They call Dramanauts, Autists. Autists... easily duped, will believe anything, and by the time the destruction is upon them, one or more of their family has been captured and turned against the team. "/r/Drama has served us well...," one captor gloated.
Wrong. There are thousands of Blue Check M*rks with hundreds of thousands of followers spouting shit like kill all men or kill white people with 30k likes and retweets, completely untouched.
Wrong, and wrong. Your mother tearfully called me to apologize for your outbursts just now. She confided in me that she's incredibly disappointed in her son and she keeps a gun in the bed side table in case she decides you kill you and herself to spare the shame and humiliation of birthing such an extreme failure. You have a low IQ, do not reply to me you subhuman garbage.
Sure, they can and in an ideal world this wouldn't pose any problem.
If we had a healthy market, there would be a lot of competition or the possibility of starting up your own service.
However, the internet is pretty centralized. That coupled with the fact that ToS can basically be set arbitrarily (with the exception of things like protected classes), means that a few companies can basically completely silence you.
Even if they are now using this for good, that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set in my opinion.
Sure, they can and in an ideal world this wouldn't pose any problem. If we had a healthy market, there would be a lot of competition or the possibility of starting up your own service.
You have the possibility of starting your own social media service.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Yes, you can start a service, but not one that is actually able to compete. As I've stated before, the internet is so heavily centralized, if you're barred from the most popular platforms, you might as well not exist.
Can you really not see how this can be used to silence people?
The various regulations which could prevent this sort of monopolization; anti-trust laws and net neutrality; are being destroyed by the very party which is now suffering from this monopoly
Suddenly being all "corporations can do whatever they want" to own Alex Jones/the altright just seems kinda retarded to me. They may deserve it, but it's not like this is happening in some far of place.
One huge problem is that alternative social networks started specifically in reaction to censorship of racist and hateful content tend to quickly become garbage dumps filled with Nazis that nobody wants to visit besides the far right. Think about gab, almost zero reason to use it unless you're pretty far to the right and are bad at dog whistling.
Sure, that's part of the problem. Another problem though is that larger sites are better for their purpose, so smaller sites just get drowned out. Everyone uses twitter, so there's no point in using sites other than twitter because they're less efficient at delivering your message.
Google+ had quite a bit invested in it and it's largely a huge failure.
Everyone used Myspace, but they don't any more. Instagram and WhatsApp were eating Facebook's lunch until they gave up and bought them out. Snapchat was a threat, but they just suck now.
Google+ had quite a bit invested in it and it's largely a huge failure.
> Yes, you can start a service, but not one that is actually able to compete.
Why not? Because the current ones are too popular and yours that just started isnt? Don't confuse "difficult to compete in" with "not able to compete". It's absolutely possible to create a niche social media site and capture a small amount of users. It's also possible to beat major platforms - with shitloads of money and on a decade long timeline, just like any other industry with major established industry leaders. Just get gud lol
> Can you really not see how this can be used to silence people?
Because the current ones are too popular and yours that just started isnt?
Because this doesn't address the problem that the owners of the top platforms can basically decide what information is allowed to widely spread. Social media lives and dies by the capacity to spread information which itself is influenced by the size of its userbase. There's a reason they've ballooned to such massive size in such a small amount of time with only a small amount of services at the top. A small social network is essentially gimped in its effectiveness.
And sure, they won't be able to completely silence someone, but censorship isn't required to be airtight to be effective.
Because this doesn't address the problem that the owners of the top platforms can basically decide what information is allowed to widely spread
on that platform. Which has been true for literally every privately owned platform ever - TV channels, radio stations, etc.
And sure, they won't be able to completely silence someone, but censorship isn't required to be airtight to be effective.
I agree it's effective - because you lose access to an extremely effective platform. I just don't see why you are entitled to have that particular privately owned platform. Especially when hosting your own platform(website) - while maybe not as effective as social media - is still one of the most effective platforms in history, being available internationally and able to be shared with just a link.
Which has been true for literally every privately owned platform ever - TV channels, radio stations, etc.
I'd argue that the difference there is that none of these were ever nearly as dominated by so few companies. There's hundreds and hundreds of potential competitors that all have a decent amount of reach. Sure, there are some dominant ones, but none have comparable power to the likes of facebook, twitter or instagram
I just don't see why you are entitled to have that particular privately owned platform.
Well, I'd say that it's because that platform is so large and has such a huge potential impact that it either should be broken up or heavily regulated. Breaking it up is somewhat unrealistic, especially because digital platforms trend towards centralization, so making it available for everyone just seems like the best bet.
is still one of the most effective platforms in history, being available internationally and able to be shared with just a link
I'd agree, theoretically. But I just don't see it being something that actually gets used. I actually can't remember the last time someone just sent me a link that wasn't work related and not on some content aggregator/social platform.
People in general don't want to hear what the far-right is selling. Especially when they're super obnoxious about it. And so a major company bans them as contributors. It's the marketplace of ideas, bro.
Losers pretend like they're entitled to be heard, but they're not.
It seems like the simplest solution might be to try and tone down the toxicity. Kinda like what thermobitch did when he got a couple of strikes against..
I mean hell even Richard Spencer is still on twatter and he’s literally a nazi.
The difference is that the president is a government official and The First Amendment prohibits government officials from suppressing speech on the basis of viewpoint ... So as soon as trump is no long president and therefore a private citizen he can block every single twatter user if he wants to.
This shows a tenuous grasp, at best, of the first amendment. The first amendment doesn't "prohibit government officials from suppressing speech". Why don't you go reread that one, bud and try again
Yes it does. Why? Because a government official is representing oh you know the government.
Turning to the merits of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests. In sum, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
This is the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs as written by judge Buchwald.
Is that your only sponse to being such a smug tard that you tried to call me out when it’s clear as day that you don’t even understand the first amendment?
Also “settled law” maybe was to declarative of a statement but it’s now precedent and wasn’t appealed.
since you're too thick skulled to understand what I mean, the first amendment doesnt have shit to do with "government officials" or even the executive branch. literally the first word is "congress"
Gdddamn dude you really aren’t just pretending. Just to make sure I am understanding correctly under your galaxy brain interpretation of the first amendment the executive branch and judicial branch are free to suppress a citizens right to freedom of speech as infinitum. I here I thought public civics education was better in the 60s.
I’m a regular who’s been a regarded dramanaut for like 2 years now. This account is just to ride out a temp suspension for “abusing” the report button on r/ conservative.. I generally like your posts but this is a bad bad take imo
You have the possibility of starting your own social media service.
Oh go fuck yourself. Gab tried this and got blacklisted by the Android and Apple stores, threatened by their registrar, payment processors, Mastercard, Visa etc
The end point of this is some cunt like you saying "well then go start your own hundred billion dollar hardware global duopoly" "well then go start your own globe spanning computer interface network", "well then go start your own multinational card payment system.
The next time a Chinese dissident complains about being abducted by the secret police, you should say "hurr durr, well go start your own country then lol"
Lets see. Did they create their own social media service? Check! Looks like i was right after all
The end point of this is some cunt like you saying "well then go start your own hundred billion dollar hardware global duopoly" "well then go start your own globe spanning computer interface network", "well then go start your own multinational card payment system.
Hey, I said you could start your own service, didn't say you'd magically be equally successful as twitter. Turns it takes a shitload of money to reach the same level as established billion dollar industry leaders that have been here for more than a decade. Congratulations, that's how most markets work.
The next time a Chinese dissident complains about being abducted by the secret police
You guys are hilarious lmfao, yes a person being banned from twitter is exactly like that
Pharmacies shouldn't have to give out birth control if they don't want to, but Twitter absolutely has a moral responsibility to carry Alex Jones's brain parasites on their air waves
Would you be okay with airlines refusing service to people whose political views they disagree with?
I'd think it was a stupid decision and would say they were being retarded, but it's not unconstitutional.
What if the airline in question was the only one that serviced that particular route? The traveler could always drive or walk, after all.
This is a fair point, and I do think a case can be made for a higher legal requirements when a reasonable alternative isn't available. However, that'd be up to legislators to enact as it's not a constitutional right.
You have the possibility of starting your own social media service.
Yes, and the people who did that (Gab.ai) were driven out of business when Apple and Google refused to allow them in the app stores b/c they permitted "hate speech."
I share commie talking points, but defend Alex Jones's right to be retarded. I'd argue that's a pretty radical centrist point of view (or national bolshevik, I guess)
Oh I do, but there's ltrly no government interference preventing Alex Jones's right to share his retardation with the world. Instead of threatening companies with government intervention, maybe a better idea to convince them that it's in their business interest to cater to you or use the spotlight to promote somewhere else where his nutbag fans can find him. Y'know, somewhere like:
I mean, I don't actually care about Alex Jones's right to spread shit on social media, but rather the potential implications.
What if those companies ever decide to suppress some news/people because it makes sense from a business perspective? It's not like companies are known for their moral integrity.
Sure, the people affected can set up their own sites, but if you get banned from social media and google, you're essentially dead to 99.5% of people on the internet. Especially if it's not some major issue, I'm pretty sure large companies could pretty effectively drown it out.
If say, Facebook banned negative articles about Facebook on Facebook, I'd defend Facebook's legal right to do so and still make fun of them for doing it.
Are you going to whine that YouTube won't host your German fisting porn? Yes, but there's porn sites and the gubmint shouldn't force Google to host it.
but if you get banned from social media and google, you're essentially dead to 99.5% of people on the internet.
And there's no better time to change that with new competition.
Are you going to whine that YouTube won't host your German fisting porn? Yes, but there's porn sites and the gubmint shouldn't force Google to host it.
Ideally, I'd of course say that there'd be lots of small websites that each have their own thing that they dedicate themselves toward. In practice the power of centralized platforms is just too strong though. So, yes, I'd argue that sites that don't have a specific focus should serve absolutely everyone.
And there's no better time to change that with new competition.
The issue is that most of the time it just won't be practical. I mean, would you honestly switch to some new social media platform just because Google/Twitter/whoever did something fucked up? Because I know I certainly wouldn't, at least not unless they gain a large userbase, which just isn't realistic in a lot of cases.
So, yes, I'd argue that sites that don't have a specific focus should serve absolutely everyone.
That's nice. Then try to sue or get it passed as a law and then defend it in court.
The issue is that most of the time it just won't be practical. I mean, would you honestly switch to some new social media platform just because Google/Twitter/whoever did something fucked up? Because I know I certainly wouldn't, at least not unless they gain a large userbase, which just isn't realistic in a lot of cases. It's possible but that sounds like effort.
I'm allowed to protest soldier's funerals with signs that say God Hates Fags. I'm allowed to march through a majority Jewish neighborhood in full Nazi regalia. There's plenty of objectionable shit that people are allowed to do.
There's nothing wrong with complaining about things private individuals and corporations do. You can do something that's perfectly legal with your business and I can find that thing pants on head retarded and bitch about it.
I’ve seen countless videos people post of themselves bullying others, fighting, shooting people, but damn, call a cnn employee a rat to his face and you’re done.
Reddit is very well known for only applying the site rules when shit gets in the news.
Like the NYT reporter who posted some racist shit about whites when she had like 80 followers, then Candace Owens reposts it with thousands and acts all outraged when she gets a light suspension for it. Dude no one gave a shit when Sarah Jeong posted that shit to her small network of SJW friends. Sites are not able to devote all possible attention to any trivial issue.
Now we get into the ' I am for an unregulated and free market except for when it effects ME' territory. The hypocrisy at the root of most people. So, should the market be regulated or not?
This seems unwise given that congress is already holding hearings.
Everyone knows this is headed toward common carrier status for these companies anyway. If you target political types...well, they vote. Politicians give a shit when you target them, even when they are 100% fucking nuts. Because they vote.
Rubio's one guy. When you systematically target entire political movements, favoring one guy isn't going to have much of an effect in my view, but I could be wrong.
That's nonsense. Because there is nothing especial about twitter technology, twitter is popular because people use it. That's it. You or i could set up a twitter clone or 10 if we wanted to.
Websites cover the entire globe by default. ISPs, on the other hand, have to peer in order to work at all.
As for the "stillborn" part, that's purely a marketing problem. The fact that social media sites are so dime-a-dozen that it's impossible to stand out in the marketplace is not a reason to regulate them.
ISPs, on the other hand, have to peer with each other, and have to actually get the last mile delivery set up, in order to work.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Tier 2 networks have to buy transit, so what?
is not a reason to regulate them
but why? Why does the kind of problem matter? It's not like it's easier to set up a social media site, just because the main problem is a marketing rather than a technical one.
Marketing "constraints" change constantly. Social media's predecessor was federated by the UUCP protocol in the Usenet network. The biggest federation point is increasingly mobile notifications, which could make social networks as relevant as Usenet providers in the near future. Or not; it's hard to tell.
Well yeah, but that's how positive network externalities work to create monopolies. No one has ever thought that Microsoft had the best operating system, but it still ended up running on something like 85% of computers largely due to a historical accident where MS made a ship date a few months before its competitors did back in like 1981.
Alex Jones is about to learn he’s really just a nobody in the grand scheme of things and has absolutely no power. First his kids get taken away, now his career.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot)
Jones was suspended from Twitter for one week last month after he posted a video in which he said, "Now is time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag." But Twitter did not ban him from its platform then, even after YouTube, Apple and Facebook each kicked him off.
After Dorsey himself tweeted that Twitter was not banning Jones like its counterparts had because "He hasn't violated our rules," an investigation by Darcy led to Twitter admitting that in fact at least seven tweets had broken its rules.
Jones shouted at Darcy for more than ten minutes, accusing him of being in favor of censorship and insulting his appearance, comparing him to "a rat" and told Darcy he was "Evil-looking." Jones was live on Twitter's Periscope service the whole time.
It's good business sense for Alex to get himself banned from every platform possible, it galvanizes his following and gets them to buy more water filters and Brain Force.
I think in the long run its a deathknell. Open and free (except when you're booted off) platforms like Youtube and Twitter mesh well with the constant conversation that is happening. When you're only on your own website, people just forget about you for the most part. Look at what happened to Milo when he switched to full subscription, everyone stopped talking about him.
Jones will survive at subsistence level, but his relevance will tank and he'll no longer have whatever political clout and influence he had. Which is probably the point.
I dunno, they seem to be winning right now? Getting the grassroots of your political opponents run off any and all platforms seems like a pretty neat advantage to have, regardless of what else is going on.
Milo also appealed to people who exist predominately online, as opposed to Jones, who I assume has an audience composed mostly of geriatric boomers who will follow him anywhere.
Does him pushing some left wing conspiracy theories alongside the more well known right wing ones make him less of a tard? At least he's well-rounded idiocally.
I actually don't think he's a racistsexist, from what I've seen of him being a little more personal (like on Joe Rogan). And he has pushed some more reasonable conspiracy theories - but his credibility goes out the fucking window when he gets to the psychic vampires from the 5th dimension which may or may not be metaphorical.
Yeah, that shit was freaky. Context makes plenty of conspiracy videos completely explainable. But I haven't heard one for that, and it's not that far fetched to assume there are richy rich cults. Doesn't mean they're all pedos or all murderers, but there's probably some secret clubs.
Why does Alex Jones keep being called far right or alt right? He just preys off of mentally ill people's irrational fears, whatever they may be for that given year. Trying to fit crazy into the left-right paradigm just makes he left-right paradigm bend to fit crazy, not a great idea in the longterm.
It's because the anti government radical movement are usually white extremists...theyre he same people who believed William Cooper and read The Turner Diaries, voted for Trump and believe Q is real. The left has Anarchism but that movement is not as hysterical and mostly full of idealistic millennials who believe the conspiracy is rooted in systematic racism and classism, not satan worship and adrinochrome harvesting
151 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2018-09-06
They call Dramanauts, Autists. Autists... easily duped, will believe anything, and by the time the destruction is upon them, one or more of their family has been captured and turned against the team. "/r/Drama has served us well...," one captor gloated.
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 SnapshillBot 2018-09-06
We can submit quotes?
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 McFluffTheCrimeCat 2018-09-06
Cue Republican reeeing about how they have they have the dog given right to break the ToS of a website...
1 snowkarl 2018-09-06
Everyone breaks the TOS but only certain people get banned. Either the rules apply to everyone or no one.
1 Ls777 2018-09-06
Why? Businesses are allowed to arbitrarily refuse service
1 LightUmbra 2018-09-06
They can't refuse him just because he's disabled.
1 Pickled_Kagura 2018-09-06
it's just a character he plays
He then eats a big bowl of chili and forgets everything he said in-character
1 snowkarl 2018-09-06
Sure but then you can't frame it like 'oh he just broke the rules and that's why he was banned' - he was banned for his opinion.
​
I mean sure he's crazy but 90% of twitter posts are made by absolute lunatics
1 Ls777 2018-09-06
Sure you can, they just did exactly that lol
Who mostly don't have millions of people following them, so who cares
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-09-06
False, look at any celebrity timeline.
1 JackRipener 2018-09-06
Wrong. There are thousands of Blue Check M*rks with hundreds of thousands of followers spouting shit like kill all men or kill white people with 30k likes and retweets, completely untouched.
1 preserved_fish 2018-09-06
Even if white males weren't the most persecuted group in society, you'd still never get into MIT.
1 JackRipener 2018-09-06
I have no clue what relevance this comment has to mine, but I wish you well on your journey to watching your girlfriend take bbc.
1 preserved_fish 2018-09-06
You are a target of gang-stalking, persecuted resentful bro.
1 JackRipener 2018-09-06
Wrong. Now delete your account to spare us all the embarassment of having you around you drooling mongoloid.
1 preserved_fish 2018-09-06
sorry that this notice of being a gang-stalkee got u so upset. also sorry about all the rejection letters.
1 JackRipener 2018-09-06
Wrong, and wrong. Your mother tearfully called me to apologize for your outbursts just now. She confided in me that she's incredibly disappointed in her son and she keeps a gun in the bed side table in case she decides you kill you and herself to spare the shame and humiliation of birthing such an extreme failure. You have a low IQ, do not reply to me you subhuman garbage.
1 preserved_fish 2018-09-06
You all are sperging so hard right now.
1 BeingofUniverse 2018-09-06
Just ignore them, they're probably the alt of an MDEtard.
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-09-06
90% of Twitterers don't directly harass one of the site's owners face-to-face, though
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Sure, they can and in an ideal world this wouldn't pose any problem. If we had a healthy market, there would be a lot of competition or the possibility of starting up your own service.
However, the internet is pretty centralized. That coupled with the fact that ToS can basically be set arbitrarily (with the exception of things like protected classes), means that a few companies can basically completely silence you.
Even if they are now using this for good, that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set in my opinion.
1 Ls777 2018-09-06
You have the possibility of starting your own social media service.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Yes, you can start a service, but not one that is actually able to compete. As I've stated before, the internet is so heavily centralized, if you're barred from the most popular platforms, you might as well not exist.
Can you really not see how this can be used to silence people?
1 selectrix 2018-09-06
"Nationalize Twitter!"
tankies get out
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
If you don't think Google should be nationalized first, you're no comrade of mine.
I'd also be fine with just more regulations in general. I just don't want to be forced to suck tech corp cock for all eternity.
1 E_G_Never 2018-09-06
Oh no, if only we had government regulations to prevent this sort of thing
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Not sure what you point is?
1 E_G_Never 2018-09-06
The various regulations which could prevent this sort of monopolization; anti-trust laws and net neutrality; are being destroyed by the very party which is now suffering from this monopoly
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
I mean, yeah?
Suddenly being all "corporations can do whatever they want" to own Alex Jones/the altright just seems kinda retarded to me. They may deserve it, but it's not like this is happening in some far of place.
1 AHealthySenseofDread 2018-09-06
I don't know, I can manage to suffer through drinking in their own self inflicted crocodile tears a second longer before we start over reacting
1 IllustriousQuail 2018-09-06
Neither of those would apply to this situation. Sincerely, a lawyer.
1 WhatsupDoc001 2018-09-06
Net neutrality has nothing to do with corporations having an oligopoly over the internet.
1 watermark02 2018-09-06
One huge problem is that alternative social networks started specifically in reaction to censorship of racist and hateful content tend to quickly become garbage dumps filled with Nazis that nobody wants to visit besides the far right. Think about gab, almost zero reason to use it unless you're pretty far to the right and are bad at dog whistling.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Sure, that's part of the problem. Another problem though is that larger sites are better for their purpose, so smaller sites just get drowned out. Everyone uses twitter, so there's no point in using sites other than twitter because they're less efficient at delivering your message.
Google+ had quite a bit invested in it and it's largely a huge failure.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
Everyone used Myspace, but they don't any more. Instagram and WhatsApp were eating Facebook's lunch until they gave up and bought them out. Snapchat was a threat, but they just suck now.
That was because the execution sucked.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Sure, but you don't see a proliferation of smaller services, it just changes who is dominant at the time.
Man, I actually liked it. But even if you think it sucked, there's enough historical evidence that the better option doesn't always win.
1 Ls777 2018-09-06
> Yes, you can start a service, but not one that is actually able to compete.
Why not? Because the current ones are too popular and yours that just started isnt? Don't confuse "difficult to compete in" with "not able to compete". It's absolutely possible to create a niche social media site and capture a small amount of users. It's also possible to beat major platforms - with shitloads of money and on a decade long timeline, just like any other industry with major established industry leaders. Just get gud lol
> Can you really not see how this can be used to silence people?
For a specific definition of silencing, sure
​
​
​
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Because this doesn't address the problem that the owners of the top platforms can basically decide what information is allowed to widely spread. Social media lives and dies by the capacity to spread information which itself is influenced by the size of its userbase. There's a reason they've ballooned to such massive size in such a small amount of time with only a small amount of services at the top. A small social network is essentially gimped in its effectiveness.
And sure, they won't be able to completely silence someone, but censorship isn't required to be airtight to be effective.
1 Ls777 2018-09-06
on that platform. Which has been true for literally every privately owned platform ever - TV channels, radio stations, etc.
I agree it's effective - because you lose access to an extremely effective platform. I just don't see why you are entitled to have that particular privately owned platform. Especially when hosting your own platform(website) - while maybe not as effective as social media - is still one of the most effective platforms in history, being available internationally and able to be shared with just a link.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
I'd argue that the difference there is that none of these were ever nearly as dominated by so few companies. There's hundreds and hundreds of potential competitors that all have a decent amount of reach. Sure, there are some dominant ones, but none have comparable power to the likes of facebook, twitter or instagram
Well, I'd say that it's because that platform is so large and has such a huge potential impact that it either should be broken up or heavily regulated. Breaking it up is somewhat unrealistic, especially because digital platforms trend towards centralization, so making it available for everyone just seems like the best bet.
I'd agree, theoretically. But I just don't see it being something that actually gets used. I actually can't remember the last time someone just sent me a link that wasn't work related and not on some content aggregator/social platform.
1 preserved_fish 2018-09-06
People in general don't want to hear what the far-right is selling. Especially when they're super obnoxious about it. And so a major company bans them as contributors. It's the marketplace of ideas, bro.
Losers pretend like they're entitled to be heard, but they're not.
1 Verlieren_ist_Unser 2018-09-06
They’ll just get all the financial services not to work with you, the ISP to not host you, and the search engines to not search you.
Just like they’ve already done in varying shapes and forms over the past couple years.
1 Ls777 2018-09-06
https://www.google.com/search?q=infowars
Seems to be on a search engine, still selling products for money, and hosted by an ISP
I'm sure ur twitter clone will do just fine
​
​
1 ConservativesRBIGgay 2018-09-06
It seems like the simplest solution might be to try and tone down the toxicity. Kinda like what thermobitch did when he got a couple of strikes against..
I mean hell even Richard Spencer is still on twatter and he’s literally a nazi.
1 Verlieren_ist_Unser 2018-09-06
So supposedly the 7 tweets which twitter cited as infractions would not have been infractions of twitters TOS at the time of their original tweets.
Twitter is applying its new TOS to old tweets.
Sounds fair to me. At least it created lots of drama .^
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-09-06
Get fucked faggot.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-09-06
Ahhhh bby you must be the furry I matched with on Grindr last night Since you already know my kink is mean talk 😍
1 ConservativesRBIGgay 2018-09-06
Ahhhh bby you must be the furry I matched with on Grindr last night Since you already know my kink is mean talk 😍
1 ConservatoidsRbiggay 2018-09-06
If your neighbor is a lunatic it’s totally within your rights to not invite him to your barbecue.
1 Verlieren_ist_Unser 2018-09-06
🤔🤔🤔
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
First that presidential block nonsense is pretty retarded, but even they weren't saying that Twitter had to unblock them.
Quit trying to nationalize social media, comrade
1 Verlieren_ist_Unser 2018-09-06
Just extend the 1st & 4th amendment to any tech company that gets any sort of public tax $$$$
Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
And think of the drama that could ensue 🤑🤑
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
Pls take it to court, it'll be great
1 ConservatoidsRbiggay 2018-09-06
The difference is that the president is a government official and The First Amendment prohibits government officials from suppressing speech on the basis of viewpoint ... So as soon as trump is no long president and therefore a private citizen he can block every single twatter user if he wants to.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2018-09-06
This shows a tenuous grasp, at best, of the first amendment. The first amendment doesn't "prohibit government officials from suppressing speech". Why don't you go reread that one, bud and try again
1 ConservatoidsRbiggay 2018-09-06
Yes it does. Why? Because a government official is representing oh you know the government.
This is the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs as written by judge Buchwald.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2018-09-06
imagine believing precedent is "settled law"
1 ConservativesRBIGgay 2018-09-06
Is that your only sponse to being such a smug tard that you tried to call me out when it’s clear as day that you don’t even understand the first amendment? Also “settled law” maybe was to declarative of a statement but it’s now precedent and wasn’t appealed.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2018-09-06
since you're too thick skulled to understand what I mean, the first amendment doesnt have shit to do with "government officials" or even the executive branch. literally the first word is "congress"
read more, kid
1 ConservativesRBIGgay 2018-09-06
Gdddamn dude you really aren’t just pretending. Just to make sure I am understanding correctly under your galaxy brain interpretation of the first amendment the executive branch and judicial branch are free to suppress a citizens right to freedom of speech as infinitum. I here I thought public civics education was better in the 60s.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
That's ltrly what it does
1 CucksLoveTrump 2018-09-06
ah so the first amendment protects me from a county clerk yelling at me on her off hours about how the frogs aren't gay?
do a lap, read the amendment, and write me a ten page essay on what the first amendment protects
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
Use a coherent metaphor pls. This one gays up the frogs.
Not my effort, sweaty
1 CucksLoveTrump 2018-09-06
ITS THE WATER THAT MADE THE FROGS GAY
1 ConservativesRBIGgay 2018-09-06
I mean you do need someone to explain to you what the first amendment is so it kinda makes sense that you asked
1 CucksLoveTrump 2018-09-06
go home, newalt
1 ConservativesRBIGgay 2018-09-06
Ooooof the bantz are tooo much! You wounded me,how will I ever survive. Smh at the utter state of boomer posters🤦♀️
1 CucksLoveTrump 2018-09-06
how did you know I was a boomer?
1 ConservativesRBIGgay 2018-09-06
I’m a regular who’s been a regarded dramanaut for like 2 years now. This account is just to ride out a temp suspension for “abusing” the report button on r/ conservative.. I generally like your posts but this is a bad bad take imo
1 CucksLoveTrump 2018-09-06
smdh
reported
1 ConservativesRBIGgay 2018-09-06
BIG MAD
And jokes on you I’m not suspended anymore I just like this alt. Don’t you have any breadcrumbs to follow?
1 CucksLoveTrump 2018-09-06
no because I don't give a shit
1 gildredge 2018-09-06
Oh go fuck yourself. Gab tried this and got blacklisted by the Android and Apple stores, threatened by their registrar, payment processors, Mastercard, Visa etc
The end point of this is some cunt like you saying "well then go start your own hundred billion dollar hardware global duopoly" "well then go start your own globe spanning computer interface network", "well then go start your own multinational card payment system.
The next time a Chinese dissident complains about being abducted by the secret police, you should say "hurr durr, well go start your own country then lol"
1 Ls777 2018-09-06
https://gab.ai
Lets see. Did they create their own social media service? Check! Looks like i was right after all
Hey, I said you could start your own service, didn't say you'd magically be equally successful as twitter. Turns it takes a shitload of money to reach the same level as established billion dollar industry leaders that have been here for more than a decade. Congratulations, that's how most markets work.
You guys are hilarious lmfao, yes a person being banned from twitter is exactly like that
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
Nobody private individual or company can or should be forced to host content they do not wish to host. It's really that simple.
1 AHealthySenseofDread 2018-09-06
Pharmacies shouldn't have to give out birth control if they don't want to, but Twitter absolutely has a moral responsibility to carry Alex Jones's brain parasites on their air waves
t. Rural cuck, voice of a generation
1 IllustriousQuail 2018-09-06
Would you be okay with airlines refusing service to people whose political views they disagree with?
What if the airline in question was the only one that serviced that particular route? The traveler could always drive or walk, after all.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
I'd think it was a stupid decision and would say they were being retarded, but it's not unconstitutional.
This is a fair point, and I do think a case can be made for a higher legal requirements when a reasonable alternative isn't available. However, that'd be up to legislators to enact as it's not a constitutional right.
1 IllustriousQuail 2018-09-06
Yes, and the people who did that (Gab.ai) were driven out of business when Apple and Google refused to allow them in the app stores b/c they permitted "hate speech."
1 Ls777 2018-09-06
http://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/9dn0rs/-/e5j4ob5
1 StingAuer 2018-09-06
hmmmm, maybe if Net Neutrality hadn't been shut down, this wouldn't be a problem :thinking:
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Net neutrality only applies to ISPs as far as I know. Something like this would require separate regulation.
1 biobb36 2018-09-06
Net Neutrality benefits the huge sites at the expense of the big ISPs. This has literally nothing to do with NN.
I say this as someone who supports NN.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
You sound like a goddamn commie
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Actual commies are busy celebrating right now.
I share commie talking points, but defend Alex Jones's right to be retarded. I'd argue that's a pretty radical centrist point of view (or national bolshevik, I guess)
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
Oh I do, but there's ltrly no government interference preventing Alex Jones's right to share his retardation with the world. Instead of threatening companies with government intervention, maybe a better idea to convince them that it's in their business interest to cater to you or use the spotlight to promote somewhere else where his nutbag fans can find him. Y'know, somewhere like:
BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST
INFOWARS.COM
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
I mean, I don't actually care about Alex Jones's right to spread shit on social media, but rather the potential implications.
What if those companies ever decide to suppress some news/people because it makes sense from a business perspective? It's not like companies are known for their moral integrity.
Sure, the people affected can set up their own sites, but if you get banned from social media and google, you're essentially dead to 99.5% of people on the internet. Especially if it's not some major issue, I'm pretty sure large companies could pretty effectively drown it out.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
If say, Facebook banned negative articles about Facebook on Facebook, I'd defend Facebook's legal right to do so and still make fun of them for doing it.
Are you going to whine that YouTube won't host your German fisting porn? Yes, but there's porn sites and the gubmint shouldn't force Google to host it.
And there's no better time to change that with new competition.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-09-06
People like you are why we can't ping, and by people i mean jews.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
😍
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Ideally, I'd of course say that there'd be lots of small websites that each have their own thing that they dedicate themselves toward. In practice the power of centralized platforms is just too strong though. So, yes, I'd argue that sites that don't have a specific focus should serve absolutely everyone.
The issue is that most of the time it just won't be practical. I mean, would you honestly switch to some new social media platform just because Google/Twitter/whoever did something fucked up? Because I know I certainly wouldn't, at least not unless they gain a large userbase, which just isn't realistic in a lot of cases.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
That's nice. Then try to sue or get it passed as a law and then defend it in court.
ikr?
1 _narrows 2018-09-06
Exactly. If you just have that attitude, you cement twitter as the authority. Fuck that; they’re almost bankrupt. Let them play these games.
1 _narrows 2018-09-06
Twitter is a “large company” because it’s free. They’re bleeding money. They don’t have a monopoly on anything.
I think it’s silly to ban AJ after what is clearly pressure, and nothing in particular, but it doesn’t matter.
Twitter is a shape of something better.
1 timsboss 2018-09-06
I'm allowed to protest soldier's funerals with signs that say God Hates Fags. I'm allowed to march through a majority Jewish neighborhood in full Nazi regalia. There's plenty of objectionable shit that people are allowed to do.
1 CATS_in_a_car 2018-09-06
I don't see your point.
1 timsboss 2018-09-06
There's nothing wrong with complaining about things private individuals and corporations do. You can do something that's perfectly legal with your business and I can find that thing pants on head retarded and bitch about it.
1 WhatsupDoc001 2018-09-06
Because corporations have an oligopoly on the internet which is a public forum.
1 youcanteatbullets 2018-09-06
Or they apply to some people some of the time, which is what actually happens in reality.
1 snowkarl 2018-09-06
thanks for explaining my comment
1 SlackBabo 2018-09-06
Wtf I got a ticket for speeding but I see people speed every day! I shouldn’t have to pay this!
1 unrulyfarmhand 2018-09-06
I’ve seen countless videos people post of themselves bullying others, fighting, shooting people, but damn, call a cnn employee a rat to his face and you’re done.
1 snowkarl 2018-09-06
don't mess with the joos namsayin
1 watermark02 2018-09-06
Reddit is very well known for only applying the site rules when shit gets in the news.
Like the NYT reporter who posted some racist shit about whites when she had like 80 followers, then Candace Owens reposts it with thousands and acts all outraged when she gets a light suspension for it. Dude no one gave a shit when Sarah Jeong posted that shit to her small network of SJW friends. Sites are not able to devote all possible attention to any trivial issue.
1 wewladin 2018-09-06
If ur a white guy and not progressive ur a NAHSZIII!!!
1 capsicumshot 2018-09-06
Tell that to the christapo baker degenerates :-)
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
ToS can basically be arbitrarily set. Are you really fine with companies that are so dominant deciding who gets to use their service or not?
1 TruthPains 2018-09-06
Now we get into the ' I am for an unregulated and free market except for when it effects ME' territory. The hypocrisy at the root of most people. So, should the market be regulated or not?
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Yeah, my post definitely had 'I'm for unregulated markets' written all over it, you absolute troglodyte.
Are you actually capable of addressing my argument?
1 TruthPains 2018-09-06
Seeing as this is /r/drama and I'm living in a cave... nope. Now I gotta get back to shaggin' yer nan m8
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Necrophilia is illegal
1 TruthPains 2018-09-06
The best is when they don't talk after, m8
1 gildredge 2018-09-06
Who are you talking to, some establishment globalist shill like Mitt Romney? That not today's Trump supporter.
1 TruthPains 2018-09-06
I still don't understand this globalist thing.
1 pepperouchau 2018-09-06
Here's a quick rundown: 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱
1 TruthPains 2018-09-06
Thanks, I now know the answer is to shag yer nan, m8
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-09-06
at what point does a "private company" become a "public platform"?
1 TherapyFortheRapy 2018-09-06
This seems unwise given that congress is already holding hearings.
Everyone knows this is headed toward common carrier status for these companies anyway. If you target political types...well, they vote. Politicians give a shit when you target them, even when they are 100% fucking nuts. Because they vote.
1 urgoingdownbitch01 2018-09-06
Shouldn't have behaved like a faggot towards Rubio then. I guarantee you Jack did this to get in Rubio's good graces.
1 Zeriell 2018-09-06
Rubio's one guy. When you systematically target entire political movements, favoring one guy isn't going to have much of an effect in my view, but I could be wrong.
1 TareTiri 2018-09-06
That's nonsense. Because there is nothing especial about twitter technology, twitter is popular because people use it. That's it. You or i could set up a twitter clone or 10 if we wanted to.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
Doesn't this apply to virtually every common carrier?
1 fizzyliftingdrinks_ 2018-09-06
Yes, starting a new ISP or a new post office is just as easy as setting up a website. /s
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
how is that relevant? Common carriers can be pretty small and websites can also "cover the entire globe".
I'd argue that it's actually easier to set up an ISP than it is to set up a social media network that isn't stillborn.
1 fizzyliftingdrinks_ 2018-09-06
Websites cover the entire globe by default. ISPs, on the other hand, have to peer in order to work at all.
As for the "stillborn" part, that's purely a marketing problem. The fact that social media sites are so dime-a-dozen that it's impossible to stand out in the marketplace is not a reason to regulate them.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-06
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Tier 2 networks have to buy transit, so what?
but why? Why does the kind of problem matter? It's not like it's easier to set up a social media site, just because the main problem is a marketing rather than a technical one.
1 fizzyliftingdrinks_ 2018-09-06
Physical constraints are forever.
Marketing "constraints" change constantly. Social media's predecessor was federated by the UUCP protocol in the Usenet network. The biggest federation point is increasingly mobile notifications, which could make social networks as relevant as Usenet providers in the near future. Or not; it's hard to tell.
1 rekt_brownie 2018-09-06
Technically speaking it’s not.
Social media is difficult because it has to get popular very quickly, but actually making a website can be done by most high schoolers.
Setting up (good) network infrastructure is arguably more difficult
1 IllustriousQuail 2018-09-06
Well yeah, but that's how positive network externalities work to create monopolies. No one has ever thought that Microsoft had the best operating system, but it still ended up running on something like 85% of computers largely due to a historical accident where MS made a ship date a few months before its competitors did back in like 1981.
1 Destirigon 2018-09-06
And rightly so.
1 watermark02 2018-09-06
The right:
Makes sense
1 Lumene 2018-09-06
> There isn't some sort of radical center that wants large corps to stop fucking people over generally with no recourse on both issues.
Okay friendo
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-09-06
Radical center want large corps to fuck over people more, tho.
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-09-06
Well yeah, just look at any part of Reddit.
I don't even like corps, but fuck people, they deserve it.
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-09-06
in what way is this a partisan issue you retard?
1 ItsSugar 2018-09-06
Hyper-retarded take.
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-09-06
keep telling yourself that
1 TUMS_FESTIVAL 2018-09-06
You retards take this shit waaaay too seriously.
1 SlackBabo 2018-09-06
Alex Jones is about to learn he’s really just a nobody in the grand scheme of things and has absolutely no power. First his kids get taken away, now his career.
How long before he ends up killing himself?
1 Assy-McGee 2018-09-06
he can always drown himself in chili to forget his sorrows if need be
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-09-06
They would close up shop or move their shit to China-only if that ever happened, lmao you boob
1 37586316845 2018-09-06
In your imagination
1 watermark02 2018-09-06
Common carrier regulations cannot plausibly be extended to social networks. ISP's are one thing, the platforms within the internet itself are another.
1 autotldr 2018-09-06
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot)
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Jones#1 Twitter#2 Darcy#3 Dorsey#4 rules#5
1 watermark02 2018-09-06
YOU'RE EVIL LOOKING
1 redblaze17 2018-09-06
This week just keep getting better.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-09-06
It's good business sense for Alex to get himself banned from every platform possible, it galvanizes his following and gets them to buy more water filters and Brain Force.
1 Zeriell 2018-09-06
I think in the long run its a deathknell. Open and free (except when you're booted off) platforms like Youtube and Twitter mesh well with the constant conversation that is happening. When you're only on your own website, people just forget about you for the most part. Look at what happened to Milo when he switched to full subscription, everyone stopped talking about him.
Jones will survive at subsistence level, but his relevance will tank and he'll no longer have whatever political clout and influence he had. Which is probably the point.
1 barbedvelvet 2018-09-06
I agree. He already lost half his audience since Facebook and YouTube dropped him. Only a matter of time until he’s completely irrelevant.
1 DoctorMort 2018-09-06
He's going to fall to the Rush Limbaugh level of relevance.
1 Pickled_Kagura 2018-09-06
nah Rush Limbaugh still has a radio show with apocalypse ration advertisments
1 bareballzthebitch 2018-09-06
It is a pyrrhic victory at best for Twitter.
1 watermark02 2018-09-06
I feel kind of sad for Milo.
This is why liberals always lose.
1 Zeriell 2018-09-06
I dunno, they seem to be winning right now? Getting the grassroots of your political opponents run off any and all platforms seems like a pretty neat advantage to have, regardless of what else is going on.
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-09-06
Didn't work so well for Milo...
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-06
Milo didn't work so well for Milo tbh
1 ExpOriental 2018-09-06
It's a nice theory, but it really hasn't been borne out in reality.
1 RyuunDragon 2018-09-06
Milo tried doing that and he's now at "Literally Who?" status
1 dramasexual 2018-09-06
I mean he's "literally who?" because he defended pedophilia on tape tbh
1 -absolutego- 2018-09-06
Milo also appealed to people who exist predominately online, as opposed to Jones, who I assume has an audience composed mostly of geriatric boomers who will follow him anywhere.
1 MildlyCat 2018-09-06
The response to this would be different if these news sites used his "Bush did 9/11" thing instead of his "Sandy Hook Hoax" thing.
1 WhaleTaleMan 2018-09-06
Does him pushing some left wing conspiracy theories alongside the more well known right wing ones make him less of a tard? At least he's well-rounded idiocally.
I actually don't think he's a racistsexist, from what I've seen of him being a little more personal (like on Joe Rogan). And he has pushed some more reasonable conspiracy theories - but his credibility goes out the fucking window when he gets to the psychic vampires from the 5th dimension which may or may not be metaphorical.
1 MildlyCat 2018-09-06
I'm not sure the "Bush did 9/11" thing was left-wing but I've never really watched his show outside random clips.
1 WhaleTaleMan 2018-09-06
I can't say for sure, that was an assumption on my part too.
1 charming_tainter 2018-09-06
The realest thing he ever did was sneak a camera onto The Bohemian Grove during that illuminati ceremony
1 WhaleTaleMan 2018-09-06
Yeah, that shit was freaky. Context makes plenty of conspiracy videos completely explainable. But I haven't heard one for that, and it's not that far fetched to assume there are richy rich cults. Doesn't mean they're all pedos or all murderers, but there's probably some secret clubs.
1 odintal 2018-09-06
I hope this doesn’t mean wil Wheaton is coming back. The more insufferable cunts leave social media the better.
1 bus10 2018-09-06
RIP Alex Jones.
You will be missed.
1 Momruepari 2018-09-06
I'm glad this happened. Alex Jones was getting too mainstream and normiefied.
1 XxNerdKillerxX 2018-09-06
Why does Alex Jones keep being called far right or alt right? He just preys off of mentally ill people's irrational fears, whatever they may be for that given year. Trying to fit crazy into the left-right paradigm just makes he left-right paradigm bend to fit crazy, not a great idea in the longterm.
1 ManOfBored 2018-09-06
It's great marketing for Jones because it makes right-wingers think he makes content geared for them.
1 charming_tainter 2018-09-06
It's because the anti government radical movement are usually white extremists...theyre he same people who believed William Cooper and read The Turner Diaries, voted for Trump and believe Q is real. The left has Anarchism but that movement is not as hysterical and mostly full of idealistic millennials who believe the conspiracy is rooted in systematic racism and classism, not satan worship and adrinochrome harvesting
1 charming_tainter 2018-09-06
Does infowars have a social media platform? If so, does it have pinging?
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-09-06
https://imgur.com/szeS8ts