Deplatforming

[Crunch]

No Platform, sometimes deplatforming, is a form of boycott where a person or organisation is denied a platform to speak.

CNN has openly bragged about getting Alex Jones deplatformed from YouTube. Spotify, Apple, and Facebook went along and Shopify is considering or actually joined. The idea is to nullify Jones and destroy his ability to reach an audience. It’s classic corporate censorship.

There’s also pressure to deplatform other groups like the NRA TV on Apple and Amazon so pretending it’s just a Alex Jones and not a much broader effort is just being obtuse.

When users violate ... policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts," said a spokesperson for YouTube.

Of course,  "hate speech" actually means "speech we hate" or “speech we disagree with”. Is it OK to refuse access to these services?

[Crunch]

Meant to add this:

1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech—and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects—the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.

[TheDrake]

Absolutely. What is the alternative, that online forums can't have standards and moderation? Or those standards get set by the government like FCC rules?

If Jones had a traditional radio show, he can lose his timeslot too. Is that censorship?

Does a cable company have to take NRATV and put it in their basic package?

Not any more than a sporting goods store has to sell handguns.

It would be good for the internet in general to de-platform and go back to people hosting their own blogs, etc. The more these companies exercise editorial control, the fewer eyeballs they will have access to, so I don't see it going so dramatically.

[Crunch]

Not any more than a sporting goods store has to sell handguns.

Or a baker has to sell cakes ...

[D.W.]

It would be good for the internet in general to de-platform and go back to people hosting their own blogs, etc.

There's already a lot of people paranoid about how much power Google has regarding search results.  I'm not sure this move would have the desired decentralizing effect.  I think we'd instead be even more reliant on a tiny variety of search engine options allowing you to seek out and find those various de-platformed sites.

[TheDeamon]

It would be good for the internet in general to de-platform and go back to people hosting their own blogs, etc.

There's already a lot of people paranoid about how much power Google has regarding search results.  I'm not sure this move would have the desired decentralizing effect.  I think we'd instead be even more reliant on a tiny variety of search engine options allowing you to seek out and find those various de-platformed sites.

Which isn't even getting into the additional issue of everybody moving into their own "personalized information bubble" which leaves a catch-22 situation going on. You kind of want a limited number of "content aggregators." The issue here in particular centers around Google.

Okay, they pulled them from Youtube(and likely banned him from Gmail along the way), but Google and Youtube both happening to be Alphabet means that it doesn't necessarily take much more effort for Google to "deoptimize" those deplatformed groups from the search engine results, assuming they don't simply get delisted entirely.

Which then starts to further fragment things once again, as that means that a causus beli has been given for people to start boycotting Google and finding an alternative option. (Not that Yahoo (aka Verizon) is likely to be much of a refuge; and the other options I'm aware of, Bing included, don't seem to be that great--Which isn't to mention their own Silicon Valley/Liberal to left-wing corporate slant as well)

But really, with regards to Google's latest actions, not surprising, given the fallout from the memo "maifesto" in the not-so-distant past.

[TheDrake]

Robert Spencer is a curious case. Patreon cancelled his account, and somewhat foggily blamed it on Mastercard.

I think he's a dbag, but this is somewhat disturbing nonetheless. It's grounded in reality, the UK banned his entry to the country.

I understand Facebook having community standards, twitter, youtube. I'm not at all sure about applying that to finance. Mastercard, paypal, patreon, AMEX are in a whole different category. Of course, it isn't entirely new. ISIL can't take in donations via Patreon either, nor can the KKK AFAIK.

This could quickly get out of control. I'm reminded about the Communist blacklists that effectively stopped people from getting jobs. It might not have sounded like a bad idea when the first people put on the lists were vocally advocating the destruction of the US Constitutional government. Then it turned into people who might have checked out one meeting, or just had a general leftist opinion.

Michael Richards used a racial slur once. It is possible to conceive of a world where credit card companies cancel his line of credit, condo associations refuse to allow him into buildings, etc. Essential blacklisting.

[TheDeamon]

I understand Facebook having community standards, twitter, youtube. I'm not at all sure about applying that to finance. Mastercard, paypal, patreon, AMEX are in a whole different category. Of course, it isn't entirely new. ISIL can't take in donations via Patreon either, nor can the KKK AFAIK.

Paypal has had a "no porn" policy pretty much from day 1, and I think their definition of it is pretty close to "I'll know it, when I see it!" At least initially I'm sure it was to avoid potential efforts to give the religious right a reason to boycott them, and slow its ability to become established, in response to it becoming a "go to means of paying for porn online." Why the policy seems to still exist is anybody's guess, although I'm inclined to suspect it now is to avoid becoming targeted by some flavor of Nth Wave Feminist group or groups.

This could quickly get out of control. I'm reminded about the Communist blacklists that effectively stopped people from getting jobs. It might not have sounded like a bad idea when the first people put on the lists were vocally advocating the destruction of the US Constitutional government. Then it turned into people who might have checked out one meeting, or just had a general leftist opinion.

Michael Richards used a racial slur once. It is possible to conceive of a world where credit card companies cancel his line of credit, condo associations refuse to allow him into buildings, etc. Essential blacklisting.

Welcome to 20 some years ago in many respects. The power of the boycott, or even the threat of one, is one that has seen its use turned into a ready made means of generating a blacklist on a case by case basis for years going back to at least the 1990's when the first attempts to take Rush Limbaugh off the air were made. The rising predominance of Mega-sized multi-national Corporations just further amplifies the problem, as those corporations are the ones most afraid of both boycotts and political backlash.

Which is the one defense to offer up on Youtube's behalf: Alphabet's primary mission is advertising, they don't want to anger the hand that feeds them, which is other advertisers. They're going to go "where the money is" and the money isn't to be found in the alt-right(not to be confused with other right-wing groups, although people keep trying to lump them together)  when you have ready access to every other corner of the proverbial marketplace. (That isn't to say there isn't money to be made there, but it is a very niche market, and not (currently) anywhere near large enough for Google to waste their own resources on defending it)

[Crunch]

This could quickly get out of control.

How far does it go before it’s out of control? Let’s see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Google and Apple essentially own the mobile phone market and maps. Would it be OK to deplatform people from those? It’s not difficult to envision (let’s keep using Jones but it could be anyone that’s the flavor of the day) that not only would searches for Jones return no results or obscured results, calls and texts made to his phone or those associated with him can be halted. Jones related locations could be removed from google and apple maps so they’re difficult to find. In fact, because of location awareness, it would be trivial to extend this treatment to those close to him.

Keep in mind, I’m not just tossing out random thoughts. Google has already begun to travel down this road:

Google has introduced a practice nicknamed "expulsion to the 101st kilometer," referring the Soviets forcibly evicting dissenting citizens 100 kilometers or more from Moscow.  That was the twentieth century.  Now, in the 21st century, Google decided to manipulate the results of internet searches in an analogous way.  As a result of these manipulations, Google shows links to leftist political sites at the top of the results page, and links to conservative sites are artificially moved beyond the first hundred links.  Google knows that people, as a rule, scan just the first ten to twenty links.  Consequently, Google creates an impression that the whole world is full of leftist ideas only.  Professor Robert Epstein believes that the Google algorithm gifted Hillary Clinton in 2016 with at least 2 million votes.

Google is not alone:

Facebook's removal of links it doesn't agree with has resulted in a 93% decrease in web traffic from this social network to leading conservative sites since the 2016 elections.  As a result of the action of the Facebook "algorithm," after a certain time, your feed loses most of the conservative posts.  Another achievement (together with Google) is the forced closure of the politically incorrect site The Liberty Conservative.

And Twitter engaged in a practice of shadow banning conservatives. Reddit has engaged in similar actions.

These are entities opened up to public use and allowing, if not actively encouraging, political speech as well as just about any other type of public speech. Marsh v. Alabama would seem to be directly applicable:

The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

If you don’t agree, imagine for a moment the reaction if these companies had colluded to suppress members of the LGBT community or abortion rights activists. If you think it’s no big deal because it’s working to your favor, as I suspect many do, I’d point out Reid’s nuclear option - the worm does, and will, turn.

[TheDrake]

What you are saying makes sense Crunch, but like I said. You either must allow anyone to use everything in a completely blind way, or you have to pick how you draw the line.

I don't think it is viable to say everyone can do anything. I like not seeing hardcore porn on my Facebook feed. That is certainly censorship, as porn is quite clearly protected by the First. Would I want to see a bunch of ads for firearms? Debatable. It doesn't particularly trouble me, but I see little material difference between those two cases.

I'm also well aware that various people have proposed that credit companies refuse to process transactions for certain weapons, like the AR-15, or anyone who sells such weapons. I'm a lot more bothered by that, as I say. I'd also be pretty angry if credit card companies swung the other way, and stopped allowing their cards to be used at Planned Parenthood.

I'm not going to get involved with the search engine questions, but the algorithm belongs to the company and I'm pretty much okay whomever they filter out. I'm sure a platform probably exists somewhere that absolutely filters out abortion providers, I can see references to various "wholesome" religious social networks where they almost surely have heavy regulations on speech.

Ultimately, economic consideration is primary - I'm not going to tell them they have to provide a platform for people who enrage the majority of their paying customers. Nor are they going to show content to me that is likely to enrage me, bore me, or otherwise lower my engagement. Might as well demand that Breitbart replace gun ads and links to conservative outlets with ACLU ads and links to the IWW.

I'd be perfectly comfortable with itsgoingdown being censored out of Facebook and Twitter. This antifa affiliated group have also been banned out of Patreon. It's not all a war on the right.

[Fenring]

I'm not going to get involved with the search engine questions, but the algorithm belongs to the company and I'm pretty much okay whomever they filter out. I'm sure a platform probably exists somewhere that absolutely filters out abortion providers, I can see references to various "wholesome" religious social networks where they almost surely have heavy regulations on speech.

Two things on this. First, I think we're approaching the point where we may want to seriously consider some 'virtual processes' as being effectively public utilities. It shouldn't be allowable for private companies to basically tell you what to consume when you have to go through them. Your ISP shouldn't be throttling your connection depending on how you use your bandwidth (putting aside illegal activity) and a search engine shouldn't effectively ban your searching for certain things. Yes, there are 'competitors' with ISP's, and there are 'competitors' for a Google search...but come on. Not really. And I would call being able to run a true Google search an actual necessity now, for reasons of research, of commerce, and even of accessing news. People are reliant on these media in very real ways and private companies should not be making decisions about what media you should consume. So while you're surely right that some content censoring has to happen, it would be better in a way if the censoring was your choice rather than theirs; for instance why not have a check-box to choose to never see porn on your feed? That's just an example. And perhaps there is a way of censoring certain type of material universally without it falling on simple political lines. I sort of also agree that it's not that good for FB, for instance, to be used by terrorists for planning attacks, but again if the issue is criminal activity that's a different story and isn't really censorship.

My second point is that I don't believe for a second that Google is actually a private company in any intelligible sense. Oh, sure, they have shareholders, a CEO, etc etc, but I believe they also work hand in hand with government, had quid pro quo relationships with them going back quite a ways, and we know they work directly with the intelligence agencies. As such, to call them a purely private business is laughable. If they're being bolstered by government, and also bolstering government, it's hardly reasonable to suppose that they should employ their technology in any old way they feel like. If the public (via government) has helped make them what they are then that is properly owned by the public in a sort of informal way. That informality does mean there's no strict rule saying they owe anyone anything, but rules aside I think they do. I'm not quite saying any company that works with government should be nationalized, but on the other hand if they become an essential service, and in large part because the government helped them become one, then they should at least be regulated as one rather than being allowed to call the shots on their own.

[TheDrake]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, Fenring. I would count on consumer monitoring, consumer outrage, and advertiser pressure to keep ISP and ubiquitous service providers in line.

A world of AT&T deciding to arbitrarily block IP addresses would not be one I would stand for, it smacks of Chinese level controls. AT&T hiding all gun websites, for instance. Or Verizon hiding all muslim websites.

We're not remotely there, in my opinion. And the only thing scarier than that is having the government regulate what is or is not acceptable.

I would be in favor of more transparency rules. If someone gets banned or blocked, they should have a recourse. The case for violating terms of service should be clearly laid out, and subject to more due process. What we have now definitely is a little more like civil forfeiture when carried out by the government. We suspect you of doing bad things, we're going to take away your property and livelihood, but you can have it back in a couple of years. Something more similar to a due process should be demanded.

When you look at Alex Jones, this is all out there. His statements can't really be construed as anything other than a call for violence. I know people will disagree, but cmon. "Now is the time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag"?

I would also generally support a system where enforcement of such rules is less haphazard and more open. When someone gets a certain amount of complaints, it should go up for review no matter what group they are railing against. Death threats and wishing to see someone dead in general as a rule should be punished - of course that will put 40% of users in Facebook jail (never mind the abhorrent YouTube commentaries). That's the corporate dilemma. The more people suspended or kicked out, the more critical mass they have to migrate to MeWe or Gab.

In my opinion, they are trying to take on a couple of high profile controversial figures to try and set a new standard. It turns out that Jones and a few others like Milo are the most vitriolic call-to-action type people. LGBT groups generally aren't calling for people to get their rifles ready to shoot people who won't accept them.

[D.W.]

When you look at Alex Jones, this is all out there. His statements can't really be construed as anything other than a call for violence. I know people will disagree, but cmon. "Now is the time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag"?

This guy should replace the example of, "yelling fire in a crowded theater".  He's not just expressing political views.  While I'm typically on the side of, "leave it alone, this is a slippery slope", ANY line one draws would have Jones on the wrong side of it. 

[Lloyd Perna]

When you look at Alex Jones, this is all out there. His statements can't really be construed as anything other than a call for violence. I know people will disagree, but cmon. "Now is the time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag"?

This guy should replace the example of, "yelling fire in a crowded theater".  He's not just expressing political views.  While I'm typically on the side of, "leave it alone, this is a slippery slope", ANY line one draws would have Jones on the wrong side of it.

The furor over Alex Jones has been all over my facebook feed, reddit and my other news sources but I must admit that I have never actually listened to anything he had to say.  Maybe I should see for myself what he is saying that is so horrible and check out one or two of his YouTube videos.  Oh wait...

Seriously though,  What has he done that is so bad that he needs to be wiped off the public internet?

[Fenring]

Seriously though,  What has he done that is so bad that he needs to be wiped off the public internet?

Years ago I used to watch his videos. I enjoyed some of them, others sounded nuts, but overall it was a sort of alarmist entertainment. Maybe he's gotten worse over the years, in which case I can't say, but from what I saw there was never a direct call to violence. Rather, he spoke often of trying to overturn a system of tyrannic (Satanic) overlords as he saw it, although the form of that overturn was never explicit. Actually, in conspiracy subculture there's a longstanding debate about what sort of resistance is called for versus what methods should be avoided. Many believe that the only way to improve a system is peacefully, while others thing that - sort of like the Civil War - that force will be the only thing some people will listen to. I don't recall Jones ever taking a stand one way or the other on that one, but maybe that's changed in recent years. Typically I assumed when he would call for people to do something he was talking about voicing outrage and not accepting certain things, but maybe I was wrong?

[NobleHunter]

The furor over Alex Jones has been all over my facebook feed, reddit and my other news sources but I must admit that I have never actually listened to anything he had to say.  Maybe I should see for myself what he is saying that is so horrible and check out one or two of his YouTube videos.  Oh wait...

Seriously though,  What has he done that is so bad that he needs to be wiped off the public internet?

He claims Sandy Hook was a false flag attack and that the supposed victims are all crisis actors. This has resulted in people harassing the parents who had children killed in the attack.

[Fenring]

He claims Sandy Hook was a false flag attack and that the supposed victims are all crisis actors. This has resulted in people harassing the parents who had children killed in the attack.

If you're going to ban voicing opinions that happen to be false just in case people decide to become vigilantes over the bad information you're going to have to ban A LOT of people from speaking online. Now, if you had said Jones actually called for his minions to go out and harass them I would tend to agree with stopping that. If, on the other hand, he simply says what he thinks are facts (or pretends are facts, either way) then I don't see him as being responsible for what idiots do in response. There is obviously a middle ground, where if he calls for "action" in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge way but doesn't specify what that action should be, exception it should vaguely be against people involved, then I could see a case where he's calling for it but trying to pretend he isn't. My issue is rather than he may simply be inspiring people enough to care and they're doing it on their own volition, in which case it absolutely should not be bannable to make people care about a fake thing.

[NobleHunter]

I haven't watched his stuff so I can't say how much he encouraged direct action. I get the impression he is more inflammatory that the usual tin-foil hat type.

[Lloyd Perna]

So Facebook gave this reason for their ban.  "glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies."  I can't find anything specific about the reasons the other platforms gave. other than the generic TOS violations answer. 

I suspect if they applied these rules evenly these platforms would have a lot less users.

[Fenring]

All action films glorify violence. Maybe any content related to those should be banned too. But again, there's a difference between glorifying it and calling for it, so that's the distinction I'd like to see made. Maybe I should check out his statements about transgender people, Muslims and immigrants because I don't know what he's said. In the past when infamous media people have been called out for things, when I check it out directly I've often found the claims are false or misleading. I think a lot of American sentiment right now is that people who you intensely dislike should be silenced. I'd like to know if that's what's happening here or if he really did cross the line.

[Lloyd Perna]

Yeah, its kinda hard to find the specific content they based these bans on because its not there anymore.  These days, whenever I hear anybody talk about hate speech, what I hear is them talking about speech they hate.

[rightleft22]

“These days, whenever I hear anybody talk about hate speech, what I hear is them talking about speech they hate.” Love that sound bite of dismissal…  I mean it might be weird to talk about hate speech that you like 😊

“Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.”

For me the key discriminator is the “likely to provoke violence’…. Begs the question if speech against hate speech, is hate speech, as it often leads to violence?

[D.W.]

On the bright side, the collective banning probably added years or even decades to the man's life.  Watching him turn colors like that and screaming looked dangerous.   

[Crunch]

What you are saying makes sense Crunch, but like I said. You either must allow anyone to use everything in a completely blind way, or you have to pick how you draw the line.

I don't think it is viable to say everyone can do anything. I like not seeing hardcore porn on my Facebook feed. That is certainly censorship, as porn is quite clearly protected by the First. Would I want to see a bunch of ads for firearms? Debatable. It doesn't particularly trouble me, but I see little material difference between those two cases.

Free speech being allowed only when it fits your definition of desirable is not free speech. Should those supporting abortion be shut down? If I find the idea of abortion rights objectionable, should we ban anyone supporting it? That's not how free speech works.

I don't like Alex Jones. Consequently, I don't follow him on twitter, Facebook or YouTube. This actually works as the only time I ever hear about him is when liberals want to shut him down. I do the same with porn or any other material I find objectionable. Really, avoiding objectionable material is quite easy. Sure, some things slip through once in a while but the nature of the beast is that when you allow free speech you're going to occasionally be confronted with things you disagree with or find objectionable.

If you want to shut down those saying something you find objectionable, then you're saying you do not support freedom of speech and support censorship.

[TheDeamon]

“These days, whenever I hear anybody talk about hate speech, what I hear is them talking about speech they hate.” Love that sound bite of dismissal…  I mean it might be weird to talk about hate speech that you like 😊

“.....Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.”

...sound a lot like "speech they(insert minority group here) hate" to me.

[TheDrake]

Right now, we are communicating on an electronic platform with community standards. If any of us violate those standards, we get banned. I dare say if Jones showed up here he'd probably get kicked out in a week or less.

[Fenring]

Right now, we are communicating on an electronic platform with community standards. If any of us violate those standards, we get banned. I dare say if Jones showed up here he'd probably get kicked out in a week or less.

That's because what we type here is essentially seen by everyone for one thing, and for another the only conversations are those held by people who hold to the same basic decorum. No one on Youtube has to listen to any particular person or see their videos, or even come across them in passing if they don't want to. Civility is a non-issue when in reference to someone you're not having a conversation with and in fact can't hear unless you seek him out.

[D.W.]

he'd probably get kicked out in a week or less.

He'd last MUCH longer than that.   

[TheDrake]

Tell Leslie Jones how easy it is to avoid content you don't want to see. Or any number of other people who have been harassed by the followers of deplatformed maniacs.

[Crunch]

It’s almost as if deplatforming people for exercising their first amendment rights has consequences.

[TheDrake]

They start the harassment long before being deplatformed. Milo famously led the attack against Jones, and his followers sent her porn, racist epithets, and all manner of vile communication. Because she was in a movie, and they didn't like that.

They certainly have a right to their opinion about the film, they have a right to say foul things that is largely protected. But twitter doesn't have to host and facilitate their communications when it reflects negatively on the platform, causes them to lose users, and reduces their ability to make revenue.

[Crunch]

You should open your eyes to what conservative women get. Michelle Malkin, Dana Loesch, et al routinely get things like this. Routinely. They have for years. Even their kids are targeted. You should check it out.

Twitter doesn’t have to host this stuff ... but they do. Sending porn, racist epithets, and all manner of vile communication just doesn’t seem to reflect negatively on Twitter or cause a loss of users when the target is conservative women and children.

In fact, being a racist on Twitter gets you a cushy job at the New York Times. Tweeting a call for Baron Trump to be locked in a cage with pedophiles and gang raped doesn’t seem to affect twitter’s ability to make money.

NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch, who also hosts a popular radio show and TV show on The Blaze, and her family spent the weekend prepping for a move because of all the death and rape threats she has received.

On Sunday, Loesch explained on Twitter how people have tracked down her private cell phone number and posted pictures of her house online.

Facebook too

It's a *censored*ing shame you weren't killed when that scumbag raped you, you *censored*ing despicable, lying, lowlife, Right-Wing, Neo-Fascist *censored*!" That was the message Kimberly Corban found waiting for her on Facebook early last year.

It was sent by a man upset about her gun-rights advocacy. Violent, sexual harassment and threats like the one Corban received are a common experience for many female gun activists

interviews with the Washington Free Beacon, four prominent pro-gun women detailed the deluge of vitriol and attempted intimidation they face. Each shared their own experience with death and rape threats as well as threats and hatred directed at their children. Each explained how they'd been forced to involve law enforcement during credible threats to their safety.

All the women who spoke to the Free Beacon have had to alter their daily lives in order to minimize the risk that someone angered by their advocacy might find their homes or where their children go to school. They guard their social media accounts, remain keenly aware of their surroundings, and train their children on what to do in the case of a home intruder. Some of the women have even made efforts to disassociate their names from their property records due to harassment.

[TheDrake]

I would hope that the people who commit that harassment are getting banned also - I would generally assume they are as soon as they are reported. I'm not unaware of the people doing this at all.

Are you arguing that they shouldn't stop those people, or just that its uneven treatment? I think the biggest supporters of big tech would have to admit they are haphazard in enforcement - they often seem to react to the most widespread outrage. I mean people do have a first amendment right to call for people to be shot, raped, or tortured. I see it on Breitbart comments all the time.

I would very much like to see an even-handed, transparent, and much more hands-on approach to policing up broadly adopted platforms. I'd like to see more adaptive tools. If gmail can figure out what folder to put spam into, I would think that it could also control what users want to see, without having to ban all foul language, etc.

I really wish Google+ hadn't been a day late and a dollar short, it made it much easier to control content. Although it probably would have changed if they had gained enough traction.

[TheDeamon]

I really wish Google+ hadn't been a day late and a dollar short, it made it much easier to control content. Although it probably would have changed if they had gained enough traction.

Well, that and by the time Google rolled around with Google+ they were already reaching the "Hey, wait a minute." Stage for a lot of people with regards to just how much of their life is controlled by Google. Which put an additional damper on it making inroads against Facebook.

[TheDeamon]

Encountered these recently and figured they generally fit under this topic and are relevant.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2018/10/11/memes-infowars-75-fascist-activists-red-pilled/

https://datasociety.net/output/alternative-influence/

Well, aside from the first Article reporting on "The Founding Father" ..... Grover Cleveland, who evidently is now something of an icon for American Nazi's? Yup, the 20th PotUS is evidently now considered a Founding Father by somebody. Not sure why. Of course, I guess the left-wing media likes to consider anything prior to Woodrow Wilson to almost be pre-history, so Cleveland would qualify for them.

But then, I also take issue with efforts to identify Lincoln as a founding father, mostly because he wasn't there at the founding--he wasn't even born then.

[Seriati]

I would hope that the people who commit that harassment are getting banned also - I would generally assume they are as soon as they are reported. I'm not unaware of the people doing this at all.

Are you arguing that they shouldn't stop those people, or just that its uneven treatment?

I think he was pointing out that using people who get harassed because of Alex Jone's commentary as support for deplatforming him isn't evenly enforced.  The "equivalent" would be to ban the people who harass based on what Alex Jones says.  Or to deplatform people who are virulently anti-gun and thus "encouraging" the harassment of pro-gun women.  The disparity is treating one side as "bad individuals" to be dealt with as they arise, and the other side as a thought movement to be banned from the start.

The idea that Google deliberately skews answers based on politics ought to trouble everyone.  It invalidates their system as a research tool, and puts the "Russian influence" theory to shame.

I think we are well past the point where consistent application of our anti-trust laws would require Google to be split up as a company.  Literally, to make it work you'd have to force them to split their staff into multiple companies, each with the rights to the full code and bars on hiring laterally. 

“Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.”

For me the key discriminator is the “likely to provoke violence’…. Begs the question if speech against hate speech, is hate speech, as it often leads to violence?

No, the key discriminator is "that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred."  Speech that encourages violence has been dealt with long before the concept of hate speech arose. 

In any event, the idea of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" as concepts of law is directly in conflict with a Constitution that guarantees both free speech and equal protection under the law.  It's literally designed to take the blind fold off of lady justice to ensure that we get the "right" (or really the left) outcome.

[TheDeamon]

“Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.”

For me the key discriminator is the “likely to provoke violence’…. Begs the question if speech against hate speech, is hate speech, as it often leads to violence?

No, the key discriminator is "that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred."  Speech that encourages violence has been dealt with long before the concept of hate speech arose. 

In any event, the idea of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" as concepts of law is directly in conflict with a Constitution that guarantees both free speech and equal protection under the law.  It's literally designed to take the blind fold off of lady justice to ensure that we get the "right" (or really the left) outcome.

Back to the ongoing refrain about people advocating for "Social Justice" aren't actually interested in justice. For them, Lady Justice is not to be blindfolded, and the scales of justice are to be weighted heavily "in favor of the Social Interest" rather than balanced.

[TheDrake]

GAB is being held responsible after revelations that Bowers had used the platform to threaten Jews prior to violent escalation.

1. Stripe and Paypal won't process their payments.
2. Joyent won't host them in the cloud.
3. GoDaddy gives them 24 hours to find a new service.
4. Medium has removed its posts.

If you're going to be a haven for racist rhetoric, then you shouldn't be surprised if other companies don't want to do business with you.
This had already happened when they refused to remove anti-Semitic posts:

5. Apple dropped their app.
6. Google dropped their app.
7. Microsoft dropped their hosting.

Yet to come:

8. Facebook
9. Twitter

[TheDrake]

The account in Mr Bowers’ name shared neo-Nazi content from numerous users who remain online, although a small number of profiles appear to have been deleted since the attack.

It interacted with a group called “GabStapo”, which describes itself as “aware of the deadly threat Jews pose to our very existence” and is still active with more than 800 members.

One called Mr Bowers a “brave fallen comrade” and praised his alleged actions “above and beyond the call of duty”.

[TheDrake]

SmashRacismDC has been deplatformed by twitter for creating and leading the mob that descended on Carlson's home.

[Seriati]

SmashRacismDC has been deplatformed by twitter for creating and leading the mob that descended on Carlson's home.

I think that's not accurate.  I read they were deplatformed for using twitter to dox his relatives, it didn't say anything about organizing or their conduct.  Doxxing on twitter is a user terms violation.

[TheDrake]

That's a hair to split, since the two acts are in tandem. They could not have created and led a mob without doxxing carlson, and there is no way that doxxing carlson doesn't result in a mob. Doxxing is the most clear incitement of violence and harassment.

[Seriati]

Not sure it's splitting hairs, what I saw said it was for doxxing his brother and other family members after the first event.  That said, I'm sure there's an official statement by now.

[TheDrake]

Airbnb: Israeli uproar as firm bars West Bank settlements

The Yesha Council, which represents Israeli settlers, accused Airbnb of becoming "a political site" and said the decision was "the result of either anti-Semitism or capitulation to terrorism, or both".

Israel has denounced as "shameful" Airbnb's decision to withdraw its listings from homes in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Its tourism minister said Israeli authorities would back legal challenges lodged by settlers against the US firm.

[Pete at Home]

Israel is being arrogant and stupid. The alternative is for Airbnb to boycott Israel altogether as many other organizations have done.

Only a Netanyahu government would insist that Israel’s right to exist be tied 100% to it’s right to seize additional territory from its neighbors by violence

“I am therefore I am entitled to another person’s living space.

[Fenring]

Israel is being arrogant and stupid. The alternative is for Airbnb to boycott Israel altogether as many other organizations have done.

Only a Netanyahu government would insist that Israel’s right to exist be tied 100% to it’s right to seize additional territory from its neighbors by violence

“I am therefore I am entitled to another person’s living space.

This may indeed be a political mistake. But they make a far more dangerous and pernicious error by throwing around a term like "anti-Semitism" and tying it to political maneuvers and people who oppose them. Once people who disagree with Israeli political choices are implied (or often directly stated) be to anti-Semites it not only undermines the true intent of the term but also erodes the extent to which that moniker will be taken seriously but anyone. It harms all Jews who are concerned about racism to have that term bandied about as a politician's club.

[TheDeamon]

Israel is being arrogant and stupid. The alternative is for Airbnb to boycott Israel altogether as many other organizations have done.

Only a Netanyahu government would insist that Israel’s right to exist be tied 100% to it’s right to seize additional territory from its neighbors by violence

“I am therefore I am entitled to another person’s living space.

Uh, what?

Last I recall hearing, before Israel "took possession" of that real estate, the previous Sovereign Entity to lay claim to that land declared war on Israel.

Further, IIRC, said Sovereign Nation doesn't want it back under their Jurisdiction.

The Palestinian Authority is a legal construct that didn't have meaningful Recognition until after much of that "land grab" happened.

Jordan and Egypt have virtually no legal or moral legs to stand on in this case, and the PA holds very dubious moral and/or legal Authority on the matter, considering their tendency towards being complicit in perpetuating further attacks on Israel.

[Pete at Home]

Israel is being arrogant and stupid. The alternative is for Airbnb to boycott Israel altogether as many other organizations have done.

Only a Netanyahu government would insist that Israel’s right to exist be tied 100% to it’s right to seize additional territory from its neighbors by violence

“I am therefore I am entitled to another person’s living space.

Uh, what?

Last I recall hearing, before Israel "took possession" of that real estate, the previous Sovereign Entity to lay claim to that land declared war on Israel.

Further, IIRC, said Sovereign Nation doesn't want it back under their Jurisdiction.

The Palestinian Authority is a legal construct that didn't have meaningful Recognition until after much of that "land grab" happened.

Jordan and Egypt have virtually no legal or moral legs to stand on in this case, and the PA holds very dubious moral and/or legal Authority on the matter, considering their tendency towards being complicit in perpetuating further attacks on Israel.

Notwithstanding that I agree with your factual allegations, That's a Blayne Bradley answer that speaks in terms of the rights of systems and glosses over rights of actual individuals.  The settlements displace actual Palestinian families from their long term homes.  There's a moral issue there and AirBnB has dealt with the matter gently, by refusing to participate in the victimization of those forced from their homes.

[Crunch]

Apple CEO Tim Cook suggests it's "a sin" to not ban certain people from social media and technology platforms: "We only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division, and violence: You have no place on our platforms. You have no home here."

A sin? The gods speak!

Deplatforming is a religious calling, it is righteous and good to get those you disagree with deplatformed. Any guesses as to whom he’s referring?

[D.W.]

Maybe it's all about framing the discussion in terms the audience can understand?   

May the holy spirit and your spam filter protect you, lest you be lead into temptation and identity theft.

Granted that assumes he's "explaining" anything, and not fishing for pats on the head by those who already agree with him.