- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 991
- Reaction score
- 1,162
Funny to hear the left on here deny the existence of left eing echo chambers. Isn't that what the Lounge thread is?
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,137
- Reaction score
- 5,156
Not very effectively. Literally everything you posted in this thread is low quality junk.
The SPLC had some problems with their past leadership, but Morris Dees is no longer involved in the organization. Given the sources that you've posted in this thread and your advocacy for Stefan Molyneux and Richard Spencer, you're in no position to judge the SPLC's credibility.
Here's the Youtube policy revision that you claim doesn't exist, including a nice history about how they tightened their policies on hate speech and harassment in 2017. Oof. Go ahead and dodge that uncomfortable reality.
Why did Youtube revise the policy? Because advertisers didn't like having their ads running in front of awful content. I think Youtube also had a bit of an internal reckoning over what their algorithm was doing to vulnerable young people.
LOL, you think the guy who says that "mental illness is not real" and "you can't get an organ transplant from a different race" is credible when he says he was in good standing with Youtube? LOL. And what a surprise, he was already demonetized by Youtube last year. Ouch.
Black Pigeon Speaks is another literal neo-nazi. Dude, come on..,
Again, not a reliable source.
So wait, you have an issue with Youtube removing blatant misinformation about coronavirus? And you have "links somewhere?" Holy crap.
This is downright hilarious. You're claiming that the SPLC is a scam org while simultaneously defending scammy hate organizations.
Again, you provide literally no proof for your claims. Every single source you've provided is a total whiff in terms of credibility AND objectivity.
Illegal was a mis-statement, but "against policy" would be more correct. So you think that Richard Spencer or Stefan Molyneux wouldn't get banned if they posted the same sort of content here? Why aren't you upset about content moderation that happens on this forum? Lots of conservatives are regularly banned here as well. It's not "horseshit mental gymnastics" to point out the hypocrisy.
You keep saying "there's lots of evidence" but you only quote extremist websites and the people who were banned from these platforms for bad behavior when asked for that evidence.
LOL, I'm not going to waste my time debunking every grievance that conservatives have with tech company policies that you can find on the Internet. Do companies make mistakes? Sure they do, but they most often correct those mistakes. Is removing Alex Jones, Stefan Molyneux, Felix Lace, and other white supremacists a mistake? Nope, tech companies have their own First Amendment rights to moderate the content on their platforms. You seem to take the clumsy arguments of white supremacists and partisan hacks at face value, even though they have significantly less credibility than the tech companies do.
I'm sure you're going to just go out and Google some more questionable material to respond with, but I'll leave you with a section from one of the articles about the topic that you completely dodged before:
“It’s about using nominal conservatism as a cloak to promote toxic masculinity and white supremacy. It’s about extremists using conservatives,” she said. “Fundamentally, it’s a technique to grab power by gaslighting the public and making reality seem fuzzy.”
The same tactic has been used by other far-right trolls including Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer (who also interrupted proceedings by beseeching Donald Trump to “save” conservatives from social media censorship).
The strategy appears to be working. Social media companies have become more hesitant to ban users even if they flagrantly violate their terms of service out of fear of being painted as censors.
The same tactic has been used by other far-right trolls including Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer (who also interrupted proceedings by beseeching Donald Trump to “save” conservatives from social media censorship).
The strategy appears to be working. Social media companies have become more hesitant to ban users even if they flagrantly violate their terms of service out of fear of being painted as censors.
Well, it worked until it didn't work anymore.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 19,151
- Reaction score
- 71,510
I don't think you read my reply properly. Youtube relaxed their policies as you said here:
Here's the Youtube policy revision that you claim doesn't exist, including a nice history about how they tightened their policies on hate speech and harassment in 2017. Oof. Go ahead and dodge that uncomfortable reality.
Why did Youtube revise the policy? Because advertisers didn't like having their ads running in front of awful content. I think Youtube also had a bit of an internal reckoning over what their algorithm was doing to vulnerable young people.
So I asked you where the (Duke, Molyneux and Spencer) had increase their far right propaganda on their channels here:
What you provided was a link on Molyneux that sources SPLC. But for all I know the content they output was probably the same they had always released, nothing far-right kkk tier. If youtube relaxed the rules last year, as you claim, they also tightened them with new rules and mass action against creators. The trigger for this rule change and the subsequent purge of creators appears to be the fallout from Vox host Carlos Maza pressuring YouTube to censor the comedian Steven Crowder.
https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-new-adpocalypse-hate-speech-rules/
https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-steven-crowder-vox-carlos-maza/
Seems pretty bias to me. Keep changing the rules enough that right wingers fall foul and are removed.
Is this your go-to for everything you can't answer?
Why aren't they a reliable source but the SPLC is?
Molyneux said his channel was active which is true, when they demonetized him the videos remained and he could still upload and share, but the "without problems" is most likely a lie depending on how far you consider being demonetized being a problem. Again I don't think he lasted this long whilst being the super-villain you claim he is, it's clear they were itching to remove him.
I wouldn't call that a literal neo-nazi. Sounds like an SPLC rationalization and character assassination. His view on women could be problematic. It's true that western white women are the only race that vote against their race, but it come across as condescending at least with the addendums.
As for the rest of these ghastly opinions that need to be shut down:
"U.S. domestic and foreign policy as being driven largely by banking interests" is somehow problematic opinion? Even if wrong, I don't see that is ban-worthy.
The article conflates attacking the Rothschilds with anti-semitism. Calls it a "Jewish conspiracy". I honestly never heard of that being anti-semitic. Rothschilds get slammed in plenty of normie places that already ban antisemitism outside of SJW places like Reddit and friends.
"He also devotes an entire video to George Soros’s role in controlling, creating and disrupting global political movements." Ok. What's wrong with that? As above Soros also gets slammed in plenty of normie places. The article didn't even say his evidence was wrong.
He has the opinion that "bank-backed world power structure’s need for new debtors in rich countries where the native or white populations are declining", again he should have a right to that opinion.
He's against immigration in favor of automation instead. As above. Against Islam and it's inherent aim to rule rather than integrate to other societies. Again this is actually a common statement outside of Reddit and friends, even some muslims repeat it.
These are all opinions that appear in forums that aren't youtube or reddit tier moderation. All those opinions are here in the War Room too. The only opinion that is really problematic is the one on women.
This goes back to youtubes rules they keep updating to the point where the opinions above existed for a long time, but they just update them so "borderline" content is red flagged. Described here:
https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-new-adpocalypse-hate-speech-rules/
So anything right wing can be removed very easily. Youtube is quite biased.
I provided the links. You just now did a 1-liner duck to avoid addressing them. Which ones are hate orgs?
https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-ceo-coronavirus-right-information-misinformation/
^
They even reinstated coronavirus videos that were removed because their decision making was so bad.
The link above for Youtube regarding selective enforcement of their "misinformation" rules and this one for Twitter about misinfo:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/26/twitter-censorship-coronavirus-china-world-health-organization/
If they are Black Pigeon tier they wouldn't be. An extreme far white-nationalist according to you and SPLC, someone made a thread here after he was banned on youtube.
It's not perfect, but this place is leagues better than Reddit and some mainstream sites, even with potential biased mods here and there. Reddit is pretty biased alongside youtube and the rest, they play fast and loose with their foggy rules.
https://funkyimg.com/i/35Z4e.jpg
https://funkyimg.com/i/362pz.jpg
Speaking of foggy rules, did you provide the link I asked for before? You claim Reddit clarified the rules. I looked again and they've now removed the "majority" text and re-worded it so there are still conditions someone can have violence threats made against them.
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/160829379/
As for the bit about hypocrisy, I don't know what you're talking about.
BP wasn't given a reason, Hopkins wasn't given a reason. Molyneux said he wasn't given a reason. Then you had Crowder have new rules updated to ban him on request of another youtuber. Youtube has diluted it's own rules so borderline content and the fog of "conspiratorial" and “hateful” can be used quite liberally against any right wing views.
Speaking of mob rule and lobbying against right-wingers:
Facebook caved when several far left companies and brands including: Pepsi, HP and Paypal pulled their ads from Facebook until they ban posts from President Trump. No bias there right? The companies are only concerned about banning conservative voices. You can bet that radical leftists and violent anarchists who are burning cities and destroying statues are safe from being targeted.
More lobbying from the left to get their political opponents banned:
BuzzFeed "Reporter" Who Got Zerohedge Banned On Twitter, Fired For Plagiarism, also a
https://www.zerohedge.com/political...got-zerohedge-banned-twitter-fired-plagiarism
Again I expect you to hand wave away the above and claim it didn't happen lol. There's lots of evidence.
I don't know where you're getting your info that wikipedia is unbiased and just made some mistakes. They smear every prominent conservative in American and beyond. They target prominent conservatives and will not allow them to confront their far left editors or correct their lies. Did they correct the "mistake" in the article?
Sharyl Attkisson does a TEDx talk and discusses Wiki astroturf campaign.
Jump to the 4min mark to hear her talk about wiki or watch the whole video, it's a good one.
https://invidio.us/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
Wikipedia Founder, Larry Sanger he is now a critic of the online encyclopedia he helped to create and spoke out about the liberal bias of Wikipedia.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...-must-be-decentralized-says-wikipedia-founder
https://breakthematrix.com/blog/wik...against-radical-left-taking-over-the-website/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,137
- Reaction score
- 5,156
Youtube didn't relax their policies, they tightened them. I don't know if this is a deliberate attempt by you to misunderstand the situation, but Youtube was doing many of the same things that other social networks were getting called out for, algorithmically driving people towards content that was polarizing so that users would spend more time on the platform.
Come on, this is such a shit argument, and you know it. There are more than just SPLC sources on that page, and Molyneux is well known for white supremacist views. I know you're going to bitch and whine about Wikipedia, but that page is pretty well sourced because of parents who have tried to pull their sons out of Molyneux's weird cult organization.
I could link to Molyneux's blog and some of the incredibly awful shit he posts there, but his site is a hate-filled shithole, so I'll pass.
Same garbage source again. Do you let "reclaimthenet.org" do all your thinking for you?
Crowder was trying to bully a gay journalist, and Youtube demonetized his channel. IMO he got off easy. When he posted here, he was a pretty awful poster.
SPLC is a large organization that partners with tons of other organizations and nonprofits against hate groups. It's just absolutely fucking nuts that you can just sit there and spout dumb shit like "SPLC are dishonest partisan hacks" and then turn right around and say "well, uhh, those Neo Nazis and White Supremacists aren't so bad..." De-clown yourself, for fuck's sake.
"reclaimthenet.org" is just a couple of right-wing marketing grifters who are trying to make money off people like you. It's hilarious that you're so focused on the SPLC making money, when the whole purpose of your site is monetizing bullshit right wing grievances against tech companies.
Are you even serious right now? Demonetization is not a problem? It should have been a clear warning sign for Molyneux that he was on thin ice. It shouldn't have been a surprise that he got banned.
"Only his views on women are problematic and he's not an anti-semite because he uses code words and George Soros is slammed in plenty of other places..."
It's very difficult to take you seriously with arguments like this one. The guy is a straight up neo-nazi and holocaust denier. Even the shit that you deliberately cherry-picked here is in the "whoa, wtf?" category, but it gets worse. It would be more intellectually honest if you argued that you really want to see white supremacist content in the mainstream, instead of fumbling though this lame attempt to make these skinheads seem like not-so-bad dudes.
Youtube is removing hate channels that violate their policies, which is well within their rights. The fact that these groups seem to be more right wing indicates that the right wing has a problem with hate speech and neo-nazi apologism versus any issues with bias on the Youtube side.
You defended Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer's organizations up above. Those are literal neo-nazi groups. They don't even hide it. I'm not going to waste my time with your shit-tier sources. Find something with at least a shred of credibility.
That is a profoundly dumb article. I'm not sure why you would think that is somehow worth posting.
What percentage? Of course, you're not interested in arguing that, because you'd rather just cite anecdotes and cry about the unfairness.
Again, you whine and cry about the SPLC being partisan hacks, but you post this sort of stuff.
LOL, doesn't surprise me at all. There are quite a few people here with white supremacist screen names or avatars.
Reddit responded to feedback about the new rules and clarified that policies about harassment and violence applied to everybody. I provided the link, some of the screenshots that you posted are from that thread.
Again, this pathetic attempt at an argument is a load of horseshit. Youtube doesn't have to give any sort of reason for banning people, and these clowns all know why they were banned. Just bad faith arguments and undeserved victimhood.
Again, you've provided almost zero evidence to back up this claim. If anything, the tech companies seem to be acting in better faith than almost everybody that you're citing here. Maybe you should rethink your viewpoints on this topic.
What does this have to do with anything? Weren't you just whining about "character assassination"?More lobbying from the left to get their political opponents banned:
BuzzFeed "Reporter" Who Got Zerohedge Banned On Twitter, Fired For Plagiarism, also a
https://www.zerohedge.com/political...got-zerohedge-banned-twitter-fired-plagiarism
Again I expect you to hand wave away the above and claim it didn't happen lol. There's lots of evidence.
Hahahaha, I'm not surprised that this guy is a movement conservative:
How exactly is paid editing a left vs. right issue? Are you saying that right wing figures don't pay people to promote right wing viewpoints, which are often fake? Wikipedia's page on COI Editing has their policy and cites this example, along with other examples of COI editing that are right wing or non-partisan.
Again, I'm not too keen on going through every conservative grievance that you can dredge up from the far corners of the Internet. Do you have any real evidence that isn't just conservatives whining about being banned for questionable behavior?
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
let me get this straight - people who are unhappy with the lefty echo chambers make a website based around not censoring... and you blame them and accuse THEM of being an echo chamber? as if lefties can't post there?
they're not the ones removing posts and being generally insane (ie: demanding you upload a scan of your ID, calling a red triangle some kind of "hate symbol," etc and etc)
isn't this EXACTLY what you wanted? didn't you argue repeatedly that they're private companies and can censor all they want? and that if we don't like it, we should go elsewhere? well...
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 4,795
- Reaction score
- 414
opposing views arent allowed in the new america run by tech and corporate HR and threats by the ADL
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,137
- Reaction score
- 5,156
oh no, free services won't let you post hateful shit anymore. the oppression!
somebody call judge judy
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 167
Saying all lives matter is apparently hateful. The double standard on these platforms is out of control.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,137
- Reaction score
- 5,156
Boo hoo, get out the tiki torches then
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 167
No we'll just act like adults and use social media platforms that aren't hypocritical.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,137
- Reaction score
- 5,156
Good luck finding ones that will put up with your bullshit
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,137
- Reaction score
- 5,156
White supremacist Stefan Molyneux's Twitter account was just suspended yesterday
https://screenrant.com/twitter-suspends-stefan-molyneux/
Crocodile tears everywhere
https://screenrant.com/twitter-suspends-stefan-molyneux/
Crocodile tears everywhere
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 21,696
- Reaction score
- 21,148
Trump on free speech:
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Messages
- 35,663
- Reaction score
- 40,167
Trump on free speech:
Pretty sure this is fake news by libtards in response to their meltdown of him putting up his mugshot in the WH.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,514
- Reaction score
- 13,922
What about this one?
Trump bans the world's largest non-profit news organization from the Oval Office and Air Force One because they call the Gulf of Mexico by its actual name.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 21,696
- Reaction score
- 21,148
Alleged Trump memo banning the word 'felon' in the White House is fake
The supposed memo apparently originated from an X account that posts satirical content.
www.snopes.com
@Cajun will never let me live this one down. Fake news but pretty funny.
I stand by my opinion of him putting the mug shot up- that’s pretty damn funny of him too.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 23,754
- Reaction score
- 24,993
But that's not it's name anymore. They must've not gotten the memo.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,039
- Reaction score
- 13,378
Definitely funny haha. Gotta have a sense of humor hereAlleged Trump memo banning the word 'felon' in the White House is fake
The supposed memo apparently originated from an X account that posts satirical content.
@Cajun will never let me live this one down. Fake news but pretty funny.
I stand by my opinion of him putting the mug shot up- that’s pretty damn funny of him too.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Messages
- 35,663
- Reaction score
- 40,167
Yea, you would think the left would support banning people spewing obvious mis and disinformation. If the person doesn’t know simple geography, they are fired!
Latest posts
-
-
-
Media Chito Vera says he got robbed in loss to Aiemann Zahabi- Latest: Connection Lost
-
