Paul Joseph Watson & Others Banned from Facebook - Politics Forum.org | 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.
#15002271
This is pretty big if you ask me:

The Atlantic reports that Instagram and its parent company Facebook has banned a number of conservative personalities from its platforms, including Infowars host Alex Jones, Infowars contributor and YouTube star Paul Joseph Watson, journalist and activist Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos. Louis Farrakhan was notably also banned from the platforms at the same time.

Paul Joseph Watson confirmed his ban, claiming he has not broken Facebook’s rules, and commenting, “In an authoritarian society controlled by a handful of Silicon Valley giants, all dissent must be purged.”


Breitbart

PJW is famous for his conservatism -- perhaps he falls under the umbrella of "Alt Lite." He's anti-feminist, against mass immigration, critical of Islam, etc., yet, he is absolutely not racist, sexist, or homophobic. He has drawn very carefully inside of the lines.

What does this mean for free speech on social networks?
#15002275
PJW is one of Infowars associates, so no doubt they're going to put him in that group.

The censorship is terrifying. Makes you long for that bullet to the back of the head that Orwell straight-up promised....

Also note how most of them are also right-wing supporters of Julian Assange. Ben Shapiro didn't get banhammered did he? Despite saying pretty much 95% of the exact same shit because he's a neocon stooge.

No doubt many of Julian's left wing supporters will get blocked too prior to extradition being rammed through.

https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-ba ... xtremists/

They were brazen enough to let it be announced in advance. Which at least lead to some truly great funny "final" postings.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/i-r ... 51jlp.html

It's funny but the bipartisan support of Assange is likely what got them all "banned".
#15002284
What does this mean for free speech on social networks?


Nothing at all. Facebook is an entertainment company that is privately owned. It is not a public utility. There is no free speech on someone else's property. The only free speech we have on POFO is that allowed by the owner.

Democrats have been speaking for Net Neutrality and the regulation of social media like Facebook and Twitter. Trump recinded Net Neutrality and opposes the regulation of social media. But I think you are a conservative. Right Verve? The conservatives have been opposing both. What is it Verve? Free Speech or private property? Take your pick. You just might make a good democrat yet.
#15002300
Drlee wrote:Nothing at all. Facebook is an entertainment company that is privately owned. It is not a public utility. There is no free speech on someone else's property. The only free speech we have on POFO is that allowed by the owner.

Democrats have been speaking for Net Neutrality and the regulation of social media like Facebook and Twitter. Trump recinded Net Neutrality and opposes the regulation of social media. But I think you are a conservative. Right Verve? The conservatives have been opposing both. What is it Verve? Free Speech or private property? Take your pick. You just might make a good democrat yet.


We have two choices on this, right:

(1) Free association. It's my private property and whatever I say goes.

This is completely acceptable but it has not been how things have operated at all for decades now, and we are seeing things clampdown further on this through new cases.

(2) Protecting the rights of everyone. It is said that it is a human right for a gay person to have any baker bake them a wedding cake.

Maybe it is a human right for any social network or public forum on the internet to not take away the rights of particular private citizens to speak freely just because their opinions are not endorsed by the site owners or may be unpopular.

That's how I see it.

I want either number one, or number two.

A mix of these two just results in the selective use of "free association" to discriminate against groups.
#15002306
Facebook is one of the main ways I stay in contact with friends and family in the US, so their political actions (they banned a friend of mine for posting pro-cop videos; they'll ban pretty much anyone) are frustrating for me. It basically feels as if they are holding my friendships hostage in return for supporting a political agenda, PJW is not extreme at all, he's merely a critic.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with Facebook censorship, it's related to Internet speeds for high bandwidth services (of which, Facebook is not), not outright blockages.
#15002313
Google, Facebook and Twitter all have varying defenses in various court cases about their editorial oversight and being responsible for defamatory remarks on their services. They'll claim to be public service providers in one court case in order to escape responsibility, and hammer down on the private aspect in the other when they so need it.

Regardless of these claims, you can still sue them for breaking their own rules.
#15002329
Verv wrote:What does this mean for free speech on social networks?


It means the social media are following the pattern of the old mass media, which means we will need a new social media with a robust commitment to freedom of speech and impartiality. I hope they will call it samizdat. :excited:
#15002347
Maybe it is a human right for any social network or public forum on the internet to not take away the rights of particular private citizens to speak freely just because their opinions are not endorsed by the site owners or may be unpopular.

That's how I see it.


Then you must endorse government regulation of social media sights. And I can assure you that is fraught with danger. We once had it with television. Still do in fact. Broadcast television is bound by the equal time doctrine. That is why you see a democratic rebuttal to the State of the Union address. But what about Fox News or MSNBC. Both are highly partisan. They exist only because they are not regulated by the government and are deemed private property. Free speech means free to control content. It has to. Otherwise it is not free. Should I be required to allow someone to trash me on my own website? Or the people I love? Or the causes I embrace?

Should Mark Zuckerberg be required by law to allow people to essentially spend his money on things he dislikes or politically opposes?

The free market has made much on MSNBC more popular than Fox for the first time in a long time. Trump did it almost single-handedly.

Facebook is trying to avoid being regulated. They are not forwarding a political opinion. They can see the proverbial handwriting on the wall. They are going to be regulated as a utility and when that happens......bye profits. (Or rather bye huge profits and hello moderate controlled profits. And goodby innovation.) Or broken up as a monopoly.


I want either number one, or number two.

A mix of these two just results in the selective use of "free association" to discriminate against groups.


That is weaseling. You don't get it. I reject the pie shop analogy of course. It is a meaningless triviality. This is something else. Facebook and Twitter are for-profit entities. They sell advertising. Increasingly they sell information about individuals. Highly precise information.

Everyone ought to be very afraid. They aren't. Before they know it this information will be used in ways that are little short of Orwellian. Already job applications ask for social media sites. Your open political position is routinely used to determine whether or not you are hired. We have all become public people whether we intended it or not. I have chosen not to be associated with people because their views on Facebook are distasteful to me.

Here is the thing Verve. I have seen both of our views change dramatically on this forum. Though we are nominally anonymous here all of our posts now and back many years are permanently public. Do you wish to be associated with the things you said here 10 years ago? More to the point, do you think that an employer (or potential girlfriend for that matter) would carefully study the transition in your views and values? Nope. They will extract the outrageous and decide whether they want their brand associated with those views. As we used to say in the Army, you never hear the bullet that gets you.

So here is the deal. We have, as a world, largely chosen to be public people. But what if you chose to be more private? Well you can't and use the internet at all. Every click is quantified and associated with you. Just clicking on Pat Roberts or Bernie Sanders puts a vote in that column of your personal record. A record that is accessible (for money) and indelible. You can opt out of Facebook. My wife did. So her click preference is accrued to my Facebook account as she keeps tabs on our friends and acquaintances.

Should the world be allowed to search my name and find out that I got a ticket in 1975? It can now. Should it be allowed to see a list of my associates and everywhere I have ever lived for a single dollar? Should a company be allowed to give me a "reputation score" without allowing me to dispute it or correct the record? Or even delete it? All under the guise that it is "public record".

This problem goes far beyond the particularities of Facebook or Twitter. We are on the precipice. The EU already is doing something about it. The US, no longer being a real democracy as a practical matter, has not and we own the tech. You need to stand up Verve. No waffling. Pick a side.

@SolarCross Net neutrality is about censorship. Slow or give preference to search results or websites and you control content and in the most insidious way.
#15002378
Drlee wrote:Facebook is trying to avoid being regulated. They are not forwarding a political opinion. They can see the proverbial handwriting on the wall. They are going to be regulated as a utility and when that happens......bye profits. (Or rather bye huge profits and hello moderate controlled profits. And goodby innovation.) Or broken up as a monopoly.


Facebook now wants to be regulated by the government, because Facebook has shoved so much money at Congress that they can be trusted to work on their behalf.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg calls for more regulation of the internet

"I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators," he wrote. "By updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve what's best about it - the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things - while also protecting society from broader harms."

Zuckerberg's missive was the most comprehensive the Facebook CEO has ever been on the issue of government regulation. His call comes as US federal prosecutors are reportedly probing Facebook's data sharing deals with a number of large technology companies. The US Federal Trade Commission is said to be in talks with Facebook over a possible record fine. And European officials continue to scrutinize the company.

Facebook was roundly condemned this month when it failed to stop a live stream by the suspect in the New Zealand terrorist attack that killed 50 people. The platform has also faced a litany of scandals, ranging from hate speech to privacy, and criticism over the spread of fake news, especially during national elections.

"Every day, we make decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks. These are important for keeping our community safe," he wrote. "But if we were starting from scratch, we wouldn't ask companies to make these judgments alone."


Both entities are virulent anti-free speech extremists and share over-arching goals. They are on the same page on very many issues but especially on immigration, LGBT, anti-white issues and both are especially pro-Israel.

If any presenter has a narrative that is on the wrong side of any of the above issues, they risk being kicked off their platform.

That is why groups that promote illegal activity such as having 9 year old boy dancing from grown men in nightclubs that sell alcohol, are allowed to stay, and those who oppose such activities are kicked off these platforms.

Before Facebook, there was Digg, a social media platform where users could dictate which stories would go to the top of the page and been seen and shared by millions of people. Google video used to use this same model before they were bought out by YouTube.

Conspiracy videos such as the 9/11 inside job stuff and anti-establishment anti-war content routinely held the top spots in Digg and Google video.

Back then, Alex Jones and PJW were putting out a very different narrative that they are now, but even then they were getting banned by the establishment. Digg admitted that they had groups of trolls that would down-vote their content. The trolls were dubbed the "bury brigade" and they were the equivalent of today's trusted flaggers (ADL, SPLC).

It's all about the power structure needing to mold their false narratives and keeping popular messages suppressed.
#15002411
colliric wrote:No doubt many of Julian's left wing supporters will get blocked too prior to extradition being rammed through.


This has been happening to leftist activists, journalists, organizations, supporters of BDS/Palestine etc. for some time now on Facebook, particularly last year when I posted about it on this board.

Hong Wu wrote:they banned a friend of mine for posting pro-cop videos


lol
#15002428
Facebook is slavery. Facebook is cultural oppression. It allows people to spy on each other. It also promotes the family institution.

Facebook is a symbol of neoliberal capitalism. It alienates people and makes people competitive, based on how many "friends" or "likes" one gets.

People taking pictures of expensive things to look "cool" online is a very bad symbol of capitalism.
#15002579
I dunno, I personally don't care about how many Facebook friends I have or likes I get. I even have acquantences that I don't like on my Facebook, for example, some dude comes in who ripped me off years ago and is like "bro it's been so long!" And I'm like, guhhhhhhhh.

I think you are misattributing basic characteristics of human nature, which everyone has to some degree, to Facebook.

But yes, they do tend to ban far leftists whom they think are embarrassing their narrative.
#15002584
skinster wrote:This has been happening to leftist activists, journalists, organizations, supporters of BDS/Palestine etc. for some time now on Facebook, particularly last year when I posted about it on this board.


All of the people banned yesterday happened to be his most vocal right-wing supporters, including Minister Farrakhan too.

Lol.
#15002625


Instagram also recently took down a photo of Trump Jr. and a wounded army vet for unspecified violations of the terms of service.

I myself have been locked out of my Twitter account a few times before I mostly quit the service based upon who I was following, like Rei Murasame probably, or more likely people using the NPC meme.

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.

Anyways these social networks can't bring everyone in and then pick their politics and have it not be obvious because by the nature of trying to bring in everyone you will bring in different politics, the only way that would work would be to ban all politics which they would never do in a free society, so we need multiple channels, yet they try to shut down new channels as they appear (Gab etc.) which means the lawsuits won't stop coming. But you don't get rid of all dissenting politics by denying them an online social network service. They have no end game here.
#15002659
Anyways these social networks can't bring everyone in and then pick their politics and have it not be obvious because by the nature of trying to bring in everyone you will bring in different politics,


They most certainly can do that. And they are completely justified in doing it if they want to. Whether it is a good business decision is another matter.

the only way that would work would be to ban all politics which they would never do in a free society,


No it is not the only way. They can continue to do what they are doing now.

so we need multiple channels, yet they try to shut down new channels as they appear (Gab etc.) which means the lawsuits won't stop coming.


Who is "they"? Free enterprise acting like free enterprise? You don't think McDonalds would not like to shut down Burger King if it could?

But you don't get rid of all dissenting politics by denying them an online social network service. They have no end game here.


On the contrary. You can go very far that way. Denying what you call "dessenting politics" a vast audience, indeed the largest audience in the world, most certainly does work. Very well. If you took away Trump's twitter account he would be unable to pass his messages unfiltered to his worshipers.

I am surprised that my friends on the right are whining about free enterprise. I thought they were capitalists and free enterprise people. I certainly am. Let's look at the truth.

Since Trump has taken office they have gutted environmental regulation to support....business.

They have started a trade war with about everyone to support....business.

They have revoked net neutrality. Why? To allow ISP's the ability to monetize access to content.

But along comes perhaps the greatest American success story. Facebook. A dorm room project wisely grown to an international behemoth. Like google, a potential kingmaker as has never before been seen. And what happens to these snowflake whiners? The guy who owns most of it and controls all of it decides he wants to run it his way and they have a shit fit. The very same people who hollered at the top of their lungs about forcing some poor schmuck baker to make a wedding cake because it violated his free speech rights and the right to not offend his beliefs at his business go utterly apoplectic at the notion that Zukerberg might do the same thing.

Here is what I have to say to all of the right wingers who are mad because Facebook and others are taking down their agent provocateurs: Fuck off. You are roasting on a fire that you built. You had every opportunity to follow the democrats who wanted to regulate these companies. You had every opportunity to back net neutrality. But your bought-and-paid-for politicians didn't do it. Why? Because they are taking money from the big cable companies. That's why. And shit flows down hill.

What do I want? For now nothing. I want my fellow conservatives to stop listening to the likes of Alex Jones and start learning about how to govern a diverse and free country. I want these paid shit throwers silenced. I want the racist, misogynist, mostly unintelligent drones who are passing for conservative these days to have to don their robes and meet around the campfire in order to have their need for hate stoked.

Ain't free speech and private ownership a bitch? But hey. Conservatives believe in hands-off of business. So have fun suckers.
#15002665
Drlee wrote:They most certainly can do that. And they are completely justified in doing it if they want to. Whether it is a good business decision is another matter.



No it is not the only way. They can continue to do what they are doing now.



Who is "they"? Free enterprise acting like free enterprise? You don't think McDonalds would not like to shut down Burger King if it could?



On the contrary. You can go very far that way. Denying what you call "dessenting politics" a vast audience, indeed the largest audience in the world, most certainly does work. Very well. If you took away Trump's twitter account he would be unable to pass his messages unfiltered to his worshipers.

I am surprised that my friends on the right are whining about free enterprise. I thought they were capitalists and free enterprise people. I certainly am. Let's look at the truth.

Since Trump has taken office they have gutted environmental regulation to support....business.

They have started a trade war with about everyone to support....business.

They have revoked net neutrality. Why? To allow ISP's the ability to monetize access to content.

But along comes perhaps the greatest American success story. Facebook. A dorm room project wisely grown to an international behemoth. Like google, a potential kingmaker as has never before been seen. And what happens to these snowflake whiners? The guy who owns most of it and controls all of it decides he wants to run it his way and they have a shit fit. The very same people who hollered at the top of their lungs about forcing some poor schmuck baker to make a wedding cake because it violated his free speech rights and the right to not offend his beliefs at his business go utterly apoplectic at the notion that Zukerberg might do the same thing.

Here is what I have to say to all of the right wingers who are mad because Facebook and others are taking down their agent provocateurs: Fuck off. You are roasting on a fire that you built. You had every opportunity to follow the democrats who wanted to regulate these companies. You had every opportunity to back net neutrality. But your bought-and-paid-for politicians didn't do it. Why? Because they are taking money from the big cable companies. That's why. And shit flows down hill.

What do I want? For now nothing. I want my fellow conservatives to stop listening to the likes of Alex Jones and start learning about how to govern a diverse and free country. I want these paid shit throwers silenced. I want the racist, misogynist, mostly unintelligent drones who are passing for conservative these days to have to don their robes and meet around the campfire in order to have their need for hate stoked.

Ain't free speech and private ownership a bitch? But hey. Conservatives believe in hands-off of business. So have fun suckers.

Maybe you missed my point. Obviously they can do it but it will be consistently causing them trouble until something changes because it is not possible to try and bring in everyone while simultaneously ostracizing mainstream rightism, which is what they are moving towards doing since people like PJW, James Woods and Laura Loomer are not extremists. To wit, there has (far as I know) been no explanation of what PJW and most others actually said to get banned, in PJW's case without any warnings. Your example of banning Trump's Twitter which would presumably cut him off from communicating unfiltered to his followers is also pretty flawed for lots of reasons that I don't think need elaborating. It would just not work out the way you seem to think that it would.
#15002668
Maybe you missed my point. Obviously they can do it but it will be consistently causing them trouble until something changes because it is not possible to try and bring in everyone while simultaneously ostracizing mainstream rightism, which is what they are moving towards doing since people like PJW, James Woods and Laura Loomer are not extremists.


Why do you think that banning people who are publishing hate and falsehoods is a bad business decision. You do not seem to be aware of the enormous power of this company. I don't care if, for example, Laura Loomer does not hold, by your definition anyway, extremist views. I doubt that is the issue. She advocated a ride sharing alternative to Uber that "did not employ Muslims". So she is a bigot and airs that bigotry publically. She asserted that the Las Vegas Gunman was ISIS without a breath of evidence. She has posted lie after lie. She is the very definition of fake news.

I applaud Facebook for banning her. She has no legitimate place in American politics. Certainly no legitimate news outlet would give her the time of day except to repudiate her drivel.
#15002673
Drlee wrote:Why do you think that banning people who are publishing hate and falsehoods is a bad business decision. You do not seem to be aware of the enormous power of this company. I don't care if, for example, Laura Loomer does not hold, by your definition anyway, extremist views. I doubt that is the issue. She advocated a ride sharing alternative to Uber that "did not employ Muslims". So she is a bigot and airs that bigotry publically. She asserted that the Las Vegas Gunman was ISIS without a breath of evidence. She has posted lie after lie. She is the very definition of fake news.

I applaud Facebook for banning her. She has no legitimate place in American politics. Certainly no legitimate news outlet would give her the time of day except to repudiate her drivel.

Well, I see you Google'd up some information about Laura Loomer which is nice, although it begs the question about PJW or my friend who was banned for posting videos of cops lip synching to songs.

I think a lot of older people may not understand or appreciate that for many people, especially younger millenials, things like Facebook and Skype have almost completely supplanted previous forms of communication such as telephone lines. If I got banned from Facebook (which I probably won't be because I enjoy anonymity and smaller discussion groups, so I almost completely post anonymously) it would literally be like someone from a previous generation losing access to telephone lines for supporting Reagan because I've used Facebook or Facebook Messenger for literally 90% of my social communications for over a decade and stuff like Whatsapp for another 9%.

Recently Google had a US $70 billion drop off in profits. They attributed it to new YouTube algorithms: they were trying to prevent the spread of "extremism" and dropping user engagement cost them $70 billion. So yes, it is a bad business decision. If you think my friend who liked to post videos just disappeared after Facebook banned him, he didn't. He just began working in other areas.

It isn't just about business though. It's a bad political decision. As soon as you cut someone's phone line for supporting Reagan (which is what this is equivalent to when it comes to people who are almost completely dependent on Facebook for communicating with certain kinds of people) that person does not disappear, they are still out there only now they have nothing to do with the time they were using your platform, which was probably a lot of time, besides solve the problem you've created for them. Doing this goes beyond a "bad business decision."

You are gloating over a huge mistake they are making.
EU-BREXIT

You're singling out one policy he voted on that he[…]

In a new study, Spyrou et al. (2019) reconstructed[…]

I always have good sources, I just assume that peo[…]