Tommy Robinson is banned from facebook and Insta Watch

paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 3 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by Qup)
Facebook can choose to ban whoever they wish, so long as they are doing it for justified reasons.

Apparently, Robinson "exposed" the BBC for working with a "Far-Left" organisation to blackmail people into saying certain things, and sometime before he was banned, someone tipped off the Media that he was going to get banned. He uploaded a video to Facebook it seems about this fact (I guess it is, I didn't watch the video), so on and so forth. So the situation is a bit messy.

For all I know, if you talk about the guy, you get banned, and he has not been banned on Youtube at the moment. But it is interesting that there are people who are surprised at Tommy's conduct, he's just another Brit who don't like Sharia. Guess you could say he is a hypocrite, but that is not really my concern, to which I have little of. Tommy dislikes Islam, and my muslim friend's boss does not like black people, because in his own experience, he has just had bad run ins and seen his folk have bad run ins with the black youth population. Go figure.

Its called pattern-recognition induced discriminatory stereotyping. In other words, phobia or prejudice.
It’s only your first sentence which I am commenting on and I believe is the only point to be debated.

You say they can ban who they like and you are right by the law they can do just that.

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

That is what this boils down to.

You either take your line or mine on this issue everything else is irrelevant
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
thestudent33
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 3 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by karl pilkington)
thoughts?
Excellent! The hate preacher should be banned from youtube too! :thumbsup:
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#43
Report 3 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by DSilva)
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.
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?
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#44
Report 3 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by paul514)
However I think that internet platforms for discussion should be covered by the rights to free speech.
Doesn't that just swap one rights issue for a bigger one? It means granting people rights to other peoples things on a huge scale?
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 3 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by generallee)
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?
"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.
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#46
Report 3 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by generallee)
So where is your problem with breaking up this tech cartel, then?
Why are you so keen on keeping Tommy on it if you want it gone?
Last edited by the beer; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#47
Report 3 weeks ago
#47
I don’t like Tommy , he’s a zionist shill and a complete moron. I don’t particularly care.

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.

If that triggers some libertarians then good, your ideology is retarded. That so many leftists are now resorting to using your dumb arguments puts proof to that (and of course they don’t even believe in these arguments either) .
2
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report 3 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by Davij038)
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.
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?
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#49
Report 3 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Dez)
"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.
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?
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#50
Report 3 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by the beer)
Why are you soon keen on keeping Tommy on it if you want it gone?
I don't. I want their monopoly power to control global speech smashed. But facebook can still survive if anyone wants to use it once the barriers to entry are lowered.

(How that happens is a different, difficult question, which I don't have the answer to here. I am just suggesting this as a way forward, and it is sad that you guys on the left are so small minded as to resist it ONLY because people you don't like are getting silenced. But then lefties gonna be lefties right?
That is you lot all over).
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#51
Report 3 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by generallee)
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.
Breaking up a monopoly doesn't mean that there will exist sites which cater to your (or Tommy's) political opinions and methods.

In fact I'd argue that we don't have a monopoly at the moment. We have an oligopoly at best, there are various means for someone to voice their opinions.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#52
Report 3 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Dez)
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?
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’.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#53
Report 3 weeks ago
#53
Don’t forget now that we’re at the point that saying that a person with a penis is a man is a hate crime in certain circumstances that could lead to police turning up at your door.

Liberals seem to think that this is somehow different to being arrested for denying the centricity of the earth on the universe. The only real difference (other than not being burned at the stake... yet!) is that the location of the earth in the galaxy mere trivia when it comes to society, whereas there are few things more important (or basic) than being able to accurately fathom simple biology and it’s role in culture and day to day life.

Spiritually and culturally the ancient Greeks and most of subsequent western history) are as advanced to us as we are technologically to them.

Libtardian
AperfectBalance
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 weeks ago
#54
Who cares? People get banned from Facebook all the time. I wouldn't want this wideboy spiv running his mouth on my website, either. If I had one.
2
reply
Libtardian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
I think we are moving towards social media being more heavily regulated (censored), which is bad, likely in the name of preventing censorship and/or "think of the children".
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by generallee)
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.
There are plenty of places where people with "different political views" (nice PC way of saying "nutjobs" :p:) 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.

(Original post by generallee)
Slightly off topic, but do you believe that individuals can self identify?
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.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by Davij038)
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.
I see, I guess I underestimated your ambition. You actually want to censor the entire Internet.

(Original post by Davij038)
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?
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.

(Original post by Davij038)
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.
There's a lot of gray areas around that though. The world isn't divided up into illegal things and 100% totally moral things.

(Original post by Davij038)
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’.
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.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Dez)
There are plenty of places where people with "different political views" (nice PC way of saying "nutjobs" :p:) 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/t...asnt-ladylike/
Last edited by generallee; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by generallee)
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...
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.

(Original post by generallee)
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/t...asnt-ladylike/
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.
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by Dez)
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.
I don’t understand how not letting Giant corporations shut down people with political views they don’t like is censorship, please enlighten me.

What do you mean doing both? If one of the far left nutters on this site stabbed me to death, TSR would not be too blame.

That doesn’t mean anything, although I would certainly like to enforce laws against immoral acts certainly.

I don’t see the hypocrisy in your example? Well I think there is an easy solution to this. Guarantee freedom of speech and make it a requirement for PUBLIC platforms to genuinely respect that.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (93)
16.61%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (58)
10.36%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (99)
17.68%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (84)
15%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (56)
10%
How can I be the best version of myself? (170)
30.36%

Watched Threads

View All