Earlier quoted context omitted.
Milo disagrees: https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Milo-Yiannopoulos/dp/069289... lol
That doesn't rule out the likely possibility that he chose that title tongue-in-cheek because many people kept labeling him as such.
Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
331–340 of 776 posts
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#332Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…
Monopolies of what, exactly? I admit to sometimes looking at entertaining videos on youtube. About an hour or maximum two hours a week worth. I'm not sure what you're suggesting that facebook and twitter are monopolizing. I haven't used the former in years and the latter just about ever -- aside from maybe five tweets over the course of twitter's existence.
Monopolies of online discourse? Attention? Entertainment? Clearly we're not using any of those platforms now.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ..when their product category is fundamental to modern life. FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. They aren't even fundamental to gaining an audience. Lots of businesses[1] manage to turn handsome profits without advertising on those platforms. [1] And that's what infowars/milo are -- businesses looking for make a profit by producing social commentary and then selling ad space / books / videos / merch…
>FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. Neither are cakes. But people on left celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - seem quite similar to the people on the left also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake. Can't have it both ways. (edited for clarity)
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#334Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#335I am sure there will be many people cheering. However people don't seem to realise that just because it isn't you getting censored now, it may well be you in the future. What is deemed acceptable and what isn't deemed acceptable are quite transient. It wasn't long ago it was unacceptable/illegal to be a homosexual, but now it is at least (in the Western world) readily accepted. I wonder if facebook was around in the…
It may be me in the future. In fact, it's already happened to me before! I've been banned from a few forums and IRC channels in my day. The people there didn't like what I had to say. Am I angry? No. Because I've also run my own forums, and relied on the ability to ban and moderate comments in order to maintain a useful discussion. But wait, Facebook isn't the same a forum, right? Well, it is, it's just bigger. Way b…
Google is starting to crack (lost 70billion this week) and I suspect some of the other large silicon valley giants will start to crumble in the next decade.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous…
> How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe co…
> You have to show some evidence for a wild claim like that, because you're insinuating that Paul Joseph Watson and Milo are getting people killed.
I have no clue who these people are, but since I happen to have a young child I actually put some effort into figuring out the pros and cons of vaccination. Turns out that the people who don't vaccinate (for whatever reason be it religious or autism or whatever -- this is irrelevant) have outbreaks/pandemics of the diseases. It also turns out that the people who do vaccinate serve as protective shield for those who don't. Essentially, the people who don't vaccinate are like freeriders, leeches. They get the benefits from vaccination (less outbreak/pandemic) without the effort (getting vaccinated). The evidence is pretty simple actually.
Quoting from [1]: "An aspect of Bible Belt society that has drawn the attention of the Dutch general public in recent years (when concerns of a measles epidemic emerged) is the suspicion of parents towards state-run vaccination programmes."
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ..when their product category is fundamental to modern life. FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. They aren't even fundamental to gaining an audience. Lots of businesses[1] manage to turn handsome profits without advertising on those platforms. [1] And that's what infowars/milo are -- businesses looking for make a profit by producing social commentary and then selling ad space / books / videos / merch…
>FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. Neither are cakes. But people on left celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - seem quite similar to the people on the left also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake. Can't have it both ways. (edited for clarity)
Do you have any data on this question? Or is this just a blind assumption that "people who disagree with me on X probably also disagree with me about Y"?
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone comes to your house. Your private property. They proceed to call your daughter a whore. Do you and your daughter kick them out? Or Do you and your daughter try to explain to them why your daughter's not a whore while you all sit in your living room? It's a personal dilemma. I'll admit it. But for my part, the guy's getting thrown out on his rear if he insults my daughters, significant other, or my mother or g…
Your analogy works great except that "someone" is actually 1/4 of the humans currently alive, your "house" is now the primary, perhaps only, communication medium for those ~2 billion people, and its a couple million people in your basement calling your daughter a whore.
Is it your view that a man's property rights are inversely proportional to the number of people who covet his property?
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#339Facebook is not a public square. I love public spaces. Shouldn’t we pay for one? I don’t care if Facebook has a darling reputation; ought it run our public and private meeting spaces?
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - 9/11 was an inside job And yet the opposing simplistic narrative of "Terrorists hate our freedom" has caused orders of magnitude more harm. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost! But since that is the power-structure-approved message, it was/is heartily repeated (along side yellow cake, aluminum tubes, etc). If someone can't grasp the bigger ideas of multiple independent actors each with their own divergent motivat…
How many deaths would have happened if everyone in group “inside job” switched opinions with everyone in group “they hate our freedoms”? It’s not often good for mortality rates if the people turn against their government, even when they are right to do so.
Conspiracy theories are direct responses to the official narrative being crafted as a gradient of opinion-facts that frame a political conclusion as if it's irrefutable. When rationality is abused to marginalize a viewpoint, that viewpoint shirks rationality.
Suppressing counter-sanctioned viewpoints ultimately just causes that divergence to continue growing, setting it up to pop even more drastically. If the goal is to prevent fire, the best approach is to not have fuel sitting around. If you truly want to prevent violent collapse, then work to oppose the corrupt controlling agenda that's being pushed "rationally", rather than low-effort shouting down of wacky opposition.
PS note that's all from a solely USian internal perspective. It's not really any consolation to eg the dead Iraqis that the US avoided a domestic revolution by killing them instead.