Tommy Robinson is banned from facebook and Insta Watch

generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Dez)
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.
Well if you had bothered to read the actual story I linked to you would have found this...

"Owen Jones organised a pile-on, which resulted in Twitter decreeing that Suzanne’s tweet had violated their definition of “hateful conduct” and locking her account temporarily, with a warning that she could be permanently suspended if she violated their rules again."

As for Tommy Robinson, everything about the treatment of him is political. For you, for everyone else. You are terrified of his reach, of his influence. The man had more facebook followers than any other politcally linked site in the UK apart from Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. That was why it was shut down.

You remind me of the Chinese authorities who justify their internet crackdowns on political dissidents by describing them as "criminal elements..."
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Davij038)
I don’t understand how not letting Giant corporations shut down people with political views they don’t like is censorship, please enlighten me.
It's censorship of their own platforms, not censorship of the Internet as a whole. Facebook do not (and cannot) stop people from expressing their opinions on other websites, or even setting up their own website.

(Original post by Davij038)
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.
I mean that by letting users post on their site they are implicitly associating themselves with them to a certain degree. An association which they are free to terminate at their will if they no longer wish to maintain such a link.

(Original post by Davij038)
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.
Facebook and Twitter are not public platforms, they are not run by the government. What you are talking about is essentially regulation/censorship of websites, which is a pretty extreme authoritarian route to take and is necessarily incompatible with the concept of free speech, at least in the US where these companies operate.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by generallee)
Well if you had bothered to read the actual story I linked to you would have found this...

"Owen Jones organised a pile-on, which resulted in Twitter decreeing that Suzanne’s tweet had violated their definition of “hateful conduct” and locking her account temporarily, with a warning that she could be permanently suspended if she violated their rules again."
So they gave her a slap on the wrist for posting something obnoxious and left it at that. What's the big deal?

(Original post by generallee)
As for Tommy Robinson, everything about the treatment of him is political. For you, for everyone else. You are terrified of his reach, of his influence. The man had more facebook followers than any other politcally linked site in the UK apart from Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. That was why it was shut down.

You remind me of the Chinese authorities who justify their internet crackdowns on political dissidents by describing them as "criminal elements..."
So you're saying that his prior convictions for violent behaviour, assault and so on were politically motivated? Where is your evidence for that?
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#64
Report 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Dez)
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.
IMO someone's right to reinvent themselves or use a pseudonym should be curtailed when they have convictions for, among other things, identity fraud :rolleyes:
Last edited by StriderHort; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Davij038)
I don’t understand how not letting Giant corporations shut down people with political views they don’t like is censorship, please enlighten me.
It's liberal free speech. It does not take into account power imbalance between individuals and the means of communication they have access to. It's not censorship because he could still make an independant blog on the internet, or stand in the street giving out leaflets etc. He just cannot air his views on the property of insta and facebook, which means his audience is severly limited.

As far as I am concerned it is an attack on free speech. The question is whether the attack on free speech against fash views is a nececery evil and/or does it have bad spill over effects. As a leftists I don't really care about the far right being denied a platform, but I know that left wing groups and poeple always get targeted when the state and its capitalist friends bring in anti-terror laws etc.

In my ideal world there would not be a facebook that could actually control speech in the first place.
Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#66
Report 2 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Dez)
It's censorship of their own platforms, not censorship of the Internet as a whole. Facebook do not (and cannot) stop people from expressing their opinions on other websites, or even setting up their own website.

I mean that by letting users post on their site they are implicitly associating themselves with them to a certain degree. An association which they are free to terminate at their will if they no longer wish to maintain such a link.

Facebook and Twitter are not public platforms, they are not run by the government. What you are talking about is essentially regulation/censorship of websites, which is a pretty extreme authoritarian route to take and is necessarily incompatible with the concept of free speech, at least in the US where these companies operate.
How is letting people of whatever political perspective post things on Facebook etc censorship? WHO is being censored here???

So if I got stabbed by some far leftist, TSR would in fact be responsible? That is insane. The whole point of free speech is the ‘I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it’.

They rely on government infastricture to run. In any case it’s alrady illegal under human Rights to not employ anyone due to their political views, I fail to see how this is more extreme or authoritarian. Again WHO is being censored or discriminated against here?
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by Davij038)
How is letting people of whatever political perspective post things on Facebook etc censorship? WHO is being censored here???
By the logic you're applying here, the Conservative party would be legally obliged to let Labour MPs publish blog posts on their website. It makes no sense.

(Original post by Davij038)
So if I got stabbed by some far leftist, TSR would in fact be responsible? That is insane. The whole point of free speech is the ‘I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it’.
Association with a person doesn't imply culpability for the person's actions (i.e. guilt by association isn't a thing), but one might infer some level of sympathy for the person's cause if that association was deliberately kept running.

(Original post by Davij038)
They rely on government infastricture to run.
So do TV broadcasters, radio hosts, and well, pretty much everyone really. Why is it only Facebook that has to be forced to entertain a bunch of loudmouth bigots?

(Original post by Davij038)
In any case it’s alrady illegal under human Rights to not employ anyone due to their political views, I fail to see how this is more extreme or authoritarian. Again WHO is being censored or discriminated against here?
Employment law is a very different kettle of fish compared to laws around protected speech. The two aren't even remotely comparable.
0
reply
Qup
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by paul514)
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
That's the thing though. Freedom of speech only prevents the government from arresting you for speaking however you please. It doesn't prevent social consequences of such speech, provided that said consequences are not illegal to be imposed.

That does not mean that I agree that companies should ban people for speaking their mind though. Also, interesting video from Tommy here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXxWlbUnwz0), can't wait for TSR to remove it though, therefore proving the point he makes in it!
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Dez)
By the logic you're applying here, the Conservative party would be legally obliged to let Labour MPs publish blog posts on their website. It makes no sense.



Association with a person doesn't imply culpability for the person's actions (i.e. guilt by association isn't a thing), but one might infer some level of sympathy for the person's cause if that association was deliberately kept running.



So do TV broadcasters, radio hosts, and well, pretty much everyone really. Why is it only Facebook that has to be forced to entertain a bunch of loudmouth bigots?



Employment law is a very different kettle of fish compared to laws around protected speech. The two aren't even remotely comparable.
I’m pretty you’re being deliberately obtuse here, but I’ll continue in good faith. There is a clear difference between a political party’s website, or some company that wants to sell car batteries and monopoly media groups open to members of the public. I’m saying there should be a right to free speech under groups that are open to the public such as twitter, Facebook etc and indeed universities. Now again, who would this be oppressing against?

This pretty much use to be the case several years ago, before populist parties started gaining popularity which I believed shows that this is an organised attempt to shut down dissidents.

No it doesn’t, at least I dont see why it should infer sympathy. You’re basically advocating literal thought crime snd have the gall to call me authoritarian!

I would certainly suppprt liberalising our Media, cutting. Sick on the BBC and abolishing the license fee and then letting people subscribe to whatever channel they want. Is this also censorship in this strange paradigm you’ve created?

Why aren’t they comparable?
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Davij038)
I’m pretty you’re being deliberately obtuse here, but I’ll continue in good faith. There is a clear difference between a political party’s website, or some company that wants to sell car batteries and monopoly media groups open to members of the public. I’m saying there should be a right to free speech under groups that are open to the public such as twitter, Facebook etc and indeed universities. Now again, who would this be oppressing against?
Okay, let's take another example to illustrate the point: eBay. Now, eBay is basically a platform for people to buy and sell things, and it works very well. They have various policies about what sort of items can be sold, and ban the advertisement or sale of certain goods they deem to be immoral, corrupt or borderline illegal.

But if Davij's Law passes, eBay will have to scrap all those policies. Now eBay is forced to allow anyone to sell anything provided the item is not itself illegal - whether that be hazardous goods, weapons, legal drugs, counterfeit items, human organs, and so on. You get the idea. Under the law you're proposing anyone planning to host a "public" platform (whatever that means) would have to open that up to everybody, regardless of what they do or who they are. It would be absolute chaos.

(Original post by Davij038)
This pretty much use to be the case several years ago, before populist parties started gaining popularity which I believed shows that this is an organised attempt to shut down dissidents.
Ah of course, it must be a conspiracy. Good to know you're basing this off solid evidence rather than selection bias. :rolleyes:

(Original post by Davij038)
No it doesn’t, at least I dont see why it should infer sympathy. You’re basically advocating literal thought crime snd have the gall to call me authoritarian!
So you think allowing terrorists to post threatening messages on your website doesn't constitute terrorist sympathy?

(Original post by Davij038)
I would certainly suppprt liberalising our Media, cutting. Sick on the BBC and abolishing the license fee and then letting people subscribe to whatever channel they want. Is this also censorship in this strange paradigm you’ve created?
So let the TV networks do what they like and broadcast what they want, but make sure the social media giants give a voice to everybody no matter what, and fine them if they fail to do so. Yup, no double standards here.

(Original post by Davij038)
Why aren’t they comparable?
Because being employed by a company is completely different to being a customer or a consumer of their services. I'd have thought that was stark raving obvious. :dontknow:
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report 2 weeks ago
#71
So they gave her a slap on the wrist for posting something obnoxious and left it at that. What's the big deal?

What she said is a good deal less obnoxious than what you have said about Tommy Robinson. What is the big deal is the inconsistency, purely driven by the politics of the "victim."

So you're saying that his prior convictions for violent behaviour, assault and so on were politically motivated? Where is your evidence for that?

No I am saying they are irrelevant to his current postings, which highlight Muslim grooming gangs, the dangers of Muslim immigration, and the bias of the BBC, and are therefore political.
Last edited by generallee; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#72
Report 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by StriderHort)
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?
I don't understand what you are saying here, could you expand on this?
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 weeks ago
#73
(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?
An organisation isn't a person and even if we classed it as such that person can still say what they like, they shouldn't have the right to stop other people saying what they want.

Its a public forum, social media is now where people discuss and talk about anything and everything.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 2 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by Davij038)
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.
Completely correct.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Dez)

Facebook and Twitter are not public platforms, they are not run by the government. What you are talking about is essentially regulation/censorship of websites, which is a pretty extreme authoritarian route to take and is necessarily incompatible with the concept of free speech, at least in the US where these companies operate.
When you have a monopoly of this sort it is a public platform as you don't have another place to go where you can carry out these conversations.
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
Good, next up is a jail cell for him. Oh wait...that WILL be his next stop lol
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#77
Report 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by The RAR)
Good, next up is a jail cell for him. Oh wait...that WILL be his next stop lol
Wouldn't surprise me if some jumped up charge or other was made up against him, I'm pretty ambivalent towards Mr Robinson but he does appear to be treated pretty badly, there are those on here that argue he's been a violent thug in the past so should not be allowed to voice his opinions but would, I suspect at the same time argue that the likes of Gerry Adams ( what he's been part of in his past makes Tommy look like a choirboy and that's putting it mildly) should be allowed a voice which would sound more than a little hypocritical.
There is also some truth in what he says especially with regards grooming gangs and the way they have been swept under the carpet which, when you see this sort of censorship, does cause more people to question what the political motivations are behind it.
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#78
Report 2 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by ColinDent)
Wouldn't surprise me if some jumped up charge or other was made up against him, I'm pretty ambivalent towards Mr Robinson but he does appear to be treated pretty badly, there are those on here that argue he's been a violent thug in the past so should not be allowed to voice his opinions but would, I suspect at the same time argue that the likes of Gerry Adams ( what he's been part of in his past makes Tommy look like a choirboy and that's putting it mildly) should be allowed a voice which would sound more than a little hypocritical.
There is also some truth in what he says especially with regards grooming gangs and the way they have been swept under the carpet which, when you see this sort of censorship, does cause more people to question what the political motivations are behind it.
Are you trying to dismiss all his crimes with 'But Gerry Adams'? Isn't that a classic example of dodging the argument?

As far as I'm aware, GA has only ever been convicted of trying to escape an internment camp 30 odd years ago? and if pressed would probably claim it was for a cause...TR's record is for pissed up random violence against anyone in the wrong colour football shirt. *shrug* I don't see the comparison.

Surely by this logic grooming gangs are actually not that bad because 'Catholic Church'?
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#79
Report 2 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by StriderHort)
Are you trying to dismiss all his crimes with 'But Gerry Adams'? Isn't that a classic example of dodging the argument?

As far as I'm aware, GA has only ever been convicted of trying to escape an internment camp 30 odd years ago? and if pressed would probably claim it was for a cause...TR's record is for pissed up random violence against anyone in the wrong colour football shirt. *shrug* I don't see the comparison.

Surely by this logic grooming gangs are actually not that bad because 'Catholic Church'?
No I'm pointing out hypocrisy and thanks for proving me correct almost immediately.
Poor old misunderstood teddy bear Gerry Adams, just because he was a member of the IRA's war council that ordered atrocities that killed hundreds of innocents people call him worse than a guy who's been a bit of a **** and a hoolie in the past.
The far left do love a nice terrorist don't they?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 2 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by paul514)
When you have a monopoly of this sort it is a public platform as you don't have another place to go where you can carry out these conversations.
It does seem that now we have handed over free speech to the control of private corporate monopolies. Not only that, but these government-chartered monopolies have some very strange moral positions. So for every correct thing they do, they do a bunch of pretty despicable things, ranging from facilitating mass murder in Myanmar and persecution of women in rural India to selling ads against child molestation videos and permitting dangerous anti-science groups like the antivaxxers to cause mass harassment of doctors and the like.

I used to be against government regulation of the web, but I now think we need some pretty tough anti-monopoly regulations against these companies, that are rapidly becoming a threat to our whole society. Some sensible things would be to break up Facebook and Google and also to regulate who can have accounts (nobody under 16 would be a good idea) and to enforce harsh penalties on them for breaking national laws.

Of course, the UK government has proven to be entirely toothless in controlling the digital oligarchs - the EU has been tougher, which might be one reason why Facebook helped manipulate the EU referendum and permitted mass Russian-financed ads on their platform during the campaign.
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