-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Massive cross-platform censorship just happened
- Thread starter Klompen
- Start date
White Beard
Active member
Can’t really comment, I have no interest in fights beyond winning the ones I can’t avoid.
Klompen
Active member
nonsense. most people DON'T think for themselves. they parrot someone they agree with/want to be associated with. bandwagon jumpers want to be associated with what they think is a "winner". there were a hell of a lot more Dallas Cowboy hats & shirts seen in public when they were winning Super Bowls (or getting whipped by the Steelers, LOL!) thus the large numbers of people that say stupid shit like "i like Trump, he tells it like it is!" no, he says what he thinks uneducated voters want to hear. if Trump acted around their wives & daughters the way he has around other women, some good ol' boy would have already killed him & been feted with a parade in his honor...
nothing is stopping ANYONE from speaking. but websites are certainly within their rights to toss anyone that does not understand that rules are for everyone...even (or especially) the reality-challenged...
Well.....if you did have an interest in that fight you would notice that McGregor was all boasting and full of himself before the fight - with all the bru-ha-ha, insults and threats that goes with it - but the Russian opponent ended up tying McGregor in knots - winning the bought - so embarrassing McGregor immensely...
Klompen
Active member
nothing is stopping ANYONE from speaking. but websites are certainly within their rights to toss anyone that does not understand that rules are for everyone...even (or especially) the reality-challenged...
Stopping people from getting their message out is the same thing as silencing them. Social media is a major feature of our American lives these days, and that media has been increasingly monopolized. Now, with the end of Net Neutrality we are facing a situation where even attempting to challenge them with alternatives will risk being throttled by service providers. It wouldn't be a big deal if the game wasn't completely rigged and we weren't facing a monopoly situation.
I will try and keep ICMAG here for as long as I can - as a place where we can discuss sensitive and crucial topics without interference from those that might censor us - so long as members respect other members rights to have opposing views and sensibly, reasonably debate over them - without the gamut of personal attacks and flaming this type of openness often attracts - it can work.
they are not silenced by not being given the platform they prefer. disadvantaged? damn right. a level playing field is desirable but probably not attainable. there are, no doubt, other outlets. if enough people demand a certain product/service etc, someone will provide it for a price. i see the source of your concern here though.
nonsense. most people DON'T think for themselves. they parrot someone they agree with/want to be associated with. bandwagon jumpers want to be associated with what they think is a "winner". there were a hell of a lot more Dallas Cowboy hats & shirts seen in public when they were winning Super Bowls (or getting whipped by the Steelers, LOL!) thus the large numbers of people that say stupid shit like "i like Trump, he tells it like it is!" no, he says what he thinks uneducated voters want to hear. if Trump acted around their wives & daughters the way he has around other women, some good ol' boy would have already killed him & been feted with a parade in his honor...
yeah it's nonsense....
it's gonna be so funny when all the progressives and left wing folks start getting censored by the Trump admin next presidential campaign, using these exact precedents as their excuse.
That’s true, except it has been established the internet is considered ‘public’. This is going to be some tough sledding ahead through courts and such. Some seem to refer to the Supreme Court ruling where a JW was preaching in the streets of a corporate ‘owned’ town as the precedent set for future litigation
Please elaborate.
You wrote it...
I was just commenting...
Is the internet public or private?
I'd say it is predominantly PRIVATE!
If it were public Gypsie would be getting paid via tax money for his site or at least have it paid for and not require donations to keep it abreast.
I'm under the impression that Gypsie has to pay (a private enterprize) for the space and bandwidth used for IC mag.
I was just commenting...
Is the internet public or private?
I'd say it is predominantly PRIVATE!
If it were public Gypsie would be getting paid via tax money for his site or at least have it paid for and not require donations to keep it abreast.
I'm under the impression that Gypsie has to pay (a private enterprize) for the space and bandwidth used for IC mag.
White Beard
Active member
I didn’t mean to dismiss this post...it’s true I have no comment on a professional fight I didn’t see, but your comment stands.
I have always been an odd bird in the USA. By the time I was ten, I had seen racism at its ugliest and most callous, I had seen the respectable people kowtowing to the wealthy and powerful, and I knew which side I was on. I grew up as a second-amendment supporting, deeply religious strict-constructionist in the Deep South, and it took me a long time to put together enough pieces to make any sense of things.
It took a lot of effort over years to clear myself of the effects of a racist, evangelical, and anti-worker childhood, and I maintained my political interests and associations up until 1994. The Contract on America and Gingrich’s speakership changed Washington more than Reagan had, and it changed the patriot movement, too: the wide-ranging debates were flattened into liberal hate-feasts, and sound argument began to drain out of the movement. Eventually, I stopped trying to make myself heard in that crowd, demonizing the opposition had replaced conservative principle, there was no one left to talk to.
Since then, I’ve been trying to wake people up as to the deep changes in the no-longer-conserving-anything “conservative” ranks, to get them to take those changes seriously. They didn’t happen overnight, and no one Election is going to change our course without full-throated support from a larger group of citizens than our currently fractured public seems able to muster.
As time goes on, the situation gets more dire, my efforts redouble, but there’s so much chaff in the air it’s hard to be sure of your direction, and I get older, too...and more tired.
The fact that decades of observation have given me certainty regarding what’s going on below the surface here doesn’t make up for the blizzard of bullshit distractions thrown into the flow by rage radio, Alex Jones, and the rest of the disinformation division.
So if my words have angst to them, I’m not terribly surprised: I’ve spent fifty years trying to prevent what’s going on now.
Last edited:
Not MY personal ‘spin’ sir. I personally don’t agree with gov. Internet regulation nor do I really agree w MOST gov regulations. I have multiple federal lawyers talk about this subject after AJ had his accounts suspended. (No I don’t support Alex Jones). And at least 3 referenced this same court case as possible precedent. If I can be bothered later to look it up, I’ll provide link to said case. Yes, this site is privately owned.
Lovell v city of griffin
Klompen
Active member
they are not silenced by not being given the platform they prefer. disadvantaged? damn right. a level playing field is desirable but probably not attainable. there are, no doubt, other outlets. if enough people demand a certain product/service etc, someone will provide it for a price. i see the source of your concern here though.
There are other outlets, but Facebook and Twitter have billions of people on them, whereas even the next biggest competitors reach a tiny fraction of those numbers. There was at one point a strong competition between Myspace and Facebook, but then Fox News owner Newscorp bought Myspace and essentially destroyed it as a social media platform.
Now with Net Neutrality dead in the water, if a service like Comcast or AT&T(or a cooperative agreement between them) decides to throttle(or even block) a site like MeWe and favor a site like Facebook; any content delivered through that alternative site will be much harder to get. The courts in this country have already made it quite clear that telephone companies can't tell you what you can and cannot say over the phone, but the effort by government actors in recent times is to apply a totally different logic to the internet despite similar monopoly conditions for many of the services.
Ahhh, this Alex Jones fella getting thrown off some social media sites - I did watch a bit of his stuff - but all the shouting he does as a form of delivery as he presents whatever he presents kinda puts me off - but quite a few people seem to like what he spouts - some of it is or could be credible - even if some of it is just more foil hat stuff - should it not be up to the reader/viewer to make up their own minds about what they read or view?......rather than have some nanny global power tell us what we can consume via the internet/media?
when FB, Twitter and youtube started they all pretended to be neutral platforms where anyone can have a voice and the users decide what they want to read or watch. they ran like that long enough to become monopoly like monsters and then they pulled the rug out from under their members with 1 restriction after another ending with full blow censorship of certain topics and or certain opinions on certain subjects.
classic bait and switch, they made it seem all inclusive till they got the people hooked to their platforms and then came the new terms and conditions, the demonitizing and so on, till today when they make no bones about it, they will censor you if they feel like it, just likethey made it clear that they will financially ruin your channel on youtube if they feel like it for any reason. so of course we should complain, ideally we should abandon these places for open source free speech oriented platforms.
like i said i will be reminding you all how they are "private companies" when Trump finds a way to force them to do his bidding using these precedents about "inauthentic behaviour", or "hate speech", then it won't be Alex Jones or Minds.com they censor but your FAVORITE ALTERNATIVE NEWS SITES.
Americans, are supposed to look at free speech as a kind of God, instead all i see is folks shrugging, it's only Alex Jones, who cares? this is so short sighted i can't believe more don't see the danger.
classic bait and switch, they made it seem all inclusive till they got the people hooked to their platforms and then came the new terms and conditions, the demonitizing and so on, till today when they make no bones about it, they will censor you if they feel like it, just likethey made it clear that they will financially ruin your channel on youtube if they feel like it for any reason. so of course we should complain, ideally we should abandon these places for open source free speech oriented platforms.
like i said i will be reminding you all how they are "private companies" when Trump finds a way to force them to do his bidding using these precedents about "inauthentic behaviour", or "hate speech", then it won't be Alex Jones or Minds.com they censor but your FAVORITE ALTERNATIVE NEWS SITES.
Americans, are supposed to look at free speech as a kind of God, instead all i see is folks shrugging, it's only Alex Jones, who cares? this is so short sighted i can't believe more don't see the danger.
Last edited:
I think AJ is more controlled opp than anything else. I think he may drop dimes, but then the shouting crazy rants are used to ‘dispel’ what he is saying. As stated before, I personally don’t like AJ, but agree with Gauis it is much bigger than AJ alone
