August 8, 2018
Nigel is a good lad.
He’s just fighting for the rights of niggers and fat people, you see.
Not a Nazi at all…
He writes for Fox News:
The big tech giants are moving fast against the political right, the libertarian radicals, and those walking away from the Democrat Party in the United States. The same applies in my country, the United Kingdom, too.
Over the weekend we saw Candace Owens, a strong, young, black woman suspended from Twitter for daring to point out the allegedly algorithmic hypocrisy of Twitter by replacing the word “white” with “Jewish” in a series of tweets modeled on those by New York Times editor Sarah Jeong.
Yeah that was definitely funny, nigger huckster or not
And yeah you definitely cannot ever do that.
While the social media giant quickly backtracked, the same cannot be said for its treatment of right-wingers or globalist opponents in other regards.
Recently we discovered that activists, politicians, and even political party leaders were being shadow banned by Twitter — meaning that their accounts or their tweets were not immediately searchable, unlike those of their left-wing counterparts.
Twitter’s response to the allegation was the bizarre statement: “People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not…” followed by: “You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile).”
If that’s not shadow banning, I don’t know what is.
I think the whole thing was that people don’t know what “shadow banning” is, so they were able to say “we’re not shadow banning,” and then explain what they were doing, which is what everyone who talks about shadow banning defines the term as.
And while many on the libertarian right and within the conservative movement have their issues with Alex Jones and InfoWars, this week’s announcement by YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify represents a concerted effort of proscription and censorship that could just as soon see any of us confined to the dustbin of social media history.
These platforms that claim to be “open” and in favor of “free speech” are now routinely targeting — whether by human intervention or not — the views and expressions of conservatives and anti-globalists.
I haven’t heard any of these companies claim to be in favor of free speech in a while.
Reddit was one of the last hold-outs, and they broke in 2015.
This is why they no longer even fit the bill of “platforms.” They are publishers in the same way we regard news outlets as publishers. They may use more machine learning and automation, but their systems clearly take editorial positions. We need to hold them to account in the same way we do any other publisher.
That is an interesting distinction, Nigel.
Lodged it in my brain for future use.
Just as you cannot libel someone on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, if the Silicon Valley cartel wants to act like a publisher, they should have to assume the same burden.
If someone — anyone — publicly defames me on Twitter, why isn’t Twitter accountable for publishing damaging untruths?
If the glorification of terrorism, or calls to violence are spread on Facebook or YouTube — perhaps we need to ensure they, as any book publisher would be for instance, are liable for such content?
This is the exact argument I made a little bit better perhaps: if they are arbitrarily deciding what is “unacceptable,” then they are necessarily implying that everything they don’t ban is “acceptable.”
That is where the slippery slope comes in:
“If you’re going to ban Andrew Anglin, then why not Alex Jones? Do you approve of Alex Jones’ speech?”
When you say “we don’t make moral value judgements on content,” you have an out. When you start making moral value judgements on content, you become responsible for all content.
It’s so funny this is happening a year after my shutdown, almost to the day.
The conversation surrounding whether or not these utilities are “private companies who can make their own decisions” is becoming irrelevant as they tighten their stranglehold on public discourse.
The most avowed First Amendment, free speech defenders must surely be on the side of those — like me — who believe it is not within the gift of corporations to decide what is acceptable speech or not, especially when they harvest and sell data about all of us en masse as the underlying business model.
This is no longer up to them. It is up to us. Are we going to stand idly by as friends, allies, or even political enemies have their speech curtailed or their lives threatened by these modern publishers? Or are we going to demand that they can only have it one way or another?
That they cannot profess to be neutral, open platforms while being illiberal, dictatorial, and hiding behind the visage of a private corporation (which are more often than not in bed with governments around the world at the very highest levels).
That’s why I believe we urgently need to prosecute this issue in the public square and campaign for a social media bill of rights in our respective countries. And for those that don’t take issue with the latest censorship of right-wingers by big social media — unless we take a stand now, who knows where it could end.
Social media bill of rights!
This is like deja vu all over again.
All of my own arguments used in my own defense a year ago all coming back at me. Alex is quoting me verbatim in his videos responding to the ban (which are being deleted from YouTube in real time whenever anyone reuploads them). I could sue him for plagiarism.
But I’m only flattered.
Plus really fucking pissed off he didn’t stand with me when this happened to me a year ago.
But I’m over it.
I’m not angry at all anymore.