Google is officially a threat to democracy. Executives exposed admitting the company is trying to ''prevent another 2016''

[Basil II the B.S]

This is bizarre. You identify yourself as on the side of China? North Korea's patron? But White Libs are "at the level" of North Korea too, is North Korea bad? Are you at war with yourself?

The childish simplification of a complex world into two sides, one good, one bad, leads you into the most inane blunders. I think you're mostly trying to flame and troll, but when you try to explain yourself, it actually gets quite entertaining.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Chinese public laughs and reviles the ''Baizuo'', literally the ''White Left'', which they believe is ruining the West.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dig...ternet-insult/
So we are like-minded. It must be a shock to you and everyone else who simplified my rants as ''he simply doesn't like non-whites''. That was never the case. For instance that was an interesting Indian fella in another thread who's also on my same line of thinking. I want the right for people to retain their distinct identities. (That's actually part of the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so nothing new).

White Liberals on the other hand give me daily examples of Orwellian policies and are willingly destroying the West. The levels of censorship they advocate for exist only in North Korea. Who do you think would I work with?

[Vanoi]

The only way you lose your "identity" is if you willingly change it.

[Facupay]

Just like in the Crowder demonetization thread, the "left" defends the rights of mega corporations to tinker with society to social engineer it into whatever they think is convenient.

Useful cattle for their masters.

[Vanoi]

Just like in the Crowder demonetization thread, the "left" defends the rights of mega corporations to tinker with society to social engineer it into whatever they think is convenient.

Useful cattle for their masters.

Banning people on Facebook is not tinkering with society.

[The spartan]

Just like in the Crowder demonetization thread, the "left" defends the rights of mega corporations to tinker with society to social engineer it into whatever they think is convenient.

Useful cattle for their masters.

You think the Left is responsible for minimal corporate regulation? As if.

[Gaidin]

Nothing more extreme then "encroachments" that already exist in forms of various regulations and labor laws. Not letting corporate CEO's exert de-facto political decisions on society is just as much of an "extreme encroachment" as not letting them fire people because of their race or gender. Or are you against those "extreme encroachments" too, or do you pick which ones are such based on confirmation to your own beliefs?

The only way you’ll get such control over Facebook or Twitter is if they become Facebook.gov or Twitter.gov and are well and truly bound and governed by the Constitution.

[Infidel144]

When Alex Jones was deplatformed, Shapiro defended it with the usual ''private companies have the right to do it''. He insisted it on pretty much every other occasion until they went after Steven Crowder recently, then he flipped.

Part of the reason he was ok with it is that he really doesn't like any right wing commentator who's not in line with Neocon foreign policy, so by deplatforming them, he probably figured he could win a bigger audience. The thing is, and he knew that, Susan Wojcicki had openly stated her desire to get rid of him as well, but he never thought they'd go that far because he thought to be within the ''acceptable opinion''.

He said a year ago that he did not think Jones should be banned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQmgWVIPM00
(go to about 2 minutes in)

[Pontifex Maximus]

Trust-bust it along with google, facebook and youtube and twitter. Problem solved.

[The spartan]

What about all the other monopolies? Do you not get busted unless you make conservatives mad?

[Cope]

Trust-bust it along with google, facebook and youtube and twitter. Problem solved.

That would solve part of the problem. At this point though, I'm inclined to argue that political expressions need to be afforded similar protections in the workplace as religious ones; the culture of exclusion on the basis of political preferences and/or historic expressions is out of control.

[Basil II the B.S]

He said a year ago that he did not think Jones should be banned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQmgWVIPM00
(go to about 2 minutes in)

Well, he criticizes the fact that banning is arbitrary and inconsistent, often according to ideological preferences and vague reasons, all of which is true but I think he defended elsewhere the right of private companies to censor whatever they want. Or I'm confusing him with David French or someone else from National Review.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

This is a classic frame flip.

This sort of divisive online behaviour is often seen as successful Russian interference (and these idiots do serve Russia's interests by weakening the US) but the US has always had a plentiful supply of self-destructive idiots. Its the downside of a successful economic/political system, that there's falures around the fringes who feel entitled to a piece of power because they believe the propaganda the elite use to stay in power.



I honestly think it can be as simple as a neckbeard seeing a picture of Superman and unironically thinking "Lois Lane should be MY GIRLFRIEND! Must be the Jews' fault!".

Ah yes, the "Russian Reversal", a classic psy-ops technique. Popularised by Yakov Smyrnoff, I believe.

[Gaidin]

That would solve part of the problem. At this point though, I'm inclined to argue that political expressions need to be afforded similar protections in the workplace as religious ones; the culture of exclusion on the basis of political preferences and/or historic expressions is out of control.

No way in hell are Facebook or Twitter the workplace.

[Heathen Hammer]

The only way you’ll get such control over Facebook or Twitter is if they become Facebook.gov or Twitter.gov and are well and truly bound and governed by the Constitution.

Not really. They can't fire people based on race or gender and they are not owned by the government. Same thing with not letting them deny platform, since them being able to do them effectively gives them power of politicians, which they shouldn't be allowed to have.

[Gaidin]

Same thing with not letting them deny platform, since them being able to do them effectively gives them power of politicians, which they shouldn't be allowed to have.

You're arguing for what is essentially first amendment rights. Facebook is allowed to put forward its own rules and enforce them. Thus having its own rights as its own entity. This started coming about when the courts started recognizing corporations as conceptually human hundreds of years ago in different ways in such a simple fashion as letting them sign contracts as a corporation and adding to it ever since. Facebook doesn't have to allow people to use it. Neither does Twitter. Just like the New York Times is not required to publish someone's Op-ed. They can find an alternate platform.

[Heathen Hammer]

You're arguing for what is essentially first amendment rights. Facebook is allowed to put forward its own rules and enforce them. Thus having its own rights as its own entity. This started coming about when the courts started recognizing corporations as conceptually human hundreds of years ago in different ways in such a simple fashion as letting them sign contracts as a corporation and adding to it ever since. Facebook doesn't have to allow people to use it. Neither does Twitter. Just like the New York Times is not required to publish someone's Op-ed. They can find an alternate platform.

Already debunked: Facebook already has no right to fire people for skin color or gender. All it takes is to add political beliefs to the list of things that they can't discriminate people for, as a necessary action for preventing unelected corporate entities from exerting major political power over society. But its funny to see self-proclaimed democratic socialists becoming defenders of what they think "capitalistic freedoms" when they agree with bias of corporate CEOs.

[Gaidin]

Working for Facebook and using it are different.

If I use Facebook during work I’m thrown out on my ass. And neo-nazis will never be a protected group. Guess where most of their racist posts are found. Hundreds of police officers are pretty worried about their future right now.

[Heathen Hammer]

Working for Facebook and using it are different.

If I use Facebook during work I’m thrown out on my ass. And neo-nazis will never be a protected group. Guess where most of their racist posts are found. Hundreds of police officers are pretty worried about their future right now.

It is different technically, but in the context of discussing "extreme encroachments" this is clearly a coherent proof that such "encroachments" exist for a long time and are widely accepted as normal.
I have no idea why you want to give political power to corporate entities.

[Gaidin]

It is different technically, but in the context of discussing "extreme encroachments" this is clearly a coherent proof that such "encroachments" exist for a long time and are widely accepted as normal.
I have no idea why you want to give political power to corporate entities.

You're the one who for some reason thinks we're talking about the same thing.

Yes, from their own employees, Facebook is not allowed to fire or dismiss protected class of people merely because they are from that protected class. Their work either has to be done, the contract canceled, or there has to be cause.

But we are not discussing employees. We are discussing Facebook enforcement of rules for use of site. IE, customers. This is something Facebook will always be allowed to do and there is nothing you will ever be able to do to stop it. And it has nothing to do with the users work life. If what these posters put up on Facebook break the rules of use, ie, terms of agreement, then facebook can shut down their account no matter their race or religion or politics. This is not a matter of the 1st Amendment. This is two private entities bickering on whether they should be allowed to use Facebook and how. The 1st Amendment shields us from the Government and Facebook is not the Government. If you want the 1st Amendment to be relevant, turn them into Facebook.gov and suddenly all those people like InfoWars, Milo, Farrakhan, and etc will be able to come back unless they outright break law in their use of the Facebook site that we pretend would be owned and operated by the government and now protected by the 1st Amendment.

[Heathen Hammer]

You're the one who for some reason thinks we're talking about the same thing.

Yes, from their own employees, Facebook is not allowed to fire or dismiss protected class of people merely because they are from that protected class. Their work either has to be done, the contract canceled, or there has to be cause.

But we are not discussing employees. We are discussing Facebook enforcement of rules for use of site. IE, customers. This is something Facebook will always be allowed to do and there is nothing you will ever be able to do to stop it. And it has nothing to do with the users work life. If what these posters put up on Facebook break the rules of use, ie, terms of agreement, then facebook can shut down their account no matter their race or religion or politics. This is not a matter of the 1st Amendment. This is two private entities bickering on whether they should be allowed to use Facebook and how. The 1st Amendment shields us from the Government and Facebook is not the Government. If you want the 1st Amendment to be relevant, turn them into Facebook.gov and suddenly all those people like InfoWars, Milo, Farrakhan, and etc will be able to come back unless they outright break law in their use of the Facebook site that we pretend would be owned and operated by the government and now protected by the 1st Amendment.

Who said anything about first amendment or constitution at all? The goal is to prevent unelected corporate entities from exerting political power over society. Corporations are already bound by a large number of rules and regulations imposed by the government, adding one more won't make the world end or make US switch from capitalism to socialism.
Again, I don't get why you want to give unlimited political power to a bunch of big tech CEOs so bad.