Dictating What You Can Say, Or Not

[eliquid]

I'm going to wave goodbye to forums for 2022 to put my head down and work more.

But I wanted to leave this little gem that I will more than likely not see all comments about later.

Facebook ( and I'm sure others ) letting you know what you say off their platform is fair game.... think about that for a moment.

 

[bernard]

This coming a few days Facebook put a "fake news" disclaimer on the British Medical Journal for criticising the Pfizer vaccine trials.

 

[DanielS]

Looking forward to 2023 when you return to give us an update @eliquid!

Regarding your post, I don't really know what this message means. I suppose maybe it is vague for a reason? Maybe they are going to start banning accounts belonging to websites that have certain things present in their content? They (Facebook) are cutting their own throats regardless- people are beginning to see through their act.

 

[WinMore]

Wait, does this mean they can ban you because you criticize Facebook?
Even Youtube has not done that yet.
The censorship will keep on getting worse. I upload to Youtube and Facebook, but I make sure my website links to alternative media (mainly talking embeds).

I'm so sick of this "We support free speech, but ..."

I hope to still see you around in the future @eliquid, that being said, your decision makes perfect sense.
All the best to you!

 

[miketpowell]

I'm pretty sure I know where you got that screenshot and it is 100% deserved.

Why yes, selling courses while claiming you are a "Facebook Partner" with "Inside Access" in order to sell your course is gonna get you banned. In this specific screenshot, I believe the person was running ads ON FACEBOOK that then link to his website/youtube/list that makes these claims. Facebook certainly should ban his ass. Hopefully, they decide to follow with a lawsuit.

It's pretty sad and annoying how so many people will claim they are being persecuted for speech when that speech is straight-up lying to people in order to make money. Have seen so many gurus make claims about what ins they have with Facebook. For a while, I tried to let people know they are full of shit but after just getting called a jealous hater too much I gave up on that long ago, good that Facebook is finally starting to ban them.

 

[WinMore]

I'm pretty sure I know where you got that screenshot and it is 100% deserved.

Why yes, selling courses while claiming you are a "Facebook Partner" with "Inside Access" in order to sell your course is gonna get you banned. In this specific screenshot, I believe the person was running ads ON FACEBOOK that then link to his website/youtube/list that makes these claims. Facebook certainly should ban his ass. Hopefully, they decide to follow with a lawsuit.

It's pretty sad and annoying how so many people will claim they are being persecuted for speech when that speech is straight-up lying to people in order to make money. Have seen so many gurus make claims about what ins they have with Facebook. For a while, I tried to let people know they are full of shit but after just getting called a jealous hater too much I gave up on that long ago, good that Facebook is finally starting to ban them.

If that's the case Facebook should sue.
These days Facebook is the old marketplace. I find being banned from there wrong in many cases.
Including when you lie about them elsewhere. (I do disavow the practice!)
If the message basically says they don't want to do business with the person in the screenshot... Then I do feel like it's a fair ruling.
"Prohibited language" is scary language to me tbh.

 

[nothing]

The key is the context. It's prohibited language regarding ones relationship with facebook, under the Facebook business partnership guidelines.

This is totally different to FB censoring joe schmoe for talking about fb censoring people, on their personal website / youtube etc. Though, I have no delusions that this won't be the case in the future.

 

[Boy]

I'm genuinely curious why this is such a massive issue among the free-market loving folks. Censorship? It's their platform. Terms & conditions apply. When did these websites become embedded in the constitution that it's a right to use them? Talk about entitled.

 

[Trump]

I'm genuinely curious why this is such a massive issue among the free-market loving folks. Censorship? It's their platform. Terms & conditions apply. When did these websites become embedded in the constitution that it's a right to use them? Talk about entitled.

It's not often I see someone write my exact thoughts on this.

I'm a conservative, so obviously I don't agree on banning and censoring right-wing people. Or anyone with a different opinion, for that matter. I am fully for freedom of speech.

But the end of the day it's their platforms and they do what they want on it. I dislike and disagree with it, but it's their right. It's not like Facebook or Youtube is a state entity.

Same goes for my business, I should be able to choose my customers and workers all I want. If I don't want to hire person X because of Y - then I should be able to do that. But that, the government in my country doesn't allow.

Anyhow, bun the left and their antics.

 

[WinMore]

The problem isn't that it's Facebook.
It's not even a problem that it's Youtube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.

The problem is that when alternative platforms rise, they get boycotted to oblivion.
Removed from the app stores, hosting taken down, removed from search results.
In some cases prosecuted by the government. Some argue to drain their money while they are still weak.
Others argue that they are doing "illegal" work. In any case, the government is making it difficult for alternatives to rise. It's not hard for people to see that as the state interfering in free competition.

Once the market can remove alternatives, it's no longer a "free market".

And, while I agree that it's their platform, they are abusing the law.
Either they curate everything and they are a publisher.
Or they don't and they are a platform.
Different rules and they are just using the rules that just happens to always be in their favor.

Back in the 90's, the government forced Microsoft to split up, because they were "too big", making it impossible to compete fairly.
I would argue we have reached that point with Facebook, Google, and Amazon as well.

 

[miketpowell]

The problem isn't that it's Facebook.
It's not even a problem that it's Youtube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.

The problem is that when alternative platforms rise, they get boycotted to oblivion.
Removed from the app stores, hosting taken down, removed from search results.
In some cases prosecuted by the government. Some argue to drain their money while they are still weak.
Others argue that they are doing "illegal" work. In any case, the government is making it difficult for alternatives to rise. It's not hard for people to see that as the state interfering in free competition.

Once the market can remove alternatives, it's no longer a "free market".

And, while I agree that it's their platform, they are abusing the law.
Either they curate everything and they are a publisher.
Or they don't and they are a platform.
Different rules and they are just using the rules that just happens to always be in their favor.

Back in the 90's, the government forced Microsoft to split up, because they were "too big", making it impossible to compete fairly.
I would argue we have reached that point with Facebook, Google, and Amazon as well.

The government never broke Microsoft up, Microsoft ended up winning the case - https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/microsoft-antitrust.asp

 

[Boy]

The problem is that when alternative platforms rise, they get boycotted to oblivion.
Removed from the app stores, hosting taken down, removed from search results.

Apart from Parler, what other platform was "boycotted to oblivion?" Shoot, even Stormfront is still up and can be found on Google. There are forums for some far more sinister shit that are alive and well because they aren't hosted where they aren't wanted.

Do you think the "Amazon Killer!!" would be hosted long on AWS?

Once the market can remove alternatives, it's no longer a "free market".

Free market? It hasn't been a true free market in my lifetime. Here's a clip from John Stossel showing how even small markets and small industries are impacted by the government:

Different rules and they are just using the rules that just happens to always be in their favor.

Welcome to business & capitalism?

I'm a conservative, so obviously I don't agree on banning and censoring right-wing people. Or anyone with a different opinion, for that matter. I am fully for freedom of speech.

My favorite question to ask the freedom of speech crowd, especially during the Parler rise and fall, was since they care about being able to say what they want and not be banned or removed from the platform, how would they feel if Parler was adopted by pedophiles and was used to discuss their wants and desires? Should those voices be silenced?

 

[WinMore]

Apart from Parler, what other platform was "boycotted to oblivion?" Shoot, even Stormfront is still up and can be found on Google. There are forums for some far more sinister shit that are alive and well because they aren't hosted where they aren't wanted.

The first one that comes to mind is Gab. Odysee is prosecuted by the government. Even Google won't hide what platforms are being fucked.

And no, the Amazon killer doesn't have to be hosted on AWS. That's not my point. It's easy to just cherry pick only the hosting. It's all the shit together. A few people together control the flow of information.
Is it legal? Probably. That doesn't mean we have to just lie down and accept it.

Free market? It hasn't been a true free market in my lifetime.

Not an argument. And even if we assume being "completely free" is impossible, it would argue it's a good idea to make/keep it as free as possible.

Welcome to business & capitalism?

It's called Government overreach and Oligopoly. Not good things.
I'm all for market leaders having an advantage. Not being able to change the rules by buying politicians.
That would be called corruption.

My favorite question to ask the freedom of speech crowd, especially during the Parler rise and fall, was since they care about being able to say what they want and not be banned or removed from the platform, how would they feel if Parler was adopted by pedophiles and was used to discuss their wants and desires? Should those voices be silenced?

I can't speak for anyone else. But I don't see why even disgusting topics should not be legal.
I'm convinced disgusting stuff like the one you suggest will result in more negative results for the "MAP" movement than the other way around.
Same reason I would argue to let neo-nazi's talk. When you let them talk publicly, it becomes hard to hide how crazy they are.
If you censor it all, they go underground. They hide their motives, recruitment, etc.
Nobody knows what they are thinking, and the results can be dangerous.

Now, obviously, just letting them talk publicly isn't without risk. I don't have an issue with increased risk if it means more free speech.

The government never broke Microsoft up, Microsoft ended up winning the case - https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/microsoft-antitrust.asp

Looks like you are right. At least they had the right idea I guess.

 

[Trump]

Apart from Parler, what other platform was "boycotted to oblivion?"?

There are smaller platforms who have gone through it.

Censored.tv is an example. They shut down their bank accounts and payment processors. You can't, or at least couldn't, even write their URL in the messenger app. It worked before, but around the time Proud boys got hyped in the media, they censored the URL in messenger.

Paypal shut down their accounts and somehow threatened to keep their subscriber's data.

Facebook shut down their private accounts. Even the sound guy's private account was shut down, even though he never mentioned anything political or related to Censored.tv.

Although, I am for businesses doing whatever they want on their platforms. Ban or silence whoever. But It's obvious that there are governments pulling the strings - but that's, of course, harder to prove.

The problem is that the left have too much control. It always ends up in censorship and oppression. Nowadays they are just more sophisticated by controlling these social platforms and hiding behind corporations.

 

[Boy]

The first one that comes to mind is Gab. Odysee is prosecuted by the government. Even Google won't hide what platforms are being fucked.

I've heard of Gab before. When searched it was the first thing that popped up. Same with Odysee. Both on Google. Not sure exactly what your point is? That you can't find things from a Google search? Don't use Google.

And no, the Amazon killer doesn't have to be hosted on AWS. That's not my point. It's easy to just cherry pick only the hosting. It's all the shit together. A few people together control the flow of information.
Is it legal? Probably.

That was my point. We can talk about payment processors also, because AFAIK if you have a place to host your website and a way to take payments, you're in business. Now if your hosting doesn't like you, you go somewhere that does. If PayPal or Stripe doesn't like your business model (anything goes discussion, multi-vendor marketplaces, adult content, gambling, etc.) you use a different payment processor.

Is it more expensive? Hell yeah. But that's the price you pay for being in what's deemed as a high-risk industry. The alternative is to fire up your own servers, create your own payment processor. A bit more difficult but worth it for something you really believe in.

That doesn't mean we have to just lie down and accept it.

I'm genuinely curious what you can/have done about it.

It's called Government overreach and Oligopoly. Not good things.
I'm all for market leaders having an advantage. Not being able to change the rules by buying politicians.
That would be called corruption.

I would like to introduce you to the concept of lobbying.

Although, I am for businesses doing whatever they want on their platforms. Ban or silence whoever. But It's obvious that there are governments pulling the strings - but that's, of course, harder to prove.

So your angle is less that the platforms are the bad guys, but more so that the government is pulling the strings (simultaneously both obviously but also hard to prove)?

I think what everyone leaves out of these big conspiracies is that these companies are trying to make money. That's the whole point of them. If 20k goons are posting stuff that's causing 200k softies to leave the platform and a bunch of advertisers to leave, why would the company appease the 20k goons?

The problem is that the left have too much control. It always ends up in censorship and oppression. Nowadays they are just more sophisticated by controlling these social platforms and hiding behind corporations.

It seems like all these alternative platforms spring up in retaliation. But it goes back to my previous paragraph.

Joe Entrepreneur creates Goon Platform for those 20k banished users. But because they post Goon stuff, no major company or advertising platforms will touch it. They can't do a subscription model for their users because no payment processor will work with them except overseas-adult-processor with 20% transaction fees. It's not that it's getting attacked, it's that the business is not sustainable.

The more I read responses and other conversations about this elsewhere, it seems like there's a blurred line between the words being used and their meaning. You're not being "censored", you're violating the terms of service. A "private account" isn't shut down, it was never yours to begin with. Your free speech or 1st amendment rights aren't being violated because the government isn't stopping it...except they obviously are but it can't be proven.

It's about money, not orange man bad.

 

[DanielS]

The more I read responses and other conversations about this elsewhere, it seems like there's a blurred line between the words being used and their meaning. You're not being "censored", you're violating the terms of service. A "private account" isn't shut down, it was never yours to begin with. Your free speech or 1st amendment rights aren't being violated because the government isn't stopping it...except they obviously are but it can't be proven.

I think the issue people have is the blatant hypocrisy. There are plenty of pedophiles publicly outing themselves and spreading their message on Twitter, Facebook, etc. and because of this, it's becoming more normalized- which is very bad, obviously. Many instances of trafficking have occurred through these platforms also. But, someone with a following tweets/posts something along the lines of "There are only 2 genders" and they get banned. Which of these things is more harmful?

You can't claim to want to keep children safe by keeping schools closed, masks on, forced vaccines, etc. but then turn a blind eye to the normalization of pedophilia and proven trafficking (as an example).

There are issues on both sides of the isle but the hammer tends to only come down on those who are located on a certain side. People on the other side get a slap on the wrist and play the victim and they're good to go. This is the issue- rules (or terms) are not being applied equally (which is odd, because these platforms are supposed to champion the "equality" message).

 

[Boy]

I think the issue people have is the blatant hypocrisy. There are plenty of pedophiles publicly outing themselves and spreading their message on Twitter, Facebook, etc. and because of this, it's becoming more normalized- which is very bad, obviously. Many instances of trafficking have occurred through these platforms also. But, someone with a following tweets/posts something along the lines of "There are only 2 genders" and they get banned. Which of these things is more harmful?

You can't claim to want to keep children safe by keeping schools closed, masks on, forced vaccines, etc. but then turn a blind eye to the normalization of pedophilia and proven trafficking (as an example).

There are issues on both sides of the isle but the hammer tends to only come down on those who are located on a certain side. People on the other side get a slap on the wrist and play the victim and they're good to go. This is the issue- rules (or terms) are not being applied equally (which is odd, because these platforms are supposed to champion the "equality" message).

Are they though? Or is it a combination of frequency illusion, cognitive bias, and echo chambers? When all you follow are conservatives talking heads, you're going to notice good and bad things happening to conservative talking heads.

The they-hate-us-because-we're-conservative crowd just can't see that the people getting removed from these platforms aren't being removed because they're conservative, they're being removed because they're assholes. Making the platform lose money.

If you want to be an asshole, be an asshole on your own shit. Don't be an asshole on someone else's shit and get upset when they don't want assholes on their shit.

And let's say there is a vendetta against the right by these companies. You're going to use the platform to attack the platform? If Twitter doesn't want right-leaning people on the website, why sign up?

I don't understand the victim mentality and don't think I will. Out here thinking "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs are an attack on their topless beliefs.

 

[DanielS]

Are they though? Or is it a combination of frequency illusion, cognitive bias, and echo chambers? When all you follow are conservatives talking heads, you're going to notice good and bad things happening to conservative talking heads.

For some individuals, this is certainly the case. Many people actively seek out news of accounts which align with their beliefs getting banned to re-enforce their defined reality.

The they-hate-us-because-we're-conservative crowd just can't see that the people getting removed from these platforms aren't being removed because they're conservative, they're being removed because they're assholes. Making the platform lose money.

What makes someone an asshole is a matter of opinion. This issue is that highly-sensitive people in positions of power have opinions that the vast majority of "normal" people don't agree with, but they get to call the shots. It really does come down to the employees I think. Mark Zuckerberg or whoever else probably doesn't care about what people think- they just want to make money. Individual employees with access to backend kill switches, however, do let their biases impact their decisions.

If you want to be an asshole, be an asshole on your own shit. Don't be an asshole on someone else's shit and get upset when they don't want assholes on their shit.

Fair enough, but there's no rule against being an asshole in the Terms of Service, because again, what makes someone an asshole is a matter of opinion. The issue is that everything is left vague so the companies can play dumb and frame situations in the way they want.

And let's say there is a vendetta against the right by these companies. You're going to use the platform to attack the platform? If Twitter doesn't want right-leaning people on the website, why sign up?

The argument for this would be that no other platforms exist. And even when they do exist, they get censored so it becomes near impossible to grow the user base. Of course, this isn't technically true, but many alt-media platforms are echo chambers, which many people do not want. Not every person who identifies as someone who leans conservative wants to be battered over the head with intense MAGA messaging or anti-left messaging 24/7. Many want a healthy balance- what social media used to be before algorithms kicked into overdrive.

I don't understand the victim mentality and don't think I will. Out here thinking "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs are an attack on their topless beliefs.

This is certainly a people issue- not so much a political issue.