Current Affairs The Andrew Tate thread

[moyeslovechild]

Really don't agree with the censorship on social media. You don't beat other ideas by banning them.

People will say oh they're private companies they can do what they want. But when people with suspected communist sympathies were being blacklisted in Hollywood that wasn't ok in my opinion either. And it's like, if Musk really buys Twitter and then bans every person who criticizes him or has a certain political view. There's nothing wrong with that because it's a private company? Social media companies have too much power, in media and public influence, and there does need to be more outside oversight to ensure they act fairly.

 

[Walken]

Really don't agree with the censorship on social media. You don't beat other ideas by banning them.

People will say oh they're private companies they can do what they want. But when people with suspected communist sympathies were being blacklisted in Hollywood that wasn't ok in my opinion either. And it's like, if Musk really buys Twitter and then bans every person who criticizes him or has a certain political view. There's nothing wrong with that because it's a private company? Social media companies have too much power, in media and public influence, and there does need to be more outside oversight to ensure they act fairly.

Mcarthey-ism was not perpertrated by just private companies.

 

[moyeslovechild]

Mcarthey-ism was not perpertrated by just private companies.

And the censorship of people with alternate views isn't just perpetrated by private companies either. There's a lot of political pressure behind it.

 

[Walken]

And the censorship of people with alternate views isn't just perpetrated by private companies either

In what sense? A public view? The McCarthy hunt was instigated, funded and ran by government and government agencies and courts. It's a large blanket to throw to use it as a comparison in my opinion.

 

[moyeslovechild]

In what sense? A public view? The McCarthy hunt was instigated, funded and ran by government and government agencies and courts. It's a large blanket to throw to use it as a comparison in my opinion.

Well I was not making a direct comparison. Just saying that it's not OK for private companies to do what they want, especially when they are in dominant positions of influence so I don't know why I keep seeing that line spouted.

It's especially funny considering the political pressure that was being put on social media companies after Brexit happened and Trump won. It was all about how they have too much influence and needed regulation. Now (from some people) it's a they can do what they want.

 

[coollino]

Really don't agree with the censorship on social media. You don't beat other ideas by banning them.

People will say oh they're private companies they can do what they want. But when people with suspected communist sympathies were being blacklisted in Hollywood that wasn't ok in my opinion either. And it's like, if Musk really buys Twitter and then bans every person who criticizes him or has a certain political view. There's nothing wrong with that because it's a private company? Social media companies have too much power, in media and public influence, and there does need to be more outside oversight to ensure they act fairly.

I guess the problem with his guy is that he has the mental capacity of a 14 year old, so they are trying to stop his target audience (12-15 year olds) from growing up thinking it's fine to always be 14 years old

 

[emir]

He had an event scheduled in Dubai next week.

After quite a large backlash from Emiratis and expatriates alike, Dubai Tourism have now withdrawn the permit for the event to go ahead.

Which is nice.

There was backlash from Emiratis? Why would there be any backlash from Emiratis?

 

[Amw79]

Well I was not making a direct comparison. Just saying that it's not OK for private companies to do what they want, especially when they are in dominant positions of influence so I don't know why I keep seeing that line spouted.

It's especially funny considering the political pressure that was being put on social media companies after Brexit happened and Trump won. It was all about how they have too much influence and needed regulation. Now (from some people) it's a they can do what they want.

Sorry to jump in, and this isn’t a challenge, as such. But if social media companies don’t have the right to decide what they do and don’t publish, then who does? It could only be the government, presumably, which is probably worse, and would be forever changing as different governments come in and out.

The owners of this website, have the right to ban, warn, delete posts that breach their rules, as it’s their platform. Should the UK gov step in and regulate their admin powers?

It is a genuinely complicated one, as you’re right that banning ideas usually doesn’t work, and you end up with pretty grim pockets of the internet where these ideas are more freely voiced.

But I do tend to think that people see political motivations from social media companies a lot of time, when usually it’s purely financially driven.

 

[Walken]

Well I was not making a direct comparison. Just saying that it's not OK for private companies to do what they want, especially when they are in dominant positions of influence so I don't know why I keep seeing that line spouted.

It's especially funny considering the political pressure that was being put on social media companies after Brexit happened and Trump won. It was all about how they have too much influence and needed regulation. Now (from some people) it's a they can do what they want.

Is it not more about them following and presenting guidelines that would stop false and dangerous narritives like tates. The Brexit campaign had free reign to essentially lie and in some cases use hate speech, much like trumps overt racism towards Mexicans. tate was prevented from having free reign to monetise dangerous falsehoods. You can argue where the lines are breeched or where they should be and a constant conversation there is most likely a good thing, but I don't see those two cases as two opposites or a case of irony, they are both on the same side of the coin.

 

[BNJ1878]

There was backlash from Emiratis? Why would there be any backlash from Emiratis?

Not being Emirati, I can't say with any degree of confidence why they don't want him here.

Maybe they just know a knob when they see one.

 

[Rita_Poon]

 

[dholliday]

if Musk really buys Twitter and then bans every person who criticizes him or has a certain political view. There's nothing wrong with that because it's a private company?

Exactly. Once a private company has a monopoly on mainstream debate then we should be wary how it handles different ideas.

Clearly, the Left has become dominant in the mainstream debate-sphere, and this has been a disaster for free-thinking (just as it would be if the Right had the monopoly).

Musk is attempting a form of correction here by buying Twitter. But there's a lot that remains to be seen...

 

[neil999]

Exactly. Once a private company has a monopoly on mainstream debate then we should be wary how it handles different ideas.

Clearly, the Left has become dominant in the mainstream debate-sphere, and this has been a disaster for free-thinking (just as it would be if the Right had the monopoly).

Musk is attempting a form of correction here by buying Twitter. But there's a lot that remains to be seen...

Why is it clear, many on the left would argue the opposite...

 

[dholliday]

Why is it clear, many on the left would argue the opposite...

Twitter is an unwieldy site to read long posts (they call it 'Twitter threads'), but this is well worth a read:




See also the recent news cycle involving Paypal:

Why has PayPal cancelled the Free Speech Union? | The Spectator

The Daily Sceptic and the Free Speech Union will survive this attempt to demonetise them, but PayPal's decision to try and cancel me is sinister

www.spectator.co.uk

PayPal reinstates Free Speech Union accounts after being accused of ‘politically motivated’ ban

Payments firm issues statement voicing support for freedom of expression following criticism of freeze by MPs

www.telegraph.co.uk

PayPal says policy to fine customers for 'misinformation' was an 'error'

PayPal Holdings Inc said on Monday it will not fine users for misinformation and an earlier policy update that said customers could have to pay $2,500 in damages was sent in error.

www.reuters.com

And literally thousands more examples of how the Establishment has shifted leftwards, dramatically so this last decade.

 

[neil999]

Twitter is an unwieldy site to read long posts (they call it 'Twitter threads'), but this is well worth a read:




See also the recent news cycle involving Paypal:

Why has PayPal cancelled the Free Speech Union? | The Spectator

The Daily Sceptic and the Free Speech Union will survive this attempt to demonetise them, but PayPal's decision to try and cancel me is sinister

www.spectator.co.uk

PayPal reinstates Free Speech Union accounts after being accused of ‘politically motivated’ ban

Payments firm issues statement voicing support for freedom of expression following criticism of freeze by MPs

www.telegraph.co.uk

PayPal says policy to fine customers for 'misinformation' was an 'error'

PayPal Holdings Inc said on Monday it will not fine users for misinformation and an earlier policy update that said customers could have to pay $2,500 in damages was sent in error.

www.reuters.com

And literally thousands more examples of how the Establishment has shifted leftwards, dramatically so this last decade.

But that's your definition of leftwards, I would suggest these issues are becoming centrist and generally accepted