Katie Hopkins permanently banned from Twitter.

Ronsonfly

Toxic White Male
May 8, 2013
8,659
11,955
In a deplorable basket
Someone from the right just needs to create a site for free speech, where people aren't going to be banned for expressing their feelings. If it became popular and every right winger used it, not only would it hurt the likes of Twitter and YouTube, which have a massive left wing bias as policy, it'd just infuriate the left that there's an outlet which spreads the thing they most despise; free speech.

The idea of social media sites bringing everyone together has, unfortunately, failed. It's time for a clean break, the left to still hammer the Twitter echo chamber, and for the right to have their own platform to discuss ideas.
Parler is seeing a big influx right now and in particular at Twitter's expense. I don't know of a YouTube equivalent that's got any real traction ATM but it's surely coming.
 
Jun 4, 2013
996
89
Seriously, WTF happened to the Democrats? They used to be the more compassionate ones. Now, it's the complete opposite. Either agree/comply with them or they will destroy you. Pretty sad honestly. This outrage culture is all left based.
 
Reactions: BigPete

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
8,836
3,135
Reddit recently published some new rules on 'hate' speech which, predictably, were terrible, biased towards non-whites and was getting ripped apart. The guidelines genuinely say:

"While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate"

Therefore, if you're white, straight or in any other 'majority', the rules aren't going to protect you. Anti-white racism can be posted on the site and be accepted but anti-black racism wouldn't be. These new rules allow one kind of racism but prevent another...what kind of world is this? It's insanity.

Not only would that rule just be ridiculous no matter what but what it doesn't take into account is that white people are a minority across the world and as this is a global site, white people are considered a majority despite being a minority. So black racism is allowed because they're a minority, even though they're not...a minority?

The sooner there's an alternative to Reddit, YouTube, Twitter and so on, the better. These social media sites are proving to be nothing other than divisive and bigoted. I have no issue with censorship, I think some is needed, but it has to work both ways, you can't have this blatant hypocrisy.
 
Jun 12, 2012
7,733
4,165
Denmark
I think that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and so on will become purely left wing content and non-political content. Anyone moderate or right wing will just use the non-political parts of said services and filter out the rest. They'll move to other platforms for their political social media activity. I'm not even mad about it. If a baker can refuse service to gay people, corporations pandering to the left can also refuse their services to anyone not abiding by that ideology. Fair is fair. In the end the market will take care of it. Get woke, go broke.
 
Reactions: Touche
Jun 4, 2013
25,863
7,453
I think that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and so on will become purely left wing content and non-political content. Anyone moderate or right wing will just use the non-political parts of said services and filter out the rest. They'll move to other platforms for their political social media activity. I'm not even mad about it. If a baker can refuse service to gay people, corporations pandering to the left can also refuse their services to anyone not abiding by that ideology. Fair is fair. In the end the market will take care of it. Get woke, go broke.
Definitely fair is fair, but at the same time, you can't do what they're doing and ask for government protections. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are becoming publishers now. Let government treat them as such if they want to censor and review
 
Jun 12, 2012
7,733
4,165
Denmark
Definitely fair is fair, but at the same time, you can't do what they're doing and ask for government protections. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are becoming publishers now. Let government treat them as such if they want to censor and review
What government protections are they asking for?
 
Jun 4, 2013
25,863
7,453
What government protections are they asking for?
They're protected from being sued for libel and slander. You have to sue the person posting said information, not the company since they're not treated like publishers. Since they're now reviewing content like publishers, they should no longer have access to these protections. If someone posts slander or libel, you should be able to sue YouTube/Twitter/Facebook since they review they're acting as publishers now.

Make it a legit fair market and all that. No more government protections.
 

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
8,836
3,135
I think that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and so on will become purely left wing content and non-political content. Anyone moderate or right wing will just use the non-political parts of said services and filter out the rest. They'll move to other platforms for their political social media activity. I'm not even mad about it. If a baker can refuse service to gay people, corporations pandering to the left can also refuse their services to anyone not abiding by that ideology. Fair is fair. In the end the market will take care of it. Get woke, go broke.
I agree to an extent, which is why I'm not entirely against censorship online, but it's definitely not beneficial to the structure of society to have such powerful websites only act in one way. To use the example of Reddit, all the prominent people involved with it always maintained it was a free speech site and when that changes, the site still has some legitimacy and power. It's not like every person on random, say, coffee subreddits is aware of the situation and the censorship. Eventually, it'll work itself out though, you're right.

For anyone interested, this is the Reddit discussion on the new rules and how racist and discriminatory they are:


Regarding sites like Twitter, the selective censorship is a problem. They let lies from one side go and yet target another, therefore using the legitimacy of the site to endorse one opinion and discredit others which is wrong and should lead to some lawsuits.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
39,408
16,293
They're protected from being sued for libel and slander. You have to sue the person posting said information, not the company since they're not treated like publishers. Since they're now reviewing content like publishers, they should no longer have access to these protections. If someone posts slander or libel, you should be able to sue YouTube/Twitter/Facebook since they review they're acting as publishers now.

Make it a legit fair market and all that. No more government protections.
Unlike traditional publishers, Facebook has 1.7 billion daily users. With a B. Each of whom - by definition - logs on daily. And unlike traditional publishers, Facebook's content is published in real time, without having to clear any editorial department first.

How exactly is this going to work?

:hat
 
Reactions: Bachafach^^^
May 10, 2013
3,754
2,662
I agree to an extent, which is why I'm not entirely against censorship online, but it's definitely not beneficial to the structure of society to have such powerful websites only act in one way. To use the example of Reddit, all the prominent people involved with it always maintained it was a free speech site and when that changes, the site still has some legitimacy and power. It's not like every person on random, say, coffee subreddits is aware of the situation and the censorship. Eventually, it'll work itself out though, you're right.

For anyone interested, this is the Reddit discussion on the new rules and how racist and discriminatory they are:


Regarding sites like Twitter, the selective censorship is a problem. They let lies from one side go and yet target another, therefore using the legitimacy of the site to endorse one opinion and discredit others which is wrong and should lead to some lawsuits.

Reddit is done now for sure. That site will die a slow death into an echo chamber of oblivion.

Trump can't win the next election and they know it, he's going to start regulating them as a publisher.
 
Reactions: Ronsonfly
Jun 4, 2013
25,863
7,453
Unlike traditional publishers, Facebook has 1.7 billion daily users. With a B. Each of whom - by definition - logs on daily. And unlike traditional publishers, Facebook's content is published in real time, without having to clear any editorial department first.

How exactly is this going to work?

:hat
Add a delay to messages? I'm not worried at all about their business. No more government protections, and only allow those protections for companies that don't act like publishers.

Again, they want to selectively censor and review like publishers. It's their job to figure it out.
 
Reactions: Bachafach^^^

Bachafach^^^

ANTIFA *funded by Soros*
Dec 6, 2019
4,385
3,361
20
Varaždin, Hrvaška
Add a delay to messages? I'm not worried at all about their business. No more government protections, and only allow those protections for companies that don't act like publishers.

Again, they want to selectively censor and review like publishers. It's their job to figure it out.
You sound like an idiot. To be honest you sound more intelligent when you're pretending to be a scientist autisi-box