Paul Joseph Watson & Others Banned from Facebook - Page 3 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
We have no anti-trust laws under Trump and very little enforcement under the last few presidents. Our government is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street.
colliric wrote:All of the people banned yesterday happened to be his most vocal right-wing supporters, including Minister Farrakhan too.


Yes, I know. I was pointing out that leftwing activists, journalists and orgs have been censored for months/years already, so this censorship is nowt new.

Hong Wu wrote:The only real way to fix Twitter and this other stuff would be to ban political talk entirely because a character limit to posts naturally draws in vacuous political virtue signallers, rage monkies and trolls. Most of those people aren't in the blogosphere for a reason. In China the Twitter equivalent is all dancing girls, panda bears and video games which is probably an improvement. I just don't trust people to talk politics with a character limit.

You do know you can post articles, essays, book PDFs etc. on Twitter right?
As for my late response to the OP:
Verv wrote:What does this mean for free speech on social networks?

It's free if you are a globalist. If you're an American, it's free if you are a Democrat or a neoliberal/neoconservative.

colliric wrote:Ben Shapiro didn't get banhammered did he? Despite saying pretty much 95% of the exact same shit because he's a neocon stooge.

That's pretty much it. It's also pretty obvious to people nowadays. Neocon masters have realized how damaged their brand is and pulled the plug on The Weekly Standard. They are investing in a new generation.

Drlee wrote:Your mistake lies in the assumption that these changes are harmful to the bottom line.

I pointed out this problem over a year ago with respect to YouTube. They recently missed numbers, and it was directly attributable to decreased traction on YouTube. The material changes in the last year have been algorithm changes to throttle conservative content, demonetizing conservatives, and outright banning people they don't agree with politically. This even included PragerU.

Drlee wrote:Facebook is trying to get out in front of a problem that could severely damage the company.

Facebook originally had funding from the CIA via In-Q-Tel. That should give you a little more insight into who they really respond to. My guess is that Trump hasn't dug that deep yet, and the deep state is doing their level best to prevent Trump from mucking around with CIA front companies.

Drlee wrote:The see it as doing exactly what you say...maximizing shareholder value.

Facebook has hemorrhaged users over the last year too. As I've said before, the deep state launched social media in an effort to learn more about decentralized enemy networks like Al Qaeda. They did not expect that groups like ISIS would evolve and out innovate them.

Drlee wrote:Louis Farrakhan and Alex Jones are easy targets. Their pronouncements are so outrageous that defending in court the decision to turn them off would not challenge a first year law student.

Banning Farrakhan was an effort to appear balanced. However, banning both of them suggests that they are not a utility, but rather a publisher. If they are taking responsibility for content, then they need to be regulated. They are taking responsibility not because they want to be regulated, but due to pressure from the deep state that cannot believe people preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in spite of massive propaganda to support Clinton.

Drlee wrote:And this is the problem with the Republican strategy that is coming home to roost. They have relied on these outrageous outliers to carry water for them by uniting the idiot fringe and turning them into a voting block.

It's hardly a Republican strategy. The establishment hates people like Alex Jones. The Republicans are trying to destroy them as a voting bloc, because they ended up getting Trump elected.

Drlee wrote:Alex Jones relies on social media for all of his fame. Without these platforms he is going to take a serious financial hit. Where will he go for an audience?

He has his own site. YouTube just allows him to propagate more effectively. Sites like, gab, etc. are taking up the mantle. As they do, others are attacking those platforms, too. Gab had to reregister their domain name and change server providers for example. It's a coordinated attack.

Drlee wrote:Do a google search and see how frequently the facebook page of a company outranks the company page itself. It is really quite remarkable.

Search engines sell plug-ins which effect rankings that way. I don't use Google much. I'm a user. Google tracks everything you search and makes a history of it.

Drlee wrote:Short of declaring these entities public utilities through an almost unthinkable act of judicial activism the courts must conclude that they do not have a dog in the fight.

The companies themselves claim to be public utilities for the legal liability protection that they are not publishers of the content themselves. So by trying to quash certain publishers of content based on their political views, they are illustrating that they can be held liable for content on their networks. It's one thing for the courts to impose it. It's another thing to claim to be a utility and then do everything in your power to act like you are not. You either have liability or you don't. That will get challenged in the courts.

maz wrote:I'm guessing that you're just upset that conservatives are rejecting the do nothing moderate conservatives, RINO's if you will, and are using social media to change the narrative to something that you see is threatening.

Drlee is very upset that the RINOs have been rebuffed by base voters. They were used to foisting a Jeb Bush on the voter and getting their way.

maz wrote:Should banks ban their customers from using their checking, savings and credit services?

They have already started trying to do this. Patreon began this, followed by PayPal. Now banks are in on it too.

Drlee wrote:I advocate banning people who are deliberately posting as truth things are are demonstrably and obviously untrue

Would this include the Democratic party's Trump-Russia collusion theory, which has no evidence to support it? In fact, all the evidence suggests it was manufactured by Hillary Clinton and propagated by administrative state actors with ties to the Democratic party.

Drlee wrote:Social media websites are private property.

The big ones are publicly traded, and they claim to be utilities and not responsible for the content that others post on their sites.

Drlee wrote:They can ban whomever they like for any or no reason at all.

You mean like black people, women, immigrants, non-Christians, etc?

Drlee wrote:My front yard is there for all to see. That does not mean that you can plant a political sign in my yard without my permission. But I can plant one. See how easy that is?

So, you mean if CBS likes Democrats, they can accept advertising from Democratic candidates and ban advertising from Republican candidates? I thought that was against the law. Hrmmmm...

Drlee wrote:But there are quite a few people like me who think that the party can be reigned in and returned to the path of something like American conservatism.

Delusional, but okay. I think you should just create another party.

Drlee wrote:The republican party, until recently, never would have stood for a KKK member speaking at its convention. And if I owned facebook I would not let him/her speak on my property either.

Facebook claims that it is a utility and not responsible for customer content. If you were a utility, would you sell electricity and gas to racists? Yes. Why? You have to by operation of law.

Drlee wrote:But when Zuckerberg does it you whine like a bitch and wax philosophical about free speech.

Zuckerberg claims Facebook is a utility and as such cannot be held liable for customer content. The law does not need to offer Facebook liability exemption if Facebook regulates speech on its platform.

If Zuckerberg and Facebook want to regulate content, I'm fine with that as long as they are exposed to liability for what they publish and they can be sued for it. It's one way or the other. If content is objectionable but doesn't violate the law, it's a-okay from the standpoint of a public utility. If Facebook wants to be a publisher, that's fine too. They just shouldn't be allowed to claim utility status while trying to regulate speech.
#15003515 ... dy-account

A popular Twitter account named "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Press Release (parody)", one of the most obvious and clearly defined parody accounts on Twitter, was permanently suspended recently for allegedly posting "duplicate content" even though parodies are explicitly allowed by Twitter's terms of service. Although Twitter seems to have kept pretty mum about the whole incident, the presumption is that the parodies were too similar to the real posts or something, which is a pretty fine line to walk. Meanwhile, other parody accounts or accounts that call for violence etc. remain numerous.

President Trump tweeted that he is watching the suppression of conservatives on social media. Presumably some sort of executive or legislative action is in the works. There are many theories which might give relief, such as classifying the social media giants as publishers instead of platforms if they are going to be executing editorial privilege over their user bases from now on, which is easily demonstrable to be the case.
The problem Blackjack is that you are the one claiming that they are public utilities. They are not. I will not get into some deep-state tin hat shit. I will leave that to you. But Facebook et all are private companies.

The DMCA offers them powerful protections but other than establishing a few minor rules does not require them to do much at all.

So, you mean if CBS likes Democrats, they can accept advertising from Democratic candidates and ban advertising from Republican candidates? I thought that was against the law. Hrmmmm..

CBS is a company licensed to use the public airwaves and is therefor constrained by law from taking an excessively partisan position. Fox News and MSNBC are not. See how they behave? Yours is a poor example. Facebook and google are not using the public airwaves and therefor are not constrained by those laws. They are more like newspapers than on the air TV.

There's bills pending in California (probably won't be passed), Texas and Florida to make social media websites liable on the state level for engaging in political censorship. This is a pretty big deal since there's more than enough people in even one of those states to basically force the social media websites to stop viewpoint discrimination since making different publishing systems in different states would probably be too cumbersome and carry too many negative implications for them.
Well, this thread seems to have died and I am probably skirting the consecutive posts rule by now since no one else is posting anymore. But I think there's some interesting updates and I have my two cents.

First, all of the banned people have switched to Telegram, a relatively popular (and perhaps more notably, Russian-owned) chat service. I've been checking it out and it's quite usable.

Second, the significantly Chinese-owned DLive streaming service has a streaming agreement with various YouTube stars, including the #1 (wait, #2 now -- congratulations T-Series) Pewdiepie.

So part of the irony of this censorship trend is that it basically forces people who want to have a digital/social media life, which has partly supplanted normal/previous forms of social interaction, they are forced to use services provided by Russians and Chinese, whom are allegedly the very people that the masters of social media want to oppose. Sad!
Donna wrote:PJW is a low key homosexual. It's a bit of an open secret, he doesn't acknowledge it very much except occasionally while live tweeting from night clubs or cruise ships.

I remember that there was even a conspiracy theory going around that he had contracted aids, and one of my gay dissident right friends (an ethnic Korean from Russia, very handsome guitarist and rock musician) was keeping me in the loop about this, often sharing content with phrases like "Oh God, anything but this!" and other short phrases that he may have lifted from a different era of English -- (I am not making fun of him -- his English is good, but always comes off as stunted and with a short, artificial flow).

He comes off as being a bit of a "natural aristocrat."

At first, I thought natural aritstocrat was a fun euphemism for an intelligent gay man, and I always thought of David Bowie in uniform.

I then thought it was a fun euphemism for autistic people.

I then considered both possibilities, and not as a euphemism, but as some sort of life fact, if that makes sense.

I concluded it's mostly about gay people, but the door is kind of open for other people to have it applied to them. For instance, if it turned out that PJW was straight, he would still seem right bearing the title of "natural aristocrat."

It's kind of like "the look." SOme people just "have it," and others can never have it. It's something you're born with, or you're not.

@Unthinking Majority seems to have a lot of anx[…]

You do not speak Spanish. You do not understand S[…]

Would you be interested at all in addressing a […]

The language and social organization that "s[…]