Twitter Bans Gavin McInnes
#1
Coming off of the silencing of Alex Jones by the Big Brother Tech, who demand that only their content be heard.  Twitter has now decided to ban Gavin McInnes and YouTube has now banned the non-aligned H3 podcast in midstream.


Breitbart: Twitter Bans Gavin McInnes


Over 80% of information on the Internet is dominated by Big Brother Tech, and now they are striking anything that is verboten.  Google's motto now is "Do No Evil"
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • mpk1987
Reply
#2
They banned the Proud Boys as well.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#3
                                     Antifa are still on Twitter.
Reply
#4
(08-11-2018, 07:09 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Coming off of the silencing of Alex Jones by the Big Brother Tech, who demand that only their content be heard.  Twitter has now decided to ban Gavin McInnes and YouTube has now banned the non-aligned H3 podcast in midstream.


Breitbart: Twitter Bans Gavin McInnes


Over 80% of information on the Internet is dominated by Big Brother Tech, and now they are striking anything that is verboten.  Google's motto now is "Do No Evil"

It's a good time for Big Tech Trust-Busting Bill of 2018. We just need our Teddy Roosevelt Part Deux.
Reply
#5
(08-11-2018, 06:25 PM)mpk1987 Wrote: It's a good time for Big Tech Trust-Busting Bill of 2018. We just need our Teddy Roosevelt Part Deux.

No, what we need is for the right to start their own media platforms. You really want the the government telling private businesses what they can and can't say, and what they must say? Telling Twitter they have to host conservative views is no different than California telling anti-abortion centres that they have to inform pregnant women about the nearest Planned Parenthood and all the wonderful services they offer (only 10% of which, you know, is murder). Except you can't call it murder, since it's legal.

The response to this should be conservatives cancelling their Twitter accounts and finding other media. But they won't, because most of them don't really care. Just like they complain about how liberal Hollywood is, but continue to watch because some of their shows are funny and entertaining. The NFL got the message, and if they back off, I suspect people won't be watching again.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • jovan66102, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#6
(08-12-2018, 03:03 AM)Paul Wrote:
(08-11-2018, 06:25 PM)mpk1987 Wrote: It's a good time for Big Tech Trust-Busting Bill of 2018. We just need our Teddy Roosevelt Part Deux.

No, what we need is for the right to start their own media platforms. You really want the the government telling private businesses what they can and can't say, and what they must say? Telling Twitter they have to host conservative views is no different than California telling anti-abortion centres that they have to inform pregnant women about the nearest Planned Parenthood and all the wonderful services they offer (only 10% of which, you know, is murder). Except you can't call it murder, since it's legal.

The response to this should be conservatives cancelling their Twitter accounts and finding other media. But they won't, because most of them don't really care. Just like they complain about how liberal Hollywood is, but continue to watch because some of their shows are funny and entertaining. The NFL got the message, and if they back off, I suspect people won't be watching again.

I actually disagree.

First, starting a new media platform (whether it is ConservTube, or ConTwit) will only cater to a small minority and will largely be looked upon as a sad, comical knock-off (think Andrew Schaffley's Conservapedia) that will never gain serious traction.  Even so, why on earth do you want just a "Conservative-only" option.  The reason things are so out of control, is because the Internet and social media have become Echo Chambers for one's own personal views and they have led to tribalism.  Doing this, if successful, will only further divide the nation to a point where it will become an Orwellian nightmare with Oceanics vs. Eurasians, that will result in bloody persecution and civil war.  Folks, people are already committing violence in the name of politics and it is not even for a valid cause, it is over "perceived" causes ginned up in the backrooms of some Internet chat room.


Second, let's supposed a non-aligned Social Media platform is setup to go after Hollywood.  First, how does this platform draw people away?  

People will need to find it and the #1 way to find it, is through the public search engine: Google.  All Google has to do is de-list the site and now you have an obscure site that people will have to bookmark (who has used a bookmark since 2006?) in order to visit.  Secondly running a site (as Vox can attest) costs money, and if you are going to be hosting videos or tweets, then you better be prepared to shelve out millions.  You will need to rely on corporate sponsorship, and now you are in the same boat with CNN-Twitter-Google.  If AT&T funds your operation and says "pull that guy", you will either have to comply, or be replaced by someone who is probably worse.

And that brings me to point number Three:

Let's suppose that you create a non-aligned SM platform that is "friendly to Conservatives", then what is to stop the ISPs (Internet Service Providers: AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum) from either down throttling (slowing the connection, so that a page loads in 2 mins, as opposed to 0.2 sec) the connection speeds to the site, or shutting down all connections to that site entirely?
Trump's new FCC ruling repealing Obama-era Net Neutrality, allows this to happen.


So I am with mpk1987 on this, but we do not need a "new law", we just need to re-enforce the laws currently on the books.  Mobile Communications are falling into fewer and fewer hands.  Name a search engine that is widely used other than Google, hint: you can't.  Name a social media site that you can meetup with friends other than Facebook; hint: you can't.  

Media is monopolized by a small cabal and that should be investigated and broken up if possible.  The content shouldn't, you should be able to hear "Trump is a racist, blah, blah blah." but that should not be the only thing you hear.
[-] The following 3 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • HailGilbert, jovan66102, mpk1987
Reply
#7
(08-12-2018, 08:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Let's suppose that you create a non-aligned SM platform that is "friendly to Conservatives", then what is to stop the ISPs (Internet Service Providers: AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum) from either down throttling (slowing the connection, so that a page loads in 2 mins, as opposed to 0.2 sec) the connection speeds to the site, or shutting down all connections to that site entirely?
Trump's new FCC ruling repealing Obama-era Net Neutrality, allows this to happen.
Speaking of which, just three days ago, Microsoft threatened to shut down Gab AI, the new 'go to' SM platform for conservatives and which is hosted by Microsoft Azure, for 'weeks/months' if they didn't delete some posts.

Gab user deletes anti-Semitic content after Microsoft Azure threatened to shut down the site
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#8
(08-12-2018, 08:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote: First, starting a new media platform (whether it is ConservTube, or ConTwit) will only cater to a small minority and will largely be looked upon as a sad, comical knock-off (think Andrew Schaffley's Conservapedia) that will never gain serious traction.  Even so, why on earth do you want just a "Conservative-only" option.

Second, let's supposed a non-aligned Social Media platform is setup to go after Hollywood.  First, how does this platform draw people away? 

Facebook says hello. Or do you not remember MySpace? There are a lot of people unhappy with Facebook for all sorts of reasons. Some don't like its liberal bias. Some don't like its requirement of using a real name, which affects people from domestic violence victims to those who live in places where there really is no free speech and the government will kill you. Some don't like how invasive it is. 

It draws people away by not doing the things people dislike about Facebook.

(08-12-2018, 08:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote: People will need to find it and the #1 way to find it, is through the public search engine: Google.  All Google has to do is de-list the site and now you have an obscure site that people will have to bookmark (who has used a bookmark since 2006?) in order to visit.  Secondly running a site (as Vox can attest) costs money, and if you are going to be hosting videos or tweets, then you better be prepared to shelve out millions.  You will need to rely on corporate sponsorship, and now you are in the same boat with CNN-Twitter-Google.  If AT&T funds your operation and says "pull that guy", you will either have to comply, or be replaced by someone who is probably worse.

You probably don't remember Yahoo, either. 15 years ago, everyone used Yahoo, before Google took over by being good at what it does. A competitor doesn't have to be explicitly conservative, just run by conservatives who refuse to give in to the SJWs. And Google, as purely a search engine, is worse than it used to be. You used to be able to specify specific search terms, and require certain words to be included. Now Google gives suggestions, which is good in many general searches, but if you want something specific, and you'd rather have no results than useless results, Google won't do that anymore.

I'm sure there are some billionaire conservatives out there, who don't have to worry about AT&T or Google or other ISPs. Or several of them can get together to fund it.

(08-12-2018, 08:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Let's suppose that you create a non-aligned SM platform that is "friendly to Conservatives", then what is to stop the ISPs (Internet Service Providers: AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum) from either down throttling (slowing the connection, so that a page loads in 2 mins, as opposed to 0.2 sec) the connection speeds to the site, or shutting down all connections to that site entirely?
Trump's new FCC ruling repealing Obama-era Net Neutrality, allows this to happen.

What's to stop them is consumers switching to someone else. If Spectrum throttles conservative sites, and only conservative sites, millions switching to AT&T will stop that. If they all do it, then you cancel your service - someone will give in eventually because there's way too much money being lost.

(08-12-2018, 08:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote: So I am with mpk1987 on this, but we do not need a "new law", we just need to re-enforce the laws currently on the books.  Mobile Communications are falling into fewer and fewer hands.  Name a search engine that is widely used other than Google, hint: you can't.  Name a social media site that you can meetup with friends other than Facebook; hint: you can't.  

Media is monopolized by a small cabal and that should be investigated and broken up if possible.  The content shouldn't, you should be able to hear "Trump is a racist, blah, blah blah." but that should not be the only thing you hear.

Bing and DuckDuckGo are both widely used, if not as much as Google. And there are plenty of ways to meet up with friends besides Facebook, starting with phone calls, email, and all sorts of chat programs.

What you're really wanting is for the government to break up companies that are too successful because you don't like their politics. That might be liberal politics now, but what happens if the Democrats get re-elected? Supposed monopolies like Google and Facebook never last long, anyway, unless the government regulates their competitors out of business.
Reply
#9
(08-12-2018, 04:47 PM)Paul Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 08:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote: First, starting a new media platform (whether it is ConservTube, or ConTwit) will only cater to a small minority and will largely be looked upon as a sad, comical knock-off (think Andrew Schaffley's Conservapedia) that will never gain serious traction.  Even so, why on earth do you want just a "Conservative-only" option.

Second, let's supposed a non-aligned Social Media platform is setup to go after Hollywood.  First, how does this platform draw people away? 

Facebook says hello. Or do you not remember MySpace? There are a lot of people unhappy with Facebook for all sorts of reasons. Some don't like its liberal bias. Some don't like its requirement of using a real name, which affects people from domestic violence victims to those who live in places where there really is no free speech and the government will kill you. Some don't like how invasive it is. 

It draws people away by not doing the things people dislike about Facebook.

You clearly did not understand what I was trying to say.  You said "Conservatives need to have their own platform."  My comment above listed why it wouldn't work, and you basically point to non-aligned (ie. not just for Conservatives, or Conservative-bias sites) which was what I was trying to say.

Also MySpace isn't around for a reason.

(08-12-2018, 04:47 PM)Paul Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 08:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote: People will need to find it and the #1 way to find it, is through the public search engine: Google.  All Google has to do is de-list the site and now you have an obscure site that people will have to bookmark (who has used a bookmark since 2006?) in order to visit.  Secondly running a site (as Vox can attest) costs money, and if you are going to be hosting videos or tweets, then you better be prepared to shelve out millions.  You will need to rely on corporate sponsorship, and now you are in the same boat with CNN-Twitter-Google.  If AT&T funds your operation and says "pull that guy", you will either have to comply, or be replaced by someone who is probably worse.

You probably don't remember Yahoo, either. 15 years ago, everyone used Yahoo, before Google took over by being good at what it does. A competitor doesn't have to be explicitly conservative, just run by conservatives who refuse to give in to the SJWs. And Google, as purely a search engine, is worse than it used to be. You used to be able to specify specific search terms, and require certain words to be included. Now Google gives suggestions, which is good in many general searches, but if you want something specific, and you'd rather have no results than useless results, Google won't do that anymore.

I'm sure there are some billionaire conservatives out there, who don't have to worry about AT&T or Google or other ISPs. Or several of them can get together to fund it.

Lol, I am probably older than you and I do remember Yahoo.  But notice it doesn't exist anymore?  That is because Google has developed a natural monopoly.  The only serious competitor is "Bing" and that's kind of a joke.  Any SE run by "conservatives" will compete with Bing, not Google.

Also it is not just the mythical white knight billionaire conservative CEO that has to worry about ISPs, if your ISP throttles traffic down to that of a 50Kbps modem, you, nor anyone else, will use that site.  So what CEO billionaire is going to pour hundreds of millions into a site, that few will go to?

(08-12-2018, 04:47 PM)Paul Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 08:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Let's suppose that you create a non-aligned SM platform that is "friendly to Conservatives", then what is to stop the ISPs (Internet Service Providers: AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum) from either down throttling (slowing the connection, so that a page loads in 2 mins, as opposed to 0.2 sec) the connection speeds to the site, or shutting down all connections to that site entirely?
Trump's new FCC ruling repealing Obama-era Net Neutrality, allows this to happen.

What's to stop them is consumers switching to someone else. If Spectrum throttles conservative sites, and only conservative sites, millions switching to AT&T will stop that. If they all do it, then you cancel your service - someone will give in eventually because there's way too much money being lost.

That's begging the question.  You are assuming that the profits lost to supposedly ideological conservatives cancelling their subscription, will somehow force one of the corporations of the Telecommunication oligopoly in this nation to somehow buckle and start allowing a Conservative voice.  However, what is to say that those corporations will not be satisfied with losing $100M/year in order that verboten content is sanitized for what they see as a greater cause.

You assume that corporations will buckle to social demands of people boycotting and cancelling their subscriptions.  Recent history has shewn that these methods require too much effort and fail to bring about the changes we desire.  Target for example may have faced declined traffic and profits, and resorted to spending $20 million on "single-stall restrooms" for privacy.  But their original policy, the one that ignited the backlash, still remains in force today.

So boycotts will not work as history has shewn and you are too ingrained with the Free-Market fallacy that the free-market wins always.  Except it is not winning in places like Cuba and Venezuela where too much control is placed in the hands of a corrupt few bureaucrats.  The same applies to a small corrupt cabal of Scilicon Valley techsters.  It is for this reason that I believe many rightly in Catholic circles prefer distributism for this very reason.

(08-12-2018, 04:47 PM)Paul Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 08:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote: So I am with mpk1987 on this, but we do not need a "new law", we just need to re-enforce the laws currently on the books.  Mobile Communications are falling into fewer and fewer hands.  Name a search engine that is widely used other than Google, hint: you can't.  Name a social media site that you can meetup with friends other than Facebook; hint: you can't.  

Media is monopolized by a small cabal and that should be investigated and broken up if possible.  The content shouldn't, you should be able to hear "Trump is a racist, blah, blah blah." but that should not be the only thing you hear.

Bing and DuckDuckGo are both widely used, if not as much as Google. And there are plenty of ways to meet up with friends besides Facebook, starting with phone calls, email, and all sorts of chat programs.

What you're really wanting is for the government to break up companies that are too successful because you don't like their politics. That might be liberal politics now, but what happens if the Democrats get re-elected? Supposed monopolies like Google and Facebook never last long, anyway, unless the government regulates their competitors out of business.

That is decidedly false.  Google owns over 70% of Search Engine traffic.  Bing accounts for 8%, and DDG has less than a percentage of share.  Also we are not arguing about whether you use FB to meet friends, that is not the argument.  The argument is whether or not the SM networks such as YT, TWIT, and FB are public forums; and if so, should these companies dictate the political speech of them?

You also are missing the point.  No one is arguing that a company be broken up because they are "too successful" because their politics stinks.  No one wanted Google/FB/YT broken up, when they were endorsing Hillary Clinton in 2016 and all Leftist causes since 2008.  And I am not necessarily saying they should be broken up, but the fact is I am arguing that we should consider the dangerous ramifications of having a small cabal controlling the vast majority of information, that includes both private and government.

The groups are not controlling fruit or food, they are controlling information and that, to me, is very dangerous.  He who controls the media, controls the mind.
[-] The following 2 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • jovan66102, mpk1987
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)