Saturday, May 18, 2019

Facebook: Why Adern & Macron may get their wish

Jenna Ellis Rives is a constitutional lawyer and author, but she was part of the Trump campaign, which is likely why this sharing of Matt Walsh's mockery resulted in the breaching of Facebook's "hate speech standards".

Similarly on Wednesday, Twitter suspended the account of Greg Scott, director of media at the incredibly evil Heritage Foundation. Scott tweeted out the same article I referred to here on No Minister a couple of weeks ago, about a guy who identifies as a woman and was booted from competing in women's weightlifting.

Wonder how long Julia Beck and Miriam Ben-Shalom, as just two feminist examples, will last on FB and Twitter?

My bet is that after 24-48 hours or so Facebook will lift the block and "apologise", but that's geological ages in social media world: nice way to bury opposing arguments in the heat of debate.

Maybe blogs will make a come back?

Either way these companies should not look to the GOP or any right-wingers with our usual support for free enterprise, when the Democrats and EU come hunting for scalps at Google, Facebook and the others. Let them burn in their own fire.

14 comments:

Roj Blake said...

Tom, you really do seem to struggle with this whole concept of private property.

Twitter and Facebook are not government bodies and are not constrained by the same laws as the government.

Whether you agree with the posters (I do) or TwitBook (I don't)is not the point. The point is that when you sign up to use these services you accept certain terms and conditions. If you breach those, you face a penalty. If you don't like the T's& C's, don't sign up.

Now you may argue that their idea of "community standards" is not well defined. They do seem to delete a lot of posts that TRA's describe as coming from TERFS, but rarely, if ever, delete anything at all threatening to women. Karl Benjamin is a classic case of that.

Here are two hypotheticals for you.

1. One of your fellow bloggers deletes comments from people he does not like (Snowflake, Lord Egbut, David, et al). Will you, from this day forward, call him out for censorship each time he does that?

2. Will you offer your support to the owner of the tackle shop in this article?
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/fishingrus-sign-attracts-attention-of-local-police-with-rude-sign/news-story/4c05d7788704763dce9976050f867762

Or does your desire to protect free speech only extend to opinions you agree with?

Tom Hunter said...

The point Roj, is not that the "standards" are not "well-defined" being applied in a balanced way. Kathy Griffin, she of Beheaded Trump, has not been suspended, nor have thousands of Twitter and Facebook users saying vile fucking things about Christians.

Sure, they finally dumped Louis Farrakhan - finally, after years of Jew-hating posts. And of course Linda Sarsour and her unending Jew hatred is still up and about.

WRT to comparison to little blogs like NoMinister or tackle shops or cake bakers, scale matters. Facebook and Google are platforms that have become so large now that they effectively count as public spaces, which means the day may be approaching when the private property arguments won't apply any more than they did in the cases of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (high school students removed for soliciting petition signatures), or too a lessor degree, Marsh v. Alabama, where SCOTUS ruled that in owning and running the town, the company had effectively become the local government and free speech rules overrose private property arguments.

Or there's anti-trust legislation, which in the 1890's declared certain businesses to be public utlities and busted them up so that competitors could rise. Hell, even one of Facebook's co-founders is making that argument.

We will see how all these arguments go, but my personal favourite would be to simply ensure healthy competition in the social media space: there has not been a social media company launch since 2011. The Founding father’s idea was to ensure that minority opinions have a voice, otherwise, the majority could stifle their speech and we would never be able to change public opinion. Just make sure Zuckerberg and company can't crush rising competitors and their somewhat aging base will start to decline as people move away from this censoring bullshit.

Or does your desire to protect free speech only extend to opinions you agree with?
Might as well throw the question back at you: you mentioned only TERFS, apparently you're quite happy with right-wingers like me being effectively silenced.

Which is why you were so keen on persuading the blog hosts of The Inquiring Mind and Home Paddock to exclude my posts. That pretty much told me all I needed to know about your beliefs in the right to free speech. The STASI relied on citizens like you operating in private spaces.

David said...

Roj, maybe Chunter is just too young to remember the "House Committee on UnAmerican Affairs", a body that had a lasting impact on reputations and careers, far more serious than being denied the "right to make a dick of oneself". Chunter probably wants it brought back as he is still afraid there may be a red under his bed.

Maybe blogs will make a come back?

Are you sure? Google could shut this down anytime they like. And there ain't nothing you can do about it.

Tom Hunter said...

Whereas David is too young to remember The Committee On Public Safety.

But then, aren't we all.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roj

If you knew anything of American law you would know the entities to which you refer are not 'private property' in any real sense. Soon they will be regulated, just as telephone companies are, and they have brought it onto themselves by the behaviour described by Tom and hundreds of other examples.

Judge Holden said...

Turns out Adolt is a commie. Epic self pwnage once more, guy!

David said...

Poor old Adolf, trying to talk with the adults again.

Phone companies can be regulated because they need their infrastructure in the US.

Twitbook (thanks Roj) can move their operations anywhere in the world. Beyond the reach of US regulators.

Roj Blake said...

WRT to comparison to little blogs like NoMinister or tackle shops or cake bakers, scale matters.

So it is OK for the little guy to be crushed? You are a corporatist, not concerned for the everyday rights of ordinary citizens.

Might as well throw the question back at you: you mentioned only TERFS, apparently you're quite happy with right-wingers like me being effectively silenced.

I referenced the TERF/TRA Turf War as that was the subject of your post. If you want to make it all about you, fine, but be clear. OK? Logic doesn't seem to be your suit.

BTW, just who has "silenced" you? The Right these days love playing the victim card, they are enamoured of identity politics, and have only discovered an antipathy to censorship when they lost the power to censor.

Which is why you were so keen on persuading the blog hosts of The Inquiring Mind and Home Paddock to exclude my posts. That pretty much told me all I needed to know about your beliefs in the right to free speech.

So it is OK for you to hold and express an opinion, but not me? It IS all about you, then, isn't it? Narcissistic behaviour is unbecoming.

The STASI relied on citizens like you operating in private spaces.

The STASI was an apparatus of the state and operated very much like you would now like the state to operate against Twitbook. Consistency is also not your suit.




Tom Hunter said...

So it is OK for the little guy to be crushed? You are a corporatist,...
Amazing. You've got an Orwell Machine built into your brain that reads stuff and automatically inverts it.

How else to explain how you could write something like that after I've stated that:
- TwitBook and company can burn for all I care.
- I want competitors to rise against them, rather than Zuckerberg crushing "the little guy" who tries to compete with him.
- Facebook should be broken up using anti-trust legislation if that's what it takes to get that competition.
- At a minimum I hope they die via their customers slowly deserting them.

You've got to be seriously screwed in the head to read what I wrote and then just come back with some brain-dead, boilerplate Leftist abuse about me being a "corporatist" wanting to crush the little guy.

... the TERF/TRA Turf War as that was the subject of your post
Actually if you'd taken the time to get the background on Walsh's mockery you'd have known it's about much more than that.

BTW, just who has "silenced" you?...
...So it is OK for you to hold and express an opinion, but not me?

Well, just after your little squeal on The Inquiring Mind my response vanished so I can only assume he took your advice.

And in any case the point is that you tried to silence me on those two blogs, which shows your intention and desire despite your blathering about how much you love free speech.

By contrast I did not try to silence you. Again with the Orwell Machine in your head: you shamelessly accuse others of doing what you actually did. It's a precise example of you being a hypocrite.

The Right these days love playing the victim card, they are enamoured of identity politics, and have only discovered an antipathy to censorship when they lost the power to censor.
Ha! This is just you playing the same Alinsky tactics as when you were trying it on with me about private property, as if a hard-line Leftist like you gives a shit about that. And now more of the same, not to mention more projection:

- "The Victim Card".
Standard Leftist tactic for years now: it's the reason Monty Python had an anarchist crying Help, help, I'm being oppressed", rather than the King.

- "Identity Politics".
It's started to backfire on you by eating Lefties alive and having that one group you thought could be portrayed as everybody's enemy - White people - turn away from Centre-Left parties across the West. But those predictable consequences are no reason to try and palm it off on the Right. It's the Left's shit idea. Just own it.

- "Censorship".
Finally, something I can agree the Right has practiced like the Left. Except that the Hollywood Blacklist was 60 years ago and the modern one is being run by Leftists and is even more effective via academic and corporate influence. Thirty years ago I thought your lot would never do that, such was your historic outrage, but I realise now that that was like believing all the crying from Leninists about the horrors of the Okhrana, when all they really wanted was to get their hands on power and create the Cheka.

The STASI was an apparatus of the state and operated very much like you would now like the state to operate against Twitbook....
If you can't see the difference between anti-trust legislation - which has been hailed by US Progressives for a century now as a weapon against Big Business - and the STASI, then I can't educate you further.

Of course if governments don't go that route and end up trying to regulate what Facebook and company can and cannot publish, then you might have a point, but in any case it's the likes of Macron, Adern, and the Greens pushing for that, with huge support from Leftists apparently.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

WARNING Blog reminder......Leftist.....anybody who is not hard right.

Tom Hunter said...

Pssssstt..... Eggburt.....

The 2019 insult de jour is "ALT RIGHT". Remember, when you want to insult me or the other righties on this blog, use the term ALT RIGHT (TM). It's so much more modern.

Snowflake said...

Goodness, Tommy, you have the snark turned up to 15. Like a feminine Anne Coulter. Dial it back bra.

Tom Hunter said...

Or a masculine Barack Obama.

And that's "Wee Tommy" to you sweetheart!

And what do you expect after a disaster at the salon: hair, nails, makeup... God!

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

"hard right", "extreme right", "ultra right"......just semantics and mean different things to different people but the agenda remains the same....eliminate the centre.

Drive opinion to the two extremes and create chaos and anger.