NPR: YouTube, Apple and Facebook Ban Alex Jones' Infowars

[DMX7]

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/636030043/youtube-apple-and-facebook-ban-infowars-which-decries-mega-purge

1026641324987084800

[DarrinS]

He’s an idiot, but strange coordination.

[DMX7]

He’s an idiot, but strange coordination.

A little too strange... a conspiracy perhaps?

[DarrinS]

A little too strange... a conspiracy perhaps?

CNN has been pushing a hysterical conspiracy theory for over 18 months.

[DMX7]

CNN has been pushing a hysterical conspiracy theory for over 18 months.

about what?

[DarrinS]

about what?

Srsly?

[DMX7]

Srsly?

yeah

[DarrinS]

yeah

Trump-Russia-collusion-delusion

[Spurtacular]

Corporate America taking their revenge on the great unwashed.

[Splits]

1026619993771962368

[spurraider21]

1026619993771962368

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/021/464/14608107_1180665285312703_1558693314_n.jpg

[Spurtacular]

:corn:

Chumpettes rationalizing political censorship.

[Pavlov]

:corn:

Derp not knowing what political censorship is.

[Spurtacular]

:corn:

Derp not knowing what political censorship is.

:lol Today's sociopath lashing out.

[Pavlov]

:lol Today's sociopath lashing out.lol buzzwords

[Spurtacular]

lol buzzwords

No buzzword. That's who you are. I'd tell you to come to terms, but I know you can't and won't. :lmao

[Pavlov]

come to termslol

[Spurtacular]

lol

Cuck Blake level posting won't get you anywhere, tbh.

[Pavlov]

Cuck Blake levellol buzzwords and crying out for a man

[Spurtacular]

lol buzzwords and crying out for a man

Well, you chimed in with a antagonistic one liner. This has been in your playbook for a dozen or more years. It was never about making a real point. It was about getting into a tiff.

:lol Today's sociopath chump
:lol Same as yesterday's sociopath chump

[Reck]

He’s an idiot, but strange coordination.

TSA Jr.

[Pavlov]

Well, you chimed in with a one liner antagonism. This has been in your playbook for a dozen or more years. It was never about making a real point. It was about getting into a tiff.

:lol Today's sociopath chump
:lol Same as yesterday's sociopath chumpI was laughing at your characterization since you don't know what you're talking about.

But go right ahead and lose your shit about it.

[Spurtacular]

TSA Jr.

:lmao All milk, no meat for tranny (not literally, of course)

[Pavlov]

Tranny lash out regarding ParDerp Mad Libs

[Reck]

:lmao All milk, no meat for tranny

No Thesaurus word of the day today for you?

[Spurtacular]

I was laughing at your characterization since you don't know what you're talking about.

But go right ahead and lose your shit about it.

Gave sociopath chump an opening to get back to the substance. Not in sociopath chump's interest at this time though.

[Pavlov]

sociopath sociopathFeel free to tell us all your conspiracy theory since you're so serious about it.

[Spurtacular]

No Thesaurus word of the day today for you?

One of these days you'll maybe have to ask yourself why you marvel at breadth of vocabulary. You might realize that every time you make this jab, you're not really insulting me. :lol

[Pavlov]

One of these days you'll maybe have to ask yourself why you marvel at breadth of vocabulary. You might realize that every time you make this jab, you're not really insulting me. :lolWell, we comment on it because you frequently misuse words you try out like clique.

[Spurtacular]

Feel free to tell us all your conspiracy theory since you're so serious about it.

I'm gonna let you have that last word, sociopath chump. Or rather, I'll let your next post be the last word b/c I know you don't have the discipline to not literally have the last word.

[Pavlov]

sociopathWhite flag accepted you pussy. You declared it a conspiracy and you backed down the instant you were called on it.

[Spurtacular]

https://pandagif.com//gifs/78K806OHPM.gif

[Pavlov]

lol still responding but definitely not up to discussing his conspiracy theory anymore.

[Reck]

One of these days you'll maybe have to ask yourself why you marvel at breadth of vocabulary. You might realize that every time you make this jab, you're not really insulting me. :lol

Ok then. Checklist complete.

[Chris]

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthumbs.gfycat.com%2FImportantDefe nselessAxisdeer-max-1mb.gif&f=1

[Pavlov]

Chris taking this one extra hard.

[Chris]

History repeats itself. Nothing new under the sun.

[Spurtacular]

Ok then. Checklist complete.

You really haven't thought out this schtick, tranny. But that's okay. You still get a participation call out. :lol

[Pavlov]

History repeats itself. Nothing new under the sun.How is this like Nazi Germany, Chris?

Give us your history lesson.

[Pavlov]

trannylol

[Spurtacular]

Chris taking this one extra hard.

He should take the political censorship in stride like you're doing. Amirite, sociopath chump?

[Pavlov]

sociopathhttps://pandagif.com//gifs/78K806OHPM.gif

[Spurtacular]

Sociopath chump hasn't explained how this is not political censorship. Surely, he wants to do two or three pages of attention whoring first.

[Pavlov]

Sociopath chump hasn't explained how this is not political censorship. Surely, he wants to do two or three pages of attention whoring first.Since you've given up on your little last word game, you need to back up your claim about how your political censorship conspiracy theory.

[Spurtacular]

Since you've given up on your little last word game, you need to back up your claim about how your political censorship conspiracy theory.

You were allowed the last word for your tiff. The political censorship is what this thread is about.

:lol Sociopath chump making an issue about about me regarding the actual subject matter of the thread.

[Pavlov]

You were allowed the last word for your tiff. The political censorship is what this thread is about.

:lol Sociopath chump making an issue about about me regarding the actual subject matter of the thread.
You're still not backing up your political censorship conspiracy theory.

It's your theory. Explain it.

[Spurtacular]

You're still not backing up your political censorship conspiracy theory.

It's your theory. Explain it.

Political censorship has been conducted; I get that you want to spin that. Probably some face value bull shit about TOS or whatever I'm sure.

[Pavlov]

Political censorship has been conductedWhat political message has been removed from those services?

[Spurtacular]

What political message has been removed from those services?

Four pages of political message from FB among other services is what I recall reading, sociopath chump.

[Pavlov]

Four pages of political message from FB among other services is what I recall reading, sociopath chump.And that message was what?

[Spurtacular]

And that message was what?

How about you explain how it was not political censorship, sociopath chump.

[Pavlov]

How about you explain how it was not political censorship, sociopath chump.lol demanding I prove a negative.

If you can't actually say what political message is being censored, your claim that it's a political censorship fails pretty hard.

I'll ask again, what political message is being censored?

[Spurtacular]

lol demanding I prove a negative.

If you can't actually say what political message is being censored, your claim that it's a political censorship fails pretty hard.

I'll ask again, what political message is being censored?

Political pages across various mediums were taken down in an effort to politically censor Info Wars. This isn't hard stuff, sociopath chump. Now stop pretending you don't get the crux of the matter and make a case as to how it is not political censorship; that or you can rely on fallback cop-outs like 'proving a negative'.

[Pavlov]

Political pages across various mediums were taken down in an effort to politically censor Info Wars. This isn't hard stuff, sociopath chump. Now stop pretending you don't get the crux of the matter and make a case as to how it is not political censorship; that or you can rely on fallback cop-outs like 'proving a negative'.So you can't even name one political message that was censored.

Wow.

Not even one.

[Spurtacular]

So you can't even name one political message that was censored.

Wow.

Not even one.

Political pages were censored. The precise or exact political message has no bearing on whether it's political censorship or not.

:lol "Wow. Not even one."

[Pavlov]

Political pages were censored. The precise or exact political message has no bearing on whether it's political censorship or not.

:lol "Wow. Not even one." Actually it does matter.

[Spurtacular]

Actually it does matter.

No. It's either political censorship or not.

Now, you're playing your games and not just putting your cards on the table; but I'm guessing you're getting at there was some sort of 'justification'. That doesn't mean political censorship hasn't occurred.

[Pavlov]

No. It's either political censorship or not.

Now, you're playing your games and not just putting your cards on the table; but I'm guessing you're getting at there was some sort of 'justification'. That doesn't mean political censorship hasn't occurred.You haven't proved your claim.

Too bad for you.

[Spurtacular]

You haven't proved your claim.

Too bad for you.

You can read the articles that detail the political censorship.

:lmao Sociopath chump desperately wishing I came here to "prove" the plain and simple to him.

[Spurtacular]

Now, you're playing your games and not just putting your cards on the table; but I'm guessing you're getting at there was some sort of 'justification'. That doesn't mean political censorship hasn't occurred.
Sociopath Pavlov (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7343)

Put your cards on the table. Tell us what the justification was for these companies to take their actions.

(:lol that you decided to skip past that part of the statement, btw)

[Pavlov]

You can read the articles that detail the political censorship.

:lmao Sociopath chump desperately wishing I came here to "prove" the plain and simple to him.
Do the articles say which political messages were censored?

Quote them.

[Spurtacular]

Do the articles say which political messages were censored?

Quote them.

So, your under the impression that Info Wars has pages that aren't politically oriented

[Pavlov]

So, your under the impression that Info Wars has pages that aren't politically orientedStraw man.

I asked which political message was censored.

You can't come up with any.

And there you sit.

[Spurtacular]

Straw man.

I asked which political message was censored.

You can't come up with any.

And there you sit.

Your argument is clearly disingenuous. I'm not going to go searching on the extremely unlikely chance to the nth power that the content censored isn't political.

[Pavlov]

Your argument is clearly disingenuous. I'm not going to go searching on the extremely unlikely chance to the nth power that the content censored isn't political. I'm not asking that.

[Spurtacular]

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, derp.

Fallback terms.

I qualify this as find-out question and not argumentation (so stuff the strawman up your ass). Are you under the impression that the content removed wasn't political?

[Pavlov]

Fallback terms.

I qualify this as find-out question and not argumentation (so stuff the strawman up your ass). Are you under the impression that the content removed wasn't political?Nope. I'm sure most if it was.

[Spurtacular]

Nope. I'm sure most if it was.

Then, what's your problem? Given what you're "sure" of, this is an open and shut case of political censorship.

[Pavlov]

Then, what's your problem. Given what you're "sure" of, this is an open and shut case of political censorship.Too bad for you it's not.

I mean if you want to call hate speech and bullying political that's fair. You probably want to say those stories and videos can't possibly be hate speech or bullying.

Too bad.

It's not your company.

[Spurtacular]

Too bad for you it's not.

I mean if you want to call hate speech and bullying political that's fair. You probably want to say those stories and videos can't possibly be hate speech or bullying.

Too bad.

It's not your company.

And there's the nut graph that I was telling you to put forth umpteen posts ago; but you predictably had to waste an hour plus of our time.

Yes, it is political censorship regardless of your buzz word classifications.

:lmao Today's sociopath snowflake chump

[Pavlov]

And there's the nut graph that I was telling you to put forth umpteen posts ago; but you predictably had to waste an hour plus of our time.

Yes, it is political censorship regardless your snowflake classifications.

:lmao Today's sociopath snowflake chumpI didn't censor anyone.

Save your rage

[Spurtacular]

I didn't censor anyone.

Save your rage

Okay. Your random declarative statement is noted.

Is this an attempt to distract from the fact that you're saying classifying speech into certain designations and then removing it is not political censorship?

[pgardn]

Testing the limits of the first amendment via mass communication to zombies.

The things this guy has done to specific families is criminal and he gonna “pay” in court.
However, it does bring up questions. So do we have an example of a liberal group pushing a conspiracy theory targeting and naming specific families not even associated with politics basically suggesting violence?

[Pavlov]

Okay. Your random declarative statement is noted.

Is this an attempt to distract from the fact that you're saying classifying speech into certain designations and then removing it is not political censorship?If you want to describe hate speech and bullying bans that broadly, I suppose that helps you avoid addressing what actually going to be them banned.

I will agree that stories and videos that companies will consider hate speech and bullying can be political.

[Spurtacular]

If you want to describe hate speech and bullying bans that broadly, I suppose that helps you avoid addressing what actually going to be them banned.

I will agree that stories and videos that companies will consider hate speech and bullying can be political.

Well, in the first place, I don't think the exact reasons for all the censorship on all the mediums was explicitly given IIRC.

But yea, "hate speech" and "bullying" is a cop-out. And regardless of the designation, it's political censorship by definition (which is why you're stupid to deny it :lmao).

[Winehole23]

1026507781547810823

[Pavlov]

Well, in the first place, I don't think the exact reasons for all the censorship on all the mediums was explicitly given IIRC.

But yea, "hate speech" and "bullying" is a cop-out in the first place.
And regardless of the designation, it's political censorship by definition (which is why you're stupid to deny it :lmao). Especially if you have a conspiracy theory you're terrified to explain.

[Spurtacular]

Especially if you have a conspiracy theory you're terrified to explain.

Political content was censored. This isn't even debatable.

:lmao Sociopath chump idiotically playing the conspiracy theory card.

[Pavlov]

Political content was censored. This isn't even debatable.

:lmao Sociopath chump idiotically playing the conspiracy theory card.I wasn't arguing it wasn't. Accounts with political content we're deleted because of hate speech and bullying violations determined by the companies that make those standards.

You think they all got together to gang up on Infowars. That's your conspiracy theory. You said it yourself.

I asked you what political content was deleted because I'm sure you can find the same ideas all over the services that did the banning. Except for the hate speech and bullying. That's probably harder to find.

[Spurtacular]

However, it does bring up questions. So do we have an example of a liberal group pushing a conspiracy theory targeting and naming specific families not even associated with politics basically suggesting violence?

Sure. CNN hasn't been censored by FB.

:lmao

[Winehole23]

Chris and Spurtacular are basically insisting that private websites be nationalized as public space, and that their rights of speech and and association be limited to prevent them from distancing themselves from behavior that violates the TOS, which after all, is an agreement between the user and the website.

Users limit themselves contractually when they use FB, Twitter and Youtube. That's one big reason this isn't censorship.

Don't like the TOS? Then don't sign them.

[Pavlov]

Sure. CNN hasn't been censored by FB.

:lmao Explain what CNN did.

[Spurtacular]

I wasn't arguing it wasn't.

A double negative without specifics.

:lmao Today's chump
:lmao Same as yesterday's chump

[Spurtacular]

You think they all got together to gang up on Infowars. That's your conspiracy theory. You said it yourself.


I never said the companies got together.

Are you going to stop lying?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

I never said the companies got together.

Are you going to stop lying?

Yes or no.
Oh, so you don't think they got together to ban Infowars from their platforms?

[Spurtacular]

Oh, so you don't think they got together to ban Infowars from their platforms?

I never said the companies go together.

Are you going to stop lying?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

I never said the companies go together.

Are you going to stop lying?

Yes or no. I'll take your word and rescind the declaration.

Now I'll ask you.

Do you think the companies got together to remove Infowars from their platforms?

Yes or no.

[Winehole23]

Spurtacular: are you gonna explain how internet platforms enforcing their TOS is censorship?

[Spurtacular]

I'll take your word and rescind the declaration.

Now I'll ask you.

Do you think the companies got together to remove Infowars from their platforms?

Yes or no.

My "word" doesn't absolve you from making an untruthful assertion.

Are you going to stop lying?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Spurtacular: are you gonna explain how internet platforms enforcing their TOS is censorship?He will never explain anything.

[Winehole23]

surely he is aware that these websites block and ban users on a daily basis for saying mean things to each other.

is that censorship too?

[Pavlov]

My "word" doesn't absolve you from making an untruthful assertion.

Are you going to stop lying?

Yes or no.I never said your word absolved anything.

Are you offering absolution now?

[Spurtacular]

He will never explain anything.

Nice try at running....

My "word" doesn't absolve you from making an untruthful assertion.

Are you going to stop lying?

Yes or no.

[Winehole23]

He will never explain anything. fiat and question begging seem to be the MO

[Spurtacular]

I never said your word absolved anything.

Are you offering absolution now?

Nor did I say my word absolves you. And I'm not "offering absolution".

Are you going to stop lying?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Nice try at running....

My "word" doesn't absolve you from making an untruthful assertion.

Are you going to stop lying?

Yes or no.If you're not offering absolution, I don't know why you're even asking.

Sorry I made a false assumption. I try not to make them.

But is that what you actually believe?

[Spurtacular]

Sorry I made a false assumption. I try not to make them.


You don't have to apologize for asking an erroneous question. I believe you had figured I had said that. I was just mirroring your disingenuous line of persecution from the other thread to make a point.

[Winehole23]

great, now that you've sorted that out, do you mind explaining how websites enforcing their user agreements is censorship?

[Pavlov]

You don't have to apologize for asking an erroneous question. I believe you had figured I had said that. I was just mirroring your disingenuous line of persecution from the other thread to make a point.Nope. You lied in the other thread and you can't even call it a mistake.

[Spurtacular]

Nope. You lied in the other thread and you can't even call it a mistake.

And why is that?

[Winehole23]

what exactly is wrong with websites preventing users from using their platforms to defame and harass people?

[Pavlov]

And why is that? That's for you to explain. You can't answer simple questions either.

[Spurtacular]

That's for you to explain. You can't answer simple questions either.

You just declared that I cannot call it a mistake. Give your clarification and/or rationale.

[Pavlov]

great, now that you've sorted that out, do you mind explaining how websites enforcing their user agreements is censorship?


what exactly is wrong with websites preventing users from using their platforms to defame and harass people? He'll never answer.

[Monostradamus]

Thoughts and prayers for Alex Jones.

[Spurtacular]

He'll never answer.

I would have time for such conversations, perhaps if you didn't remain committed to incessant meandering questioning.

[Pavlov]

You just declared that I cannot call it a mistake. Give your clarification and/or rationale.

You never did in all this time. If you have to be prompted into it like having a parent force you to apologize it's meaningless.

[Pavlov]

I would have time for such conversations, perhaps if you didn't remain committed to incessant meandering questioning.No more questions from me.

You go right ahead.

[Spurtacular]

You never did in all this time. If you have to be prompted into it like having a parent force you to apologize it's meaningless.

You're not my parent. You're a sociopath. You seem to be evading the question, or are you now saying that I can call it a mistake?

[Winehole23]

I would have time for such conversations, perhaps if you didn't remain committed to incessant meandering questioning.

:cry sorry, the flame war with Pavlov takes up all of my time :cry

[Pavlov]

You're not my parent. You're a sociopath. You seem to be evading the question, or are you now saying that I can call it a mistake?lol sure you can after trying to justify it as not a mistake at all.

Or just shut up about it and talk to Winehole.

No questions from me.

[Spurtacular]

lol sure you can after trying to justify it as not a mistake at all.

Or just shut up about it and talk to Winehole.

No questions from me.

Your story is changing. Now I can call it a mistake, you say. I guess that's how it goes, sociopath chump.

[Winehole23]

are you gonna try to back up your weak bs, or are you gonna stand pat?

[Pavlov]

Your story is changing. Now I can call it a mistake, you say. I guess that's how it goes, sociopath chump.I said you can do whatever you want. It's meaningless now.

You sure can't discuss the topic with Winehole.

Prove me wrong.

[Spurtacular]

:cry sorry, the flame war with Pavlov takes up all of my time :cry

Obviously you've never been in a flame war with chump hitting refresh on his browser every five seconds, bruh. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

I said you can do whatever you want. It's meaningless now.

You sure can't discuss the topic with Winehole.

Prove me wrong.

What you said is that I cannot call it a mistake. You've ran from giving a solid clarification or rationale. And now you're looking to winehole for an out. :lmao

[Trey Gowdy]

Obviously you've never been in a flame war with chump hitting refresh on his browser every five seconds, bruh. :lmao
You’ve posted more than he has in this thread.

[Spurtacular]

You’ve posted more than he has in this thread.

Thanks, bean counter.

[Winehole23]

Obviously you've never been in a flame war with chump hitting refresh on his browser every five seconds, bruh. :lmaonever happened to me, seems you can't resist

[Pavlov]

What you said is that I cannot call it a mistake.


I said you can do whatever you want.Seriously, if you think you won, great.

Go ahead and discuss the topic.

[Spurtacular]

never happened to me, seems you can't resist

It hasn't happened to you at least in part b/c you are on sociopath chump's team. You've not had the opportunity to "resist" that I've seen.

[Spurtacular]

Seriously, if you think you won, great.

Go ahead and discuss the topic.

Is you tapping out (not supporting your accusation) a win for me?

[Pavlov]

Is you tapping out (not supporting your accusation) a win for me?It's whatever you want it to be for yourself.

I look forward to reading your responses to Winehole's posts on the topic.

[Spurtacular]

It's whatever you want it to be for yourself.


I don't want it to be anything other than what it is; and what it is is you callously making an accusation and then backing down like a coward.

[Pavlov]

I don't know if I want it to be anything other than what it is; and what it is is you callously making an accusation and then backing down like a coward.Great, you go right on thinking that.

Now I look forward to your responses to Winehole's posts.

[Blake]

It hasn't happened to you at least in part b/c you are on sociopath chump's team. You've not had the opportunity to "resist" that I've seen.

Lol "team"

[Reck]

So derp is still trying to make this sociopath shtick work?

:lol

[Blake]

So derp is still trying to make this sociopath shtick work?

:lol

He's still trying to make "lashing out" work

[Spurtacular]

The cuck and tranny coming together this morning for some group therapy. Nice. Carry on.

:lol

[Pavlov]

The cuck and tranny coming together this morning for some group therapy. Nice. Carry on.

:lolI look forward to reading your responses to Winehole's posts on the topic.

[Blake]

The cuck and tranny coming together this morning for some group therapy. Nice. Carry on.

:lol

Poor derp feels ganged up on. Like Alex Jones.

[Winehole23]

tapped out. can't back up his own bs, as usual.

[Winehole23]

had Spurtacular been willing to do the topical discussion thing he might have found me more sympathetic than he suspected.

while I think that what internet platforms are doing is legally and constitutionally legit, there are foreseeable drawbacks to websites adopting EU-style speech restrictions en masse.

one of them is political viewpoint discrimination. I don't think that's the issue here.

[Spurtacular]

Poor derp feels ganged up on. Like Alex Jones.

Point to the post that even remotely claims that. Yea, that's not gonna happen. :lmao

[ElNono]

CNN has been pushing a hysterical conspiracy theory for over 18 months.

I thought it was he sitting POTUS who selected a special counsel that's investigating this 'hysterical conspiracy theory'?

[Winehole23]

it's not at all hard to imagine the trend leading to controversial, rude, politically radical or otherwise disturbing views being routinely excluded from digital platforms.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that digital platforms shouldn't be policing speech.

What I think is unreasonable is suggesting the government needs to police the platforms instead. That's the more perilous road; if digital platforms must be policed, better they do it themselves than the state.

[Blake]

Point to the post that even remotely claims that. Yea, that's not gonna happen. :lmao

That you feel ganged up on? You don't have to admit it. It's crystal clear.

[Winehole23]

the state telling digital platforms that they cannot exclude content is but a short distance from the state telling them that this or that content must be excluded.

[ElNono]

Not a fan of the decision, even if the subject is an idiot shit-stirrer that takes advantage of dumb, uneducated people, tbh.

On the other hand, didn't we have some Congressional hearings not that long ago asking some of these tech companies what were they doing to tackle fake news?

Fortunately for him, he can have his website as an outlet to exercise his free speech...

[ElNono]

the state telling digital platforms that they cannot exclude content is but a short distance from the state telling them that this or that content must be excluded.

I agree with that, but the question inches closer to: are TOS that potentially preclude speech enforceable? And he certainly can test that in court.

[Winehole23]

Not a fan of the decision, even if the subject is an idiot shit-stirrer that takes advantage of dumb, uneducated people, tbh.

On the other hand, didn't we have some Congressional hearings not that long ago asking some of these tech companies what were they doing to tackle fake news?

Fortunately for him, he can have his website as an outlet to exercise his free speech...bad facts make bad law, or in this case, custom.

digital platforms in large measure determine the dimensions of public debate. inasmuch as that is true, it's arguable that restriction is bad per se.

some people -- like apparently DarrinS, Spurtacular and Chris -- think the government needs to abrogate the speech and association rights of private companies to prevent unfair outcomes.

[Winehole23]

I agree with that, but the question inches closer to: are TOS that potentially preclude speech enforceable? And he certainly can test that in court.seems to me fairly well established that people can limit themselves contractually. that's what TOS is, a contract.

how are the TOS of a digital platform different from say, a non-disclosure agreement? both limit speech, but one of them should be unenforceable?

[ElNono]

seems to me fairly well established that people can limit themselves contractually. that's what TOS is, a contract.

how are the TOS of a digital platform different from say, a non-disclosure agreement? both limit speech, but one of them should be unenforceable?

Well, for one, NDAs are not as simple to enforce as it might look at first. For example, courts will likely not allow NDA's enforcement unless the disclosed/protected information is valuable or confidential.

More here: http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/issues-enforcing-nondisclosure-agreements.cfm

So there are careful balances/considerations that take place even when both sides agree to curtail certain rights.

[Winehole23]

On the other hand, didn't we have some Congressional hearings not that long ago asking some of these tech companies what were they doing to tackle fake news?this is an important point.

when legislators mount the soap box to ask you what you're doing about X, it's reasonable to presume that if you don't do something about X, the US Congress might step in to do it for you.

FB, Twitter and Youtube(Google) probably feel that they were forced to do something like this. an obnoxious liar like Alex Jones makes a convenient scapegoat.

[Winehole23]

Well, for one, NDAs are not as simple to enforce as it might look at first. For example, courts will likely not allow NDA's enforcement unless the disclosed/protected information isn't valuable or confidential.

More here: http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/issues-enforcing-nondisclosure-agreements.cfm

So there are careful balances/considerations that take place even when both sides agree to curtail certain rights.just spitballing, how might the issues be raised in this case?

[Spurtacular]

That you feel ganged up on? You don't have to admit it. It's crystal clear.

:lol Cuck admitting he's making up fiction.

[Winehole23]

Spurtacular, continuing to ignore the topic he supposedly cares about.

[Winehole23]

So there are careful balances/considerations that take place even when both sides agree to curtail certain rights.a better comparison might be with moral turpitude clauses and the like. expression or behavior that tends to bring disrepute upon the contractor can be limited, presumably with balancing considerations as well. I mention this because it touches on rights of association, unlike non-disclosure.

[ElNono]

just spitballing, how might the issues be raised in this case?

For example, they could approach it the same way as non-competes: being too broad, excessively restrictive, anti-competitive (this one is key, since some of these platforms have their own news services).

There's some case law already: https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/01/22/are-website-terms-of-use-enforceable/

Not saying it's a slam dunk, or anything like that, but you could build arguments for a legal challenge, IMO.

[Winehole23]

no doubt Alex Jones will challenge it while he can still afford to

[Spurtacular]

Spurtacular, continuing to ignore the topic he supposedly cares about.

Not ignoring it. Just don't give much of a shit about you pretending this was really a TOS issue.

[ElNono]

no doubt Alex Jones will challenge it while he can still afford to

He's in a conundrum, I'm sure. He probably gets better publicity for being banned. That's his target audience.

[Winehole23]

Not ignoring it. Just don't give much of a shit about you pretending this was really a TOS issue.the conversation has moved on, sorry you can't keep up

[Blake]

Not ignoring it. Just don't give much of a shit about you pretending this was really a TOS issue.

So you're just here to hit on men. Figured.

[ElNono]

Not ignoring it. Just don't give much of a shit about you pretending this was really a TOS issue.

Ultimately, the legal angle is the only one that matters if we would want this amended or not to happen again.

Motives can vary, but the tool used is what warrants scrutiny.

[Winehole23]

Spurtacular doesn't seem to care about the the legal angle, even though that's the most expedient path to reverse what happened.

[Spurminator]

CNN has been pushing a hysterical conspiracy theory for over 18 months.


Trump-Russia-collusion-delusion

:lmao

You're the guy who thinks the FBI invented the Trump/Russia collusion story in the first place, and that this entire investigation is based on a coordinated fabrication by the Deep State.

The Mueller investigation is an actual thing that is happening and producing results. That you would compare reporting (and speculation) on that investigation to Alex Jones claiming that 9/11 and Sandy Hook were CIA conspiracies says all anyone needs to know about you.

[Monostradamus]

:lmao

You're the guy who thinks the FBI invented the Trump/Russia collusion story in the first place, and that this entire investigation is based on a coordinated fabrication by the Deep State.

The Mueller investigation is an actual thing that is happening and producing results. That you would compare reporting (and speculation) on that investigation to Alex Jones claiming that 9/11 and Sandy Hook were CIA conspiracies says all anyone needs to know about you.


but muh peepee tapes :lol

[Winehole23]

DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042), do you think there should be government oversight of digital platforms?


Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656), Spurtacular (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615): same question. do y'all favor state control of social media?

[Spurminator]

While I enjoy the absolute meltdown of Jones and his followers over this, there are a couple of things I don't like about it. It's toothless, for one, because Jones can still use those platforms to promote and link to his garbage on other sites. And it also plays right into his ":cry the world is out to get me :cry" rallying cry.

His popularity isn't on him, it's on all of the pea-brained basement dorks who follow him. Better education (or better entertainment options for losers) is the only way to combat him.

[Blake]

DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042), do you think there should be government oversight of digital platforms?


Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656), Spurtacular (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615): same question. do y'all favor state control of social media?

Chris thinks YouTube is Big Brother so I'm not sure he is going to fully comprehend your question.

[Winehole23]

1026841651627548672

[Blake]

His popularity isn't on him, it's on all of the pea-brained basement dorks who follow him. Better education (or better entertainment options for losers) is the only way to combat him.

Same with Trump.

[Spurminator]

Same with Trump.

I expect Trump will be his own undoing much more quickly than we can improve education.

Preventing another Trump? That could take some time.

[vy65]

the state telling digital platforms that they cannot exclude content is but a short distance from the state telling them that this or that content must be excluded.

How do you figure that?

[Winehole23]

While I enjoy the absolute meltdown of Jones and his followers over this, there are a couple of things I don't like about it. It's toothless, for one, because Jones can still use those platforms to promote and link to his garbage on other sites. And it also plays right into his ":cry the world is out to get me :cry" rallying cry.

His popularity isn't on him, it's on all of the pea-brained basement dorks who follow him. Better education (or better entertainment options for losers) is the only way to combat him.yep. the cure for bad free speech is more of the same.

never forget the Streisand effect.

[Winehole23]

How do you figure that?depends on the controlling legal authority of course, but once the government is given (or gives itself) discretion over the digital content of private companies, it might be used to restrict or liberalize content. I know which one I'd put my money on.

[DarrinS]

DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042), do you think there should be government oversight of digital platforms?


Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656), Spurtacular (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615): same question. do y'all favor state control of social media?


No, I don't think there should be government oversight. I also don't think groups like ADL and SPLC should be part of Google's "Trusted Flaggers" program.

[Blake]

I expect Trump will be his own undoing much more quickly than we can improve education.

Preventing another Trump? That could take some time.

It's slow either way. Trump does no wrong to these morons.

[Winehole23]

No, I don't think there should be government oversight. I also don't think groups like ADL and SPLC should be part of Google's "Trusted Flaggers" program.Free association. Google gets to decide who it trusts, for better and for worse.

[Winehole23]

https://duckduckgo.com/install

[DarrinS]

Free association. Google gets to decide who it trusts, for better and for worse.

Evidently, Spotify trusts them, too

"Spotify, the world’s largest music streaming service, announced last Thursday that it has entered a partnership with the left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to police its music for hate content. A spokesman said that the SPLC could be a valuable partner in cracking down on 'hate content' and 'hateful conduct'."

[LkrFan]

Trump-Russia-collusion-delusion

Does the S in your name stand for "Shithead?" I think so, unfortunately. :(

[DarrinS]

Does the S in your name stand for "Shithead?" I think so, unfortunately. :(

Awe, you're special.

Nice, borderline-porn avatar, btw.

[LkrFan]

Awe, you're special.

Nice, borderline-porn avatar, btw.

:lol

Thanks! :toast

[Spurminator]

left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Sounds like you have objective sources though.

[spurraider21]

Evidently, Spotify trusts them, too

"Spotify, the world’s largest music streaming service, announced last Thursday that it has entered a partnership with the left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to police its music for hate content. A spokesman said that the SPLC could be a valuable partner in cracking down on 'hate content' and 'hateful conduct'."


Free association. Google gets to decide who it trusts, for better and for worse.

[DarrinS]

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/27/google-facebook-advertisers-censor-content/

[Winehole23]

nm

[monosylab1k]

:lmao

:cry google and twitter are biased and suppress voices that disagree with them :cry
*posts link to Daily Caller

[spurraider21]

:lmao

:cry google and twitter are biased and suppress voices that disagree with them :cry
*posts link to Daily Caller
seriously

complains about bias while posting from a website co-founded by tucker carlson :lmao

[Winehole23]

Chris thinks YouTube is Big Brother so I'm not sure he is going to fully comprehend your question.thing is, what may seem like a reasonable power to give a president or government you like, may become oppressive when wielded by one you don't like.

E.g., the surveillance and counter-terrorism powers Republicans defended to the Nth as prudent and necessary when GWB had them, suddenly became harbingers of tyranny once Obama became POTUS.

[Spurminator]

The SPLC is known for smearing pedestrian conservative organizations as “hate groups.”


the left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

[Winehole23]

it's not that conservatives hate PC or identity politics. their willingness to participate in them is well documented.

YOU'RE THE REAL RACISTS! YOUR SPEECH IS HATE SPEECH!

[Winehole23]

DJT may in fact be the first president to make racial grievance the center of his campaign and his policies.

[Winehole23]

conservative alphas, so quick to don the victim slippers

[spurraider21]

:lmao tbh

https://i.gyazo.com/1055a0de5f5c88d39aba278b9bb0f545.png

[Winehole23]

as soon as Antifa, or criticism of Israel, or making fun of Betsy de Vos's yacht are banned by political platforms, the same people crying censorship today will be back in here cheering it on.

[DarrinS]

The SPLC is known for smearing pedestrian conservative organizations as “hate groups.”


the left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)




Where did you get the second quote?

[monosylab1k]

Where did you get the second quote?

From you :lol


Evidently, Spotify trusts them, too

"Spotify, the world’s largest music streaming service, announced last Thursday that it has entered a partnership with the left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to police its music for hate content. A spokesman said that the SPLC could be a valuable partner in cracking down on 'hate content' and 'hateful conduct'."

[Spurminator]

Where did you get the second quote?

You tell me.

[DarrinS]

You tell me.

It wasn't the Daily Caller.


I copied that from here

http://www.americanlibertyreport.com/articles/spotify-partners-with-anti-trump-law-group/


And, the point isn't bias. I understand that the DC is biased. But, they aren't policing Youtube videos. Would you want a group like the Family Research Council policing Youtube videos?

[Winehole23]

American Liberty Report is sub-moronic.

[DarrinS]

American Liberty Report is sub-moronic.


I'm guessing you wouldn't want them on Google's "Trusted Flaggers" program?

[spurraider21]

Where did you get the second quote?


left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

[DarrinS]

Got me. You win. Enjoy.

[spurraider21]

Where did you get the second quote?


It wasn't the Daily Caller.


I copied that from here

http://www.americanlibertyreport.com/articles/spotify-partners-with-anti-trump-law-group/


And, the point isn't bias. I understand that the DC is biased. But, they aren't policing Youtube videos. Would you want a group like the Family Research Council policing Youtube videos?
its irrelevant if its from the daily caller or somewhere else. the point is that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

you post article complaining about the SPLC smearing people as a hate group, while just minutes earlier having copied another article which smears the SPLC as a hate group

it's your hypocrisy we find entertaining (and dishonest)

[DarrinS]

This could actually be a good thread, but, it's ST. Instead, petty slap fights. Oh well.

[Winehole23]

I'm guessing you wouldn't want them on Google's "Trusted Flaggers" program?I'm not sure I'm down with the program itself, but, uh, no.

[Winehole23]

This could actually be a good thread, but, it's ST. Instead, petty slap fights. Oh well.eh, it had its moments. did you read through?

[monosylab1k]

This could actually be a good thread, but, it's ST. Instead, petty slap fights. Oh well.

Says the guy who kicked the thread off with “yeah but the Russia investigation!”

[Winehole23]

:lol

[DarrinS]

He’s an idiot, but strange coordination.


A little too strange... a conspiracy perhaps?


Trump-Russia-collusion-delusion


I actually kicked off the thread with this. Then, you went full snarktard.


Says the guy who kicked the thread off with “yeah but the Russia investigation!”

[DarrinS]

“Several advocacy groups will help Spotify identify "hate content." Among them: the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and GLAAD.”

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/14/spotify-partners-with-the-southern-pover

[spurraider21]

thanks for copying your post about trump-russia-collusion-delusion which makes his point precisely

[spurraider21]

Evidently, Spotify trusts them, too

"Spotify, the world’s largest music streaming service, announced last Thursday that it has entered a partnership with the left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to police its music for hate content. A spokesman said that the SPLC could be a valuable partner in cracking down on 'hate content' and 'hateful conduct'."


“Several advocacy groups will help Spotify identify "hate content." Among them: the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and GLAAD.”

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/14/spotify-partners-with-the-southern-pover
more redundant posting about SPLC and spotify

great discussion!

[hater]

Chinese sensorship good now

[DarrinS]

more redundant posting about SPLC and spotify

great discussion!


That’s an interesting article, if you bothered to read it instead of being a bitter bitch.

[Winehole23]

Chinese sensorship good nowwhat Google is doing in China is a dry run

[boutons_deux]

"left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)"

:lol

[hater]

what Google is doing in China is a dry run

Bendover Ill show you a dry run

[Winehole23]

Chinese sensorship good nowWhat Google is doing in China is the much better example of complicity with state censorship.

[Winehole23]

Bendover Ill show you a dry runwhat's with all the sweet nothings?

[Winehole23]

the towelsnapping is worse than a high school locker room.

[Capt Bringdown]

RT: Twitter suspends Ron Paul Institute executive’s account, one day after Big Tech blocks InfoWars (https://www.rt.com/usa/435293-twitter-suspends-libertarean-figures/)
Several Libertarian figures, including the Ron Paul Institute director, have found their Twitter accounts suspended. It comes after tech giants went after right-wing journalist Alex Jones, banning his show from their platforms.
Radio host and editorial director of antiwar.com Scott Horton, former State Department employee and author Peter Van Buren, and Dan McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, found their twitter accounts suspended on Monday, according to Antiwar.com.

[monosylab1k]

:cry That’s an interesting article, :cry if you bothered to read it :cry instead of being :cry a bitter bitch.:cry

[Chris]

DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042), do you think there should be government oversight of digital platforms?


Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656), Spurtacular (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615): same question. do y'all favor state control of social media?

Solly Cholly...

You're on the list!

[Chucho]

Solly Cholly...

You're on the list!

Why are you blocking Whinehole? He's not a douche, he's actually a fairly decent poster.

[Winehole23]

he's a coward

[Winehole23]

RT: Twitter suspends Ron Paul Institute executive’s account, one day after Big Tech blocks InfoWars (https://www.rt.com/usa/435293-twitter-suspends-libertarean-figures/)
Several Libertarian figures, including the Ron Paul Institute director, have found their Twitter accounts suspended. It comes after tech giants went after right-wing journalist Alex Jones, banning his show from their platforms.
Radio host and editorial director of antiwar.com Scott Horton, former State Department employee and author Peter Van Buren, and Dan McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, found their twitter accounts suspended on Monday, according to Antiwar.com.one wonders why right-wing peaceniks are getting the ax.

[boutons_deux]

Alex Jones Begs Donald Trump For Help After He’s Dumped By YouTube, Spotify And Facebook

The notorious conspiracy theorist suggests Trump make his media problems a major issue in the 2018 campaign.

On Monday, Jones begged Donald Trump (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/donald-trump) to help him get back on the social media platforms with a monologue that alternately

praised the president

while claiming that the social media ban is part of

a globalist conspiracy against him. :lol

At no time did Jones mention the reason the websites gave for permanently removing him:

because he violated policies on graphic violence and hate speech.

Instead,

Jones blamed globalists :lol

and the Chinese. :lol

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alex-jones-donald-trump-media-matters_us_5b68bd4de4b0de86f4a43fd5?utm_medium=ema il&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__080718&utm_content=__TheMorningEmail__080718+CID_9fe12058 d5243923f708c9995c434bee&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=HuffPost&ncid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__080718

[Chris]

Why are you blocking Whinehole? He's not a douche, he's actually a fairly decent poster.

Just another troll. Look at his posting in the Jim Acosta thread.

[spurraider21]

Why are you blocking Whinehole? He's not a douche, he's actually a fairly decent poster.
:lol thinking that represents his standards

[hater]

What Google is doing in China is the much better example of complicity with state censorship.

Thats like saying a baseball bat to the head is a better example of assault as opposed to a cane to the head

[Education4Libs]

Just another troll. Look at his posting in the Jim Acosta thread.
Come on Chris, it’s time to dab on them haters! I can’t wait to wrap my hand around your massive, stiff cockpit control stick when we take your Daddeh’s private plan for our totally hetero weekend getaway.

[Chris]

1026856410427154437

[Capt Bringdown]

one wonders why right-wing peaceniks are getting the ax.

The media/tech bosses decide who has free speech.

[hater]

The media/tech bosses decide who has free speech.

Protecting the american people from memes and gifs tbqh

[Pavlov]

1026856410427154437Do you guys know who the president is?

:lmao

[Chris]

"We must suppress free speech to keep our democracy alive!" - Democrat Chris Murphy

[RandomGuy]

Sending a big truckload of thoughts and prayers to Alex Jones.

[RandomGuy]

1026619993771962368

+1

[Chris]

Sending a big truckload of thoughts and prayers to Alex Jones.

Oh look you stole someone else's joke.

You're worse than Amy Schumer.

[RandomGuy]

So let's get real:

Free Speech has limits.

Alex Jones has been successfully sued multiple times for pushing theories with little regard for the truth.

He has admitted in court testimony that he is "performing". So when push comes to shove, he is "just kidding".

From a liability standpoint, the companies are getting ahead of the curve in being proactive for extreme views, especially ones that have little regard for the truth, such as Infowars.

[Chris]

Free Speech has limits.

What are the terms? How did Alex Jones violate those terms. Thanks for answering.

[Chris]

1026897066595897344

:tu

[DarrinS]

So let's get real:

Free Speech has limits.

Alex Jones has been successfully sued multiple times for pushing theories with little regard for the truth.

He has admitted in court testimony that he is "performing". So when push comes to shove, he is "just kidding".

From a liability standpoint, the companies are getting ahead of the curve in being proactive for extreme views, especially ones that have little regard for the truth, such as Infowars.


I don’t they de-platformed him because of his conspiracy theories. The statements I’ve read have to do with hate speech.

[Chris]

1026893830224793600

Just a coincidence :tu

[RandomGuy]

What are the terms? How did Alex Jones violate those terms. Thanks for answering.

I don't really feel like working for you. The pay is lousy and I hear the boss is an asshole. Do your own work.

When I say "Free Speech has limits", I mean that there are specific limits on free speech, even in the US, i.e. libel/slander/etc.

[DarrinS]

Well, this is awkward. From Infowars’ own terms of service

1026896355048841216

[Chris]

I don't really feel like working for you. The pay is lousy and I hear the boss is an asshole. Do your own work.

When I say "Free Speech has limits", I mean that there are specific limits on free speech, even in the US, i.e. libel/slander/etc.

White flag accepted. Another notch in my belt is thanks.

[RandomGuy]

I don’t they de-platformed him because of his conspiracy theories. The statements I’ve read have to do with hate speech.

Tell you what, why don't you ask the parents of the child who was murdered what emotion they feel when people threaten their lives.

Jones does not care about the truth, and again, all right have limits. In this case though, this is a matter of a private company deciding what to do with its product.

Whose rights are more important to you? The private company, or the private citizen.

Pick.

[RandomGuy]

White flag accepted. Another notch in my belt is thanks.

"defend something you didn't say or else I win" :cry

:rolleyes

Sorry dude, I don't defend your strawmen. Have fun attacking them.

[Chris]

Tell you what, why don't you ask the parents of the child who was murdered what emotion they feel when people threaten their lives.

Jones does not care about the truth, and again, all right have limits. In this case though, this is a matter of a private company deciding what to do with its product.

Whose rights are more important to you? The private company, or the private citizen.

Pick.

Oh look another Liberal trying to emotionally blackmail someone into submission.

[Chris]

"defend something you didn't say or else I win" :cry

:rolleyes

Sorry dude, I don't defend your strawmen. Have fun attacking them.

Sorry if you can't explain yourself. *shrug

[Blake]

Well, this is awkward. From Infowars’ own terms of service

1026896355048841216

Lol of course

[RandomGuy]

Oh look you stole someone else's joke.

You're worse than Amy Schumer.

It's just too soon to talk about this.

[Blake]

Sorry if you can't explain yourself. *shrug

:lol poor simple Chris can't keep up

[Spurminator]

How big a scandal is this on r/The_Donald and other alt-right subreddits that ban dissenting users?

[Pavlov]

What are the terms? How did Alex Jones violate those terms. Thanks for answering.Holy shit. You've been posting here all this time and you are completely ignorant of the basic news story.

lol Chris