Tommy Robinson is banned from facebook and Insta

thoughts?

I'm guessing you've used the NHS before, correct? And I think I recall you saying you went to a state school, you probably went to a state funded university. You've certainly used public roads, you will undoubtedly be grateful that we have a publicly funded police force, army, border agents and a fire service. You no doubt will be grateful that should you fall on hard times, that there is a form of a welfare state to prevent you falling into absolute destitution.

All of which are examples of socialism, however you may try to spin them. I've never said I don't support capitalism, of course I do, a regulated social market version of it . But your life is better because of the above too. There can obviously be a middle point between an authoritarian centrally planned economy and an uber free market in which people die on the streets if they can't afford healthcare. And it's also the case that certain services are better provided by the state, rather than the private sector.

These big corporate beasts are a product of unfettered free market capitalism. The left has been warning for decades about the dangers of allowing corporations to become so big and so powerful that they control public lives and bully governments around. Meanwhile the right has been supporting or turning the other way to their tax avoidance.

You mention we don't have free market capitalism but instead have an oligopoly. Seemingly unaware that the former is what has led to the latter. They are in fact argely the same thing in practice. Unfettered capitalism leads to corporatism, always. You mention the Iphone as an example of capitalism, yet by your own definition, Apple would be part of the oligopoly, not the free market.

Which brings us back to the original point. The right have supported oligopoly continuously over decades and only now that such firms are doing things they don't like, do they say we need to do something. Of course I support these huge corporates being reigned in, more closely regulated and becoming more transparent. Though it's your side of the aisle who have consistently rejected any such attempts to do just that.

However I think that internet platforms for discussion should be covered by the rights to free speech.

Well let's not talk about the shortcomings of the NHS as a socialised health system because we'd be here all day, and it isn't on topic for the thread. But broadly I agree, I support a mixed economy of sorts, and don't believe in totally unfettered capitalism.

So where is your problem with breaking up this tech cartel, then?

So where is your problem with breaking up this tech cartel, then?

That said, freedom of speech is under attack and I believe that big companies like Facebook and Twitter should be made (by the state) to give greater protections to free speech. Censorship most assuredly has a trickle down effect.

"Breaking up the cartel" is one thing, forcing them to be the mouthpiece of bigotry quite another. I don't see why the right to free speech should trump the right to free association. If idiots like Yaxley-Lennon want to bleat on about how Muslims are ruining everything I don't see why other private individuals should be legally forced to lend him a megaphone.

Why are you soon keen on keeping Tommy on it if you want it gone?

Maybe we are in agreement? I don't want to force them to host those with whom they disagree on political grounds either. Just think there needs to be a break up of their monopoly. Then those with different political views to those running these tech behomeths will get a voice.

In order to do what you're suggesting you'd need to repeal the 1st amendment, since it protects everybody in the US, including those who work at social media companies.

So in order to protect free speech, you're suggesting we should in fact abolish free speech in order to force private entities to give a voice to things they disagree with?

Have a think about what you're suggesting here. Why should anyone be forced to associate themselves with someone who incites hatred and violence?

Maybe we are in agreement? I don't want to force them to host those with whom they disagree on political grounds either. Just think there needs to be a break up of their monopoly. Then those with different political views to those running these tech behomeths will get a voice.

Slightly off topic, but do you believe that individuals can self identify?

Why would I need to repeal the first ? And it wouldn’t be any private companies, just large platforms like Facebook etc to whom speech is an integral part, and operate as a PUBLIC platform.

They’re not associating themselves with them. They’re just letting them use their stuff-who on their right mind would blame TSR if one of its members went and joined Isis and started killing people?

There are already laws which will get you in trouble for actually inciting violence eg, if you messaged some fellow users and began planning to access knives and explosives for a mass murder spree you would rightly get removed and face possible jail time.

For groups such as Hope not Hate, SPLC etc which are involved with Facebook, Twitter etc any opinion bordering on social conservatism is incitement to violence. And of course it is very selective, eg Antifa mobs attacking a MAGA hat wearer are ‘peaceful counter protestors stand against hate’ and if this is reversed it’s ‘violent Neo Nazis out of control’.

There are plenty of places where people with "different political views" (nice PC way of saying "nutjobs" ) can go already. Really, Facebook/Twitter aren't doing anything that the MSM hasn't already been doing for years, only now ironically it tends to be TV/newspapers more willing to entertain extremists whereas new media shuns them.

I guess that does indeed show where the power lies now, you can bet your bottom dollar that those TV networks and journos wouldn't be caught dead with the likes of Yaxley-Lennon if they had the option of being choosy.



This is too open-ended a question for me to answer. There are contexts in which it makes sense for someone to be able to self-identify as something, and there are other contexts where it makes no sense at all.

I'm guessing you brought this up because I used Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's real name instead of his pseudonym. I do believe that he has the right to call himself whatever he wants. And in my personal opinion, it's incredibly rude to deliberately ignore someone when they ask you to use a different name, whether that's Tommy instead of Tom or instead of Stephen or anything else.

So, yeah. You do the maths. If I had any desire to be polite about mister Yaxley-Lennon, the convicted criminal thug, I would reconsider what I call him.

I just find it rather amusing that the left insist on EVERYONE calling someone most of the world really considers one sex another, because they self identify as such. And then, themselves, insist on calling someone the opposite of how they self identify, even though the whole world knows him by his pseudonym.

Almost as though for progressives, the right to self identify should be limited to those with whom one agrees politically...

In other news Suzanne Evans has just been banned from twitter for calling a trans woman "unladylike." So there isn't a wider campaign against right wingers on social media or anything. Not at all.

https://order-order.com/2019/02/28/twitter-bars-suzanne-evans-saying-trans-woman-wasnt-ladylike/

I see, I guess I underestimated your ambition. You actually want to censor the entire Internet.



I think it's reasonable to say that they are doing both. And I imagine we'd get a lot of flak if someone started posting threads calling for "death to Westerners" or anything like that.



There's a lot of gray areas around that though. The world isn't divided up into illegal things and 100% totally moral things.



Yes, there is certainly a lot of hypocrisy in the world. Just ask any Muslim who's been through an airport in the last 17 years. I don't think there's any easy solution to this, it's just how human judgement works.

This isn't about politics. If Yaxley-Lennon was a political campaigner I probably wouldn't treat him with such disdain, but he's not. He's a violent criminal thug, and deserves to be scorned as such.



Well this is obviously a true story if Guido Fawkes reported it…

Oh wait, Evans still has a Twitter account, active less than 6 hours ago at time of writing and even still has verified status. How about that.