(September 22, 2018 at 11:28 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Quote:Internal emails from Google show employees discussed altering the company’s search-related functions after the travel ban was announced to help users push back against the controversial policy. The Wall Street Journal’s John D. McKinnon and Douglas MacMillan report: “The email traffic … shows that employees proposed ways to ‘leverage’ search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be ‘islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.’ and ‘prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.’ The email chain, while sprinkled with cautionary notes about engaging in political activity, suggests employees considered ways to harness the company’s vast influence on the internet in response to the travel ban. Google said none of the ideas discussed were implemented. … The disclosure is certain to fuel complaints by many Republicans that [Google] stifles conservative viewpoints online and promotes a liberal worldview.”

(Washington Post)

Oh noes, Google putting forward a liberal worldview? Aren't they entitled to have a fucking religion insofar as Repulicunts and HobbyLobby is concerned? But no, it's only a problem when a big corporations expresses an opinion that doesn't tow the line with their bullshit...

What's that old saw again? Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Has anyone posted what AJ did on Twitter to get himself banned? My concern would again be whether he violated TOS or not. If he did, he should be banned, regardless of whether Twitter has other reasons it might want to ban him.

(September 25, 2018 at 1:48 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Well, fuck...

First Hercules, now Hades...



I know they can't all age as gracefully as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, but fuck...

No surprise. Woods tweets out nothing but hate and lies.
And in his old age is working as a Russian bot.

It’s extremely telling, this wilful ignorance of what a private company can do as well as continuous projection on part of Jorm et al as imagining themselves to be in danger of what happened to Jones.

I guess it’s hard to rationalize that:

- You may be kicked off those private platforms for encouraging violence against the parents of murdered children who died in a school shooting

- You may be a rich influencer who peddles fraudulent nutritional supplies and still be unable to keep your position on Twitter because sometimes the rules apply even to the rich

Sometimes I wonder why even placing a trivial Code of Conduct throws up a mindless tizzy of reactionary bullshit. Then I get reminded that plenty of so-called liberals and conservatives will gladly imagine themselves to be Alex Jones, and not one of his victims who cannot easily fight back.

Your embrace of the bully over the victim tells infinitely more than whatever limp wristed bullshit your putting forth now.

Where were you whining about free speech when ISIS propaganda was criminalized? Did you also whine about jailing members of terrorist organizations?

You’re just as guilty of special pleading while trying to make a special case for Jones and not others like him. I should remind you that the Cosmos Pizza shooter directly referenced the Pizza-Gate conspiracy fraud, the same fraud peddled by Jones under the cover of “entertainment”. Yeah, the same entertainment that galvanized nutjobs to harass, threaten and terrorize the parents of the murdered Sandy Hook children. Fuck you disingenuous wastes of vacuous human tissue.

Freeze Peach has become the most effective fifth column in american politics.  It gave Trumpists the reins of the GOP from neocons, and it cripples the ability of the left to push back against the same. Both sides, lol!

This is a side question, not directly related to AJ et all, for those in the know:

Say a social media platform decides to ban someone who hasn't violated the TOS. Let's say they don't even try and pretend that they broke the TOS, but just ban them, stating whatever reason, or perhaps none at all. Is this legally allowed? I assume the answer depends on the fine print of the TOS itself, for which I'm not particularly familiar for any of these platforms, hence the question.

(September 25, 2018 at 2:19 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is a side question, not directly related to AJ et all, for those in the know:

Say a social media platform decides to ban someone who hasn't violated the TOS. Let's say they don't even try and pretend that they broke the TOS, but just ban them, stating whatever reason, or perhaps none at all. Is this legally allowed? I assume the answer depends on the fine print of the TOS itself, for which I'm not particularly familiar for any of these platforms, hence the question.

Actually that does happen like some atheist Twitter profiles get shut down, but they usually get reinstated afte a while. It is their right but it gets off as unprofessional and it usually does come to what people think. If it's someone who is a bad person then most people are ok with it and no bad.

(September 25, 2018 at 2:19 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is a side question, not directly related to AJ et all, for those in the know:

Say a social media platform decides to ban someone who hasn't violated the TOS. Let's say they don't even try and pretend that they broke the TOS, but just ban them, stating whatever reason, or perhaps none at all. Is this legally allowed? I assume the answer depends on the fine print of the TOS itself, for which I'm not particularly familiar for any of these platforms, hence the question.

Sure is.  Why wouldn't it be? Just like I can stop selling tomatoes for no fucking reason at all, and theres nothing anyone can do about it. I can stop selling tomatoes to a specific person..too...still nothing anyone can do about it.