Opinion Real progressives don't support the deplatforming of right-wingers; Kyle Kulinkski responds

Freedom of speech is designed to prevent people from being incarcerated not to prevent people from being deplatformed.
The first amendment specifically protects freedom of the press, not just the popular ones.

obviously this is protection from the government and not private companies, but these companies are embracing censoring, no other way to put it.


If a company that's all about communication, sharing thoughts, ideas, emotions and moments, wants to go on record as being firmly against freedom of speech and anxious to shut down the latest trending unpopular opinion of the mob, then that's their decision.

"Join our community, but popular opnions only or we will ban you."
Sounds like a great club, lol.

Oh these are the same tech giants that try to purposely make depressed people more sad and try to manipulate emotions.
Awesome people.
 
The first amendment specifically protects freedom of the press, not just the popular ones.

obviously this is protection from the government and not private companies, but these companies are embracing censoring, no other way to put it.


If a company that's all about communication, sharing thoughts, ideas, emotions and moments, wants to go on record as being firmly against freedom of speech and anxious to shut down the latest trending unpopular opinion of the mob, then that's their decision.

"Join our community, but popular opnions only or we will ban you."
Sounds like a great club, lol.

Oh these are the same tech giants that try to purposely make depressed people more sad and try to manipulate emotions.
Awesome people.


I don't see the problem with a private company doing this with their site. A private company is not censoring when they de-platform-- they are keeping the site content the way they want it to be and its their site so they can do whatever they want.

Part of the problem is people are so addicted to social media and intent surfing that they think they NEED these sites to live. I think that is really dumb.

Why not just start a site that doesn't do this and let the free market decide?
 
Why not just start a site that doesn't do this and let the free market decide?
Those sites exist and they are as toxic to mainstream advertisers as you could imagine.
This isn't about free speech, it's really about how the far right wing is upset that their values are losing the culture war.
 
Those sites exist and they are as toxic to mainstream advertisers as you could imagine.
This isn't about free speech, it's really about how the far right wing is upset that their values are losing the culture war.
The problem I have with the Facebook/IG deplatforming is this mostly... it causes shit like this to go underground where it festers and gets worse. It fuels even more the "us vs them" shit that gains shitbags followers both virtual and real.

I get the "if they aren't super public they don't get as many nutcases following them" but I'd also argue not having it in the public eye can create plenty of issues too.

That plus I miss Milo's constant whining on my IG feed now about his financial situation only to see him doing that while wearing a set of $2000 sunglasses.
 
The problem I have with the Facebook/IG deplatforming is this mostly... it causes shit like this to go underground where it festers and gets worse. It fuels even more the "us vs them" shit that gains shitbags followers both virtual and real.

I get the "if they aren't super public they don't get as many nutcases following them" but I'd also argue not having it in the public eye can create plenty of issues too.

That plus I miss Milo's constant whining on my IG feed now about his financial situation only to see him doing that while wearing a set of $2000 sunglasses.
Honestly, if you give them a platform, they win. If you don't give them a platform, they win. The owner of the platform should make the decision they (and their advertisers and shareholders) can live with.
 
Honestly, if you give them a platform, they win. If you don't give them a platform, they win. The owner of the platform should make the decision they (and their advertisers and shareholders) can live with.


And I will go with the platform that is clean and doesn't leave me feeling dirty afterwards.
 
Totalitarianism isn't the only option, but at the very least conservatives need make the first move to show more good faith in discourse and politics. They poisoned the well; they need to clean it up.
Bolded - I don't disagree with that, at all. The toxicity and disgusting levels of vitriol they displayed during Obama's first term were absolutely unreal. But just because our opposition is acting in bad faith it does not justify supporting totalitarian positions, for obvious reasons.


If the public does not support what goes on in 4chan or stormfront, why should they support it on the mainstream platforms?
They don't have to support it. They don't have to comment, or like, or subscribe, or any of that. That is one of the often overlooked, amazing aspects of social freedom and the internet as a whole - freedom of participation is built right into it.

If you don't like a post by Alex Jones, or Milo, or any of them, you don't have to like it, you don't have to support it. The post and the poster will survive on their own merits and the level of support they receive will be directly reflected by the quality of their ideas.
 
The baseless and utter shit right-wing positions on immigration are going to win Trump the whitehouse again. Haha
You are absolutely delusional. Trump has the worst polling numbers of any president in modern history.

"but muh polling during the 2016 election"
The polls were right. Hillary won the popular vote by 2-3 million people (gag).
 
My issue is I'm a fervently pro deplatforming but I'm against the angle it's being done from. I'm for deplatforming harmful speech(like SCOTUS was for 100 years ago even though we disagree on what consitutes harmful) the issue is deplatforming is being based on feelings and being offended. I despise the 21st century of freedom of speech, it's beyond the founders comprehension and think except for one of two of them think they'd be appalled this is how their words have been interpreted. But going after offensive rather than speech that is a harm to society is a mistake. Don't think it's against the first amendment think the first amendment's only function is to keep people out of prison for words, but it's petty af and a terrible look.

I oppose people like Kyle and Bill for upholding the principle of what they consider free speech and the "marketplace of idea's" is a sham, if you think a shitty idea can't gain support and facts can't struggle to gain support you are idealistic and naive. But on the substance of these specific cases of censorship I agree with them. If we want to remove speech that harms society, going after people who are basically memes is not the place to start, or finish for that matter. But yeah I see people wanting climate deniers and anti single payer advocates to have a voice as criminals, the worst of the worst.

Think freedom of speech is the main problem with democracy. For democracy to work idea's have to be heavily policed. Without that democracy is a ticking time bomb that'll just go off differently than authoritarianism.

Farrakahn isn't an anti semite IMO and if he is(it's not as outrageous an interpretation as the Omar one was, more understandable), the evidence for him being such can easily be used to dragnet anyone who critiques the Likud. The fault on Alex Jones's conspiracy's being taken literally lies more with his listeners and their mental health than him himself. Conspiracy theories are theories and people consuming that sort of media should realize there's a great chance any theory on his show is false. But more so bothered both people were censored not cause they were harms to public safety because they offended people.

This is why I am a boarder line anarchist.

I do believe in a market place of ideas. I just never promised it would be pretty, or that bad ideas would never win. Order through anarchy.

What is the alternative?

A shadowy cabal of deep state actors?
 
Ya damn nazi

Take offense to that, part my family came from Nazi Germany and unlike some people who are going to worship the culture of the place they came from, I have always condemmed that shit.

Nazism is race based facism. Has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
 
the far right wing is upset that their values are losing the culture war.
If you actually believe that (which I do), then you wouldn't support de-platforming. Right wing ideas are overwhelmingly unpopular and we don't need to grant massive censorship powers to private entities to win.
 
You are absolutely delusional. Trump has the worst polling numbers of any president in modern history.

"but muh polling during the 2016 election"
The polls were right. Hillary won the popular vote by 2-3 million people (gag).

And she lost the election. Talk about delusional, do you even understand how presidential elections are won? There are about 7 states that will decide the next election. Those states are not going to swing for progressive immigration policy, no matter how bad Trump acts. Get a clue dude.
 
I don't see the problem with a private company doing this with their site. A private company is not censoring when they de-platform-- they are keeping the site content the way they want it to be and its their site so they can do whatever they want.

Why not just start a site that doesn't do this and let the free market decide?
Are you suggesting competing with Facebook is a free market? They're a monopoly, they have had help from the feds, not sure how it's free market.

That's cool, but they should tell people popular opinions only, and that their business model is to try to negativly manipulate people's emotions to have them perpetually sad and addicted to Facebook.

That is unless that's something they're not proud of and want to hide, I have no idea why.
 
Is their no ground in between allowing the Anarchist cookbook, and catching a ban for misnaming?

There is room for 100 gradients in between IMO. However it is up to the owners of the site to decide where that line is and the viewers participants to vote with their business and traffic.

I cant see any way around this.
 
Take offense to that, part my family came from Nazi Germany and unlike some people who are going to worship the culture of the place they came from, I have always condemmed that shit.

Nazism is race based facism. Has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Nazism is just facism...period. And part of that facism was limits and restrictions on what people could say and what information could be shared.

Question. Who do you suggest should be in position to police the marketplace of ideas and prevent harmful ones from taking root?
 
The first amendment specifically protects freedom of the press, not just the popular ones.

obviously this is protection from the government and not private companies, but these companies are embracing censoring, no other way to put it.


If a company that's all about communication, sharing thoughts, ideas, emotions and moments, wants to go on record as being firmly against freedom of speech and anxious to shut down the latest trending unpopular opinion of the mob, then that's their decision.

"Join our community, but popular opnions only or we will ban you."
Sounds like a great club, lol.

Oh these are the same tech giants that try to purposely make depressed people more sad and try to manipulate emotions.
Awesome people.

That's not the individual part. Only the government can actually censor the press so that goes without saying.

Those companies are embracing censorship for the same reason they embrace every other thing they do, their bottom line. If being associated with something bad hurts them, censorship is very cheap protection from risk.

I disagreed with FB's decision. But FB through a non naive lens is about collecting ad revenue and selling people's personal information to other people collecting ad revenue. Oh and owning Instagram. It is not about any of that other preachy stuff in anything except maybe mission statement?

An opinion needs to have a potential to be accurate to be an opinion. Can't say an empirically false thing and call it your opinion it isn't, the ambiguity and potential for being true is a requirement for it being an opinion. Of course my argument is divorced from this situation cause this ain't about opinions and facts it's about offensiveness. But freedom of speech proponents are the worst virtue signallers in our society and were doing it for decades before SJW's got shit for copying them.
 
Take offense to that, part my family came from Nazi Germany and unlike some people who are going to worship the culture of the place they came from, I have always condemmed that shit.

Nazism is race based facism. Has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Ehhh, I'm proud to be from German decent.

I prefer to focus on Von Braun, and Beethoven, instead of Hitler and Himmler.
 
Back
Top