet has become, and the power it wields in the public discourse. We're all conditioned to implicitly accept every cancelled person as a bigot, nazi, -phobe, terrible person that deserves it.

Nobody has a right to an account on a social media platform. You agree to the rules of the platform when you make your account. If you repeatedly violate those rules, you risk getting your account banned.

---

In principle what OP said was good but in practise we know he's just mad that Parler got shut down

---

Sewage posted...

BTW there are tons of people with tons of different views on every platform. Trump and company weren't banned for having different views, they were banned because they are promoting violence that for once was acted on and it cost us lives. Right wing views weren't why they were banned.

You didn't get OP's point here. The mass majority of the Right wing congregation leading to Jan. 6's event were on Youtube and Facebook groups yet Parler got branded the Right wing cesspit and was wiped off the internet thanks to Google, Amazon, and Apple's collusion. This is a problem.


---

Sad_Face posted...

You didn't get OP's point here. The mass majority of the Right wing congregation leading to Jan. 6's event were on Youtube and Facebook groups yet Parler got branded the Right wing cesspit and was wiped off the internet thanks to Google, Amazon, and Apple's collusion. This is a problem.

1. Google, Amazon, and Apple each have their own terms of service and acceptable use policies.
2. Google, Amazon, and Apple each have their own moderation systems. They're far from perfect, but they explicitly forbit inciting violence as a part of their terms, so people who do that can't reasonably complain about getting banned.
3. Parler, being hosted on Amazon AWS, was bound to Amazon AWS' terms of service.
4. Parler repeatedly and deliberately ignored notices from Amazon about the violations on their platform.

Google, Amazon, and Apple weren't colluding. They were just pushed to take action because people were inciting violence that actually turned into 5 people dying as a result of their actions at the capitol.

---

Kafkatrapping, which the majority of users in this topic are guilty of, is wrong.

I think that a social media platform is able to remove users at will. That's their protected right. My problem stems with the precedent AWS sets with their actions. I think antitrust laws should have probably prevented Amazon from ever becoming this dominant in the first place, they've clearly demonstrated that they have the capacity to hinder any potential competitors with the amount of marketshare that they control.

They should probably be reigned in by the Federal Trade Commission Act, along with a couple others who are in the same boat of throwing their federal influence around, but I don't think it should be done unilaterally.

Ideally, I would like the Supreme Court(Less so now with it's current composition.) to hear a case on antitrust law in relation to how monopolized certain sectors of our market have gotten(Internet utilities, AWS). If you cannot maintain your monopoly without using federal lobbying/aid to deter/prevent your competition then you are in violation of the FTCA and should be broken up/divested immediately.


---

CableZL posted...

1. Google, Amazon, and Apple each have their own terms of service and acceptable use policies.
2. Google, Amazon, and Apple each have their own moderation systems. They're far from perfect, but they explicitly forbit inciting violence as a part of their terms, so people who do that can't reasonably complain about getting banned.
3. Parler, being hosted on Amazon AWS, was bound to Amazon AWS' terms of service.
4. Parler repeatedly and deliberately ignored notices from Amazon about the violations on their platform.

Google, Amazon, and Apple weren't colluding. They were just pushed to take action because people were inciting violence that actually turned into 5 people dying as a result of their actions at the capitol.

Sad_Face is a legit Qanon/Pizzagate truther. Engaging with them is a fools errand.


---

xXfireglzXx posted...

If you cannot maintain your monopoly without using federal lobbying/aid to deter/prevent your competition then you are in violation of the FTCA and should be broken up/divested immediately.

Amazon AWS isn't a monopoly.

---

Don't worry guys Big Tech will keep us safe

---

ArchNemo posted...

He's not wrong, but his reasons for saying it probably are.

But as much as people want to say "you have no right to an account" you also have no other options, and they don't want you to have any other options and will crush anything they deem as competition. People really shouldn't be defending this type of behaviour.

But hey, as long as it harms people who disagree with you who cares, right?

Finally, a smart response with some nuance.

---

You do have other options. Following the rules of the platform so you can keep your account is an option.

---

CableZL posted...

Google, Amazon, and Apple weren't colluding. They were just pushed to take action because people were inciting violence that actually turned into 5 people dying as a result of their actions at the capitol.

If they adhered to their policies, then they'd have to go after Facebook and Youtube as well which are the core centers of Alt-Right discussions. This is the point of the OP's thread, governance of the content on the internet boils down to the corporations' interests. This is dangerous.


---

Sad_Face posted...

If they adhered to their policies, then they'd have to go after Facebook and Youtube as well which are the core centers of Alt-Right discussions. This is the point of the OP's thread, governance of the content on the internet boils down to the corporations' interests. This is dangerous.

Facebook and Youtube host their own infrastructure in their own data centers. Facebook and Google have their own terms of service. They aren't "governing content on the internet." They're governing the content on their own platforms.

It shouldn't be surprising that a company is pushed to act in a more drastic way when stuff that violates their terms of service and acceptable use policies actually results in people getting killed.

An employee of a company may be abrasive and uncouth, but if said employee does something drastic like sexual harassment or says the wrong thing to a customer, the company will likely fire him after the fact even though people around him saw that coming and the incident could have been prevented if the company had acted sooner.

---

CableZL posted...

Facebook and Youtube host their own infrastructure in their own data centers. Facebook and Google have their own terms of service. They aren't "governing content on the internet." They're governing the content on their own platforms.

True. But Apple and Google could have removed the apps from their app stores.

I honestly rather would not discuss this further with you because I have a history of getting suspended when arguing politics and I need my account to last till the end of the week. I'm at my wit's end here. Sorry.

---

Sad_Face posted...

True. But Apple and Google could have removed the apps from their app stores.

I honestly rather would not discuss this further with you because I have a history of getting suspended when arguing politics and I need my account to last till the end of the week. I'm at my wit's end here. Sorry.

Is something big supposed to happen at the end of the week?


---

Orchestrion posted...

Is something big supposed to happen at the end of the week?

Nah, I just have obligations on other game boards.

---

Sad_Face posted...

True. But Apple and Google could have removed the apps from their app stores.

I honestly rather would not discuss this further with you because I have a history of getting suspended when arguing politics and I need my account to last till the end of the week. I'm at my wit's end here. Sorry.

Facebook and Youtube both have moderation systems designed to remove stuff like Parler encouraged. They aren't perfect by any means, but inciting violence is against the terms of both Youtube and Facebook and they have a track record of removing content like that.

---

People are so entitled. You played zero part in the development of those services. But you expect to use them without needing to follow the rules the actual creators place on them.

---

The internet isn't a right

---

Nama posted...

it's the corporate company of twitter that decides who goes and who stays, and you don't have any issue with that?

I mean... it's their platform.
---

You know for as much as people claim conservative voices are getting silenced I still hear a lot of them. It is almost like the voices being de-platformed aren't being silenced for being conservative, but for being violent or hateful.

And of those are voices that you are concerned with being silenced then you got some introspection to do.

---

Nama posted...

cancellation hasn't always been a thing.

Biggest lie in this topic.

Cancellation has always been a thing.

---

CyricZ posted...

Biggest lie in this topic.

Cancellation has always been a thing.

Not the way it is currently defined and enforced.

---

superman 2000 posted...

Not the way it is currently defined and enforced.

Pretty much has been, yeah. Just now it's Liberal ideas being the more accepted norm.

---

Fart
---

"oh no, i cant post hateful shit on social media that incites bigotry and violence!"

how i feel sorry for these people. you poor things... -_-

Imagine if the idiots got their wish and 230 was removed. Just imagine.

---

I can literally post hail Satan or hail Jesus Christ or call Bernie Sanders a dingus or call Mitch McConnell a fungus.

there are literally no restrictions on free speech even on websites. They just restrict you from hate speech and violence. The cries about censorship when people are literally put away for speaking out the truth in fascist regimes like North Korea is insulting to victims of actual censorship, controlled by actual dictators.

---

Can someone show me a singe example of someone being deplatformed, shadowbanned, silenced, harassed, or even just moderated for calling for low taxes and small government? Or for reasoned consideration of proposed social changes? Reducing regulatory burdens?

If these companies are colluding to silence conservatives there must be ample evidence of them doing this. If there's no evidence of companies going after core conservative speech, could it be possible they're being dealt with for some other reasons? Maybe other types of actions or speech?

---

Maybe stop being terrorist-inciting Nazis and maybe youll stop getting banned.

---

So Trump did create a gamefaqs account.

---

xXfireglzXx posted...

Kafkatrapping, which the majority of users in this topic are guilty of, is wrong.

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

He looks pretty free in that picture. Doesn't even have any sand on his shoes. You're doing fine.

---