[SpecialOlympian]

Today Twitter has silenced three important anti-war voices on its platform: it has suspended Daniel McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, suspended Scott Horton of the Scott Horton Show, and completely removed the account of prominent Antiwar.com writer Peter Van Buren.

All of these guys are libertarians and should be happy that market forces dictated that they do not deserve a platform on Twitter.

Their system works.

Also I googled up and was able to find most of their Twitters? Libertarians full of shit why I never.

@DanielLMcAdams - Active
@scotthortonshow - Active
@wemeantwell - Peter Van Buren, inactive

Seeing as Peter Van Buren is a libertarian I'm going to guess that he said a bunch of racist shit and got banned.

[Red_Army]

Do I like corporate tech giants controlling the narrative? No. Will that drive me to defend Alex Jones? No. My impotent voice will be heard laughing at his ham-body rage. We should obviously nationalize Youtube and a lot of other internet media so that our censorship of shitbirds like Alex Jones will come from the right place

[skinster]

Do I like corporate tech giants controlling the narrative? No.

But that's what's happening. Alex Jones is the easy shitbird to go after. Legit antiwar/empire journalists are next.

[Red_Army]

Like I said: we should nationalize the internet and lots of the big platforms so that the censorship can be publicly controlled. Since I have no control over what these tech giants can accomplish you must forgive me for laughing when the interests of the tech giants happen to conform to my own. Eventually I'll stop laughing, but there are few opportunities to do so in the current political landscape so I'll take any opportunity that presents itself. I can't wait for the Jones rant that we'll get from this and I think constant antagonism is a legitimate strategy as Jones is one can of bone broth from a heart attack.

[Sivad]

Do I like corporate tech giants controlling the narrative? No. Will that drive me to defend Alex Jones? No.

It's not about Alex Jones, it's about the power of tech companies to control information. Nobody should have that kind of power, especially not private mega-corps.

[Red_Army]

I agree with you that mega-corps should not have the power, but that doesn't mean I can't laugh at Hoggish Greedly losing a platform.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@skinster , @Red_Army is right. The alternative to these private corporations deciding what is the limit they'll allow rhetoric to go in their business , is to have the public control them - which in this case doesn't actually mean 'nationalise' them so much as put them under United Nations control, because their scope is global. And the UN isn't really up to the job. So the best idea is for Facebook, Google etc. to try and make themselves look acceptable to the general public by banning the shit, and for people in general to stop spending so much time looking at these few platforms, so that their importance isn't so huge to everyone. No one gives a toss when someone sounding like Alex Jones gets booted from PoFo.

In the meantime, let us rejoice at one fewer asshole:

[Sivad]

The world would be a better place if Alex Jones dropped dead but Alex Jones is a minor problem compared to the corrupt liberal establishment, the fake news media, and the tech oligarchs.

[Red_Army]

Isn't that just whataboutism though? Just because I'm happy about Alex Jones' channel disappearing doesn't mean I don't have other political opinions. I'm not really a GULAGist, but the tech industry makes me rethink this position.

[Albert]

Yes you are, you are biggest gulagist on PoFo, its in your name. Pretending you are all virtues and stuff, you nothing but a thug.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The corrupt liberal establishment, the fake news media, and the tech oligarchs are a minor problem compared to the corrupt Trump administration, the alt-right lie machine, and Vladimir Putin's hacking companies.

@Sivad, are you saying that internet corporations shouldn't take any responsibility for what they enable? That no one on the internet should have any ethical standards?

[Sivad]

No one gives a toss when someone sounding like Alex Jones gets booted from PoFo.

Because pofo doesn't have 95% of all users on it. It's not a problem if it's not a monopoly. You get ban from pofo and there's plenty of other political forums with more users and viewers, you get ban from youtube and you're done, there is no comparable alternative.

[SpecialOlympian]

As far as what that means to conservatives defending Alex Jones, their entire argument can be boiled down to: Every single person in AMERICA should receive the Ludovico treatment, but they have to watch Diamond & Silk.

AMERICAN conservatives absolutely do not care or even think about the moral dilemma posed by having social media platforms in the control of only a few hands. Privatization of nearly all government programs is their logical endgame. They only pretend to care when they can use their fake persecution narrative to push companies into giving them a larger megaphone on their platform.

Also if anything, Jones was being treated with kid gloves for years despite violating their TOS. Anybody else trying to copy his grift without his fanbase would have been shut down quietly and justly for spreading hateful bullshit. The reason the tech companies did this jointly on the same day is 1) nobody wanted to be the last to get on the moral bandwagon, 2) because by doing so Jones' idiotic fanbase won't be able to focus their rage on a single target, and 3) this makes it less likely one of Jones' brain addled fans will Lone Wolf their offices.

[Albert]

The corrupt liberal establishment, the fake news media, and the tech oligarchs are a minor problem compared to the corrupt Trump administration, the alt-right lie machine, and Vladimir Putin's hacking companies.

@Sivad, are you saying that internet corporations shouldn't take any responsibility for what they enable? That no one on the internet should have any ethical standards?

I think you should be banned from the internet for saying this.

[Sivad]

@Sivad, are you saying that internet corporations shouldn't take any responsibility for what they enable? That no one on the internet should have any ethical standards?

I'm saying massive social network monopolies should be regulated as public fora.

[Sivad]

Isn't that just whataboutism though?

Not really because condoning the ban empowers that corporate-politico-media shitbird complex.

[Red_Army]

@Albert, I made this account when I was 14 so I was a bit more of a tanky then I would censor you though. Not because I find you ideologically threatening, but because you post utter drivel that any conscientious editing would simply delete en masse. You can personally attack me after showing that you are a hypocrite, but its pointless. Pretty much any political dialogue between us is pointless since you think I'm a thug and I think you're an impotent nazi.

@Sivad I mean you're probably right to some extent, but I consider my PoFo expressed opinions little more than shouting into my pillow and I also esteem the corporate media complex fairly insurmountable at this point.

[SpecialOlympian]

Literally worshiping fame to the point where, if someone is famous enough, they are morally obligated to have access to platforms where they commit slander, incite harassment, etc.

[Albert]

^
Should be banned from the internet.

[Red_Army]

What happened to loving justice and free speech!?