Especially if you have a conspiracy theory you're terrified to explain.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).
Political content was censored. This isn't even debatable.
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.Political content was censored. This isn't even debatable.
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.
Sure. CNN hasn't been censored by FB.
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.
Explain what CNN did.Sure. CNN hasn't been censored by FB.
A double negative without specifics.
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?
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.
Spurtacular: are you gonna explain how internet platforms enforcing their TOS is censorship?
My "word" doesn't absolve you from making an untruthful assertion.
Are you going to stop lying?
Yes or no.
He will never explain anything.
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?
I never said your word absolved anything.
Are you offering absolution now?
Nice try at running....
My "word" doesn't absolve you from making an untruthful assertion.
Are you going to stop lying?
Yes or no.
fiat and question begging seem to be the MO
Nor did I say my word absolves you. And I'm not "offering absolution".
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?
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.
great, now that you've sorted that out, do you mind explaining how websites enforcing their user agreements is censorship?
Nope. You lied in the other thread and you can't even call it a mistake.
And why is that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
