Wordpress banned Chateau Heartiste

[RangerMIke]

Becoming an Internet Service Provider is not realistic.

Terms of Service? They are being violated. These companies that write these ToS enforce ambiguous parts when they disagree with the viewpoint and do not enforce the clearly defined parts. I understand they have a "right." What I say is this is not good. Not good at all. It is a problem. There are systematic efforts by these large monopoly corporations to silence people of certain viewpoints. I can't make my my own Facebook, bank, search engine, youtube, isp and God knows what else.

Setting up an ISP is really not that hard. I have 5 servers right now that I own, I could plug any one of them, set up access portals with routers, and the only limits I would have is bandwidth. Would it be simple... no problem really. I did this all the time in the mid-90s for companies. It was harder then but today with scalability any undergrad in computer engineering could do this for you with a $300 used server in a half a day.

But I do agree my reach would be limited. You have the right to free speech, not the right to broad access. If we want to change the laws then fine... let's debate this and see if there is enough support to get this done. All I am talking about now is current reality.

If people do not like that private companies can decide what they will and will not host, then change the law... make this a requirement, but then you have the government involved in regulating content... history has shown this seldom ends well. Getting the government to enforce 'freedom' is an oxymoron because government is the antithesis of freedom.

 

[user43770]

But then you have the government involved in regulating content... history has shown this seldom ends well. Getting the government to enforce 'freedom' is an oxymoron because government is the antithesis of freedom.

The government is already involved.



• Merkel decides to take in millions of mostly young, male refugees.
• Incidences of violence and rape against native Germans predictably soar.
• Native Germans take to FB to express their concerns.
• Can't have that.

 

[RangerMIke]

The government is already involved.

View attachment 2726

• Merkel decides to take in millions of mostly young, male refugees.
• Incidences of violence and rape against native Germans predictably soar.
• Native Germans take to FB to express their concerns.
• Can't have that.

There is a difference between dictating what can't be said and what MUST be said. When the government starts telling you what you MUST say... that's a problem. Besides the German High court just ruled that broadcasters are required to air ad campaigns by Nazis so this decision banning content of Facebook will likewise be over-turned. http://news.trust.org/item/20190516093755-c5bvu

However, FB can and should have the right, on their own to decide what content that will allow without Government interference.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Tech Bias Story Sharing Tool

Social media should advance freedom of speech in America, not suppress it.

t.co

 

[Atom Smasher]

He blew it. He could have bought his own domain and hosted it outside of WordPress hosting, and still used the WordPress platform. I can't believe he left himself vulnerable like that.

 

[Trump]

Guaranteed, this will not end well. I'm telling you, when people feel like they can no longer either safely or at all express themselves, it's going to get ugly.

Don’t worry.

Trump and Bolton and planning to start a war with Iran to free the people from their dictatorial government. The end goal is regime change so the new regime can be a democracy like the US, where people can no longer safely or at all express themselves.

 

[Epic Days]

How I look at it is a condition of realities. A person can have a different reality than mine and I can just acknowledge it's different and then just ignore it.
So what is the nature of a government that it has to squelch other realities just because they exist? What motives are they withholding? We can talk about diversity but in fact it cannot be allowed to exist according to the governments. This make me think of Thomas Jefferson and his writings on government.
Jefferson was right all along. A powerful government can't and won't let thoughts other than their own exist. A government's "thought's" are created by who gets voted in. It is not true cultural evolution as masses can be swayed and have forgotten that they are individuals with their own reality.

Would censorship need to exist if those doing it were free thinking and on the up & up? No. Censorship is needed when the prevailing message is an aberration to the natural inclinations of human beings.

 

[sosousage]

its not censhorship, employers at wordpress receive reports from fat femoids, and they act. they couldnt care less if the blog was about satan, about redpill or pro-feministic.


if theres lot of reports, it will be taken down

 

[Mr Wright]

This is a big shame because the blog was definitely one of my go to places whenever I needed to get my mindset back onto the straight and narrow. Many men will be losing out because of it.

 

[RangerMIke]

I would normally agree, however when Companies choose to provide services to only a specific ideology they no longer become Companies but instead are Super PACs and need to be treated VERY differently.

I believe private companies should be able to do whatever they want with THEIR property as long as discrimination does not violate the law. Now if we want to debate and force companies to be equitable in ALL things, okay lets do this but that is a dangerous path.

It's issues like this where I am at odds with fellow conservatives. Freedom is freedom, you shouldn't demand freedom for yourself while denying it for others... even if you disagree with them. But what is WORST is when they play right into the hands of progressives and demand government fix problems.

 

[RangerMIke]

I agree, but again, these are essentially super PACs masquerading as Corporations. They filed paperwork to be one kind of organization, but take actions as if they are another, and take the benefits of both.

Think of it as someone telling you they are a woman. Yeah they have tits and a "vagene" but they actually have xy chromosome pairs. So they transgendered.

The Conservative USSC has ruled that corporations are entitled to Constitutional rights. While I disagree with that ruling, since Constitutional rights are in fact INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective rights, it is what it is. If organizations are entitled to the right of free speech they can not be compelled to silence or to say or support things that they do not.

This this a great example of unintended consequences. Conservatives supported the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision because it meant corporations could donate money to GOP campaigns as a right to free speech, but this ruling has blurred the lines between what the FEC can enforce. Using government to promote a political agenda is a two edged sword. There are plenty of examples in history where conservatives and progressives promoted political positions that end up going against human nature and the original purpose of the Constitution. Prohibition was a conservative movement that ended up creating organized crime. The Great Society ended up creating a sh!t show of bullsh!t in American inner cities.

 

[BeTheChange]

This is a popular argument and it's convenient for the powers that be. Why worry about censoring speech when you can get private companies to do it?

You already have companies like paypal and wepay refusing service to people whose views they disagree with. How long before banks and credit card companies are doing it too?

Before long it will be "yeah, you have a right to free speech, but don't expect to be able to participate in the economy if we don't like what you're saying."

This is one of the reasons why cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are so powerful.

 

[RangerMIke]

Social media today is the equivalent to that sidewalk.

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though thesidewalk was part of a privately owned company town.

Marsh v. Alabama was cited in the case of Cyber Promotions v. America Online in 1998. Where AOL was blocking mass e-mails by Cyber Promotions to AOL clients. The courts ruled, and the USSC let stand, that freedom of speech did not apply since terms of use provisions were in place, therefor it could not be considered a true public space, in addition, since internet access is not the only method of reaching potential clients. This was a summary dismissal.

In the case of Marsh v. Alabama... the city is question was a 'public' entity, and government can not limit freedom of expression since it was not true private property.

Unless the government decides that the internet declares easement rights, it is considered a private platform.

 

[RangerMIke]

A couple of important points to clarify here.

1. Terms of use are NOT in place which outline the right to eliminate content from a political ideology, so that doesn't apply here.

I'm assuming you are referring to WordPress. If you are here is an excerpt from their terms of service:

13. Termination
We may terminate your access to all or any part of our Services at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice, effective immediately. We have the right (though not the obligation) to, in our sole discretion, (i) reclaim your username or website’s URL due to prolonged inactivity, (ii) refuse or remove any content that, in our reasonable opinion, violates any Automattic policy or is in any way harmful or objectionable, or (iii) terminate or deny access to and use of any of our Services to any individual or entity for any reason. We will have no obligation to provide a refund of any amounts previously paid.

In ordinary English, they can remove anything they want, and the only test is their opinion that it is objectionable. "Automattic" is just their DMCA service for copy-write material. So WordPress can remove anything they want without notice, and Automattic can remove any content which violates DMCA.

2. For the AOL case it isn't that the internet wasn't the only way, it is that AOL is not the only way.

Cyber Promotions argued that access to millions of people make the Internet a critical pathway of communicative and that the defendant had exclusive control over this channel of information and ideas from the Internet to its clients The plaintiff's argument was that it is the Internet itself which is a "critical pathway of communication" while simultaneously arguing that it is the channel from the Internet to to clients which is the critical pathway. The court rejected this argument and summarily dismissed this case. The court ruled that while the Internet may be a critical pathway of communication. The defendant never sought to control the exchange of ideas and communications over the Internet itself. The defendant controlled its own channel leading to the Internet in order protect its own private property, reputation and subscribers which is their right to do, since the Supreme Court has CONSISTENTLY ruled that the guarantees of free speech ... guard only against encroachment by the government and not shield against merely private conduct.

The ruling was very broad and not limited only to AOL.

 

[RangerMIke]

I was referring more to Twitter and such since they are true monopolies in that sense.

Even so, it does not stop the fact that these are corporations acting as super PACS unlawfully and thus should be treated and regulated as such.

When a corporation denies service based upon a political ideology, then in essence they are making donations to other ideologies. This is by definition a super PAC.

I hope what you are learning from this is that reality is what it is. Our laws protect privately owned companies from being compelled into speech they do not agree with... that is a fact. The laws will not change because these companies have bought and paid for our politicians. The only solution for this is for the government to take control of the internet. Government control of any media is bad.

Compelling speech is the first step towards socialism. Socialism is bad.

 

[RangerMIke]

I had hoped you would learn that a "privately" owned corporation engaging in activities reserved specifically for a single type of organization is illegal, and thus they have EARNED the regulation......and are not truly corporations.

Unfortunately all you seem able to do is ignore that fact and do the NPC chant of "Government is bad", when nobody is asking for "increased government".

You are asking for increased government... you are asking that government force privately owned companies to allow people they disagree with to freely express opinions on platforms they own. The argument was made in courts that social media and on-line content service providers dominate the internet to such an extent that they are a defacto public space... ALL these arguements have been rejected in summary decisions and NONE have risen above the district court level, ALL have NOT been reviewed in circuit courts, much less Federal Courts, therefor no where near a judicial review by the USSC.

I am not ignoring FACTS... I am accepting reality. These platforms that are regulating what people can post on their websites is NOT illegal. What you are arguing is that is SHOULD be illegal... Fine... try and get the laws changed... good luck with hitting your head against a brick wall.

A conservative USSC has ruled that organizations and companies are entitled to individual free speech rights (See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) and that 'right' extends to political contributions. Conservatives that have blurred the lines between what can be legally done with Super PACs.

 

[highSpeed]

You are changing the subject. If the problem is that large businesses have formed monopolies I agree.. and the answer is to break them up.

Again... you are changing the subject. The problem is does government have the right to COMPEL speech. Not compete in a market of ideas. People have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to be profitable in their speech and they certainly do not have the right to require people listen or read them.

This is a completely different subject... This isn't about free speech, it's about companies securing a monopoly. Microsoft should be broken up, as should Amazon, Google.... and a number of organizations, especially National Banks.

They control markets because many of our politicians are bought and paid for. We could and should break them up.

Okay... now we are back to it social media providers are content producers or not. They are not, and they have never claimed to be. They are publishers and since the do not make money directly with published content, then they can not be held liable for what shows up on their platform... We could change the law making them liable, but that would only mean more content would be screened out because then they would be fiscally responsible for what appears on their platform.


Yes, but to be more correct they reserve the right to take control and ownership over your content unless you post that you have copyrights to what you put out. If you do not copyright your content, anyone can take it... all FB says is that none of their users can take ownership of content without their approval. If you post a song on FB and it isn't protected, and another user takes it and starts making money from it, Facebook can sue them because not only do you have to agree that un-copyrighted material you post belongs to them, but if you are a viewer then you also yield ownership rights to FB.

You have the right to free speech. Companies have the right to deny you service provided you are not violating any other laws. For example, a restaurant can enforce a dress code: they can not deny service to minorities. If Congress changes the laws so that it is illegal to deny terms of service based on anything... well fine... let's debate this and see if it has broad support. The US Constitution gives you the right to free speech... the Constitution does not guarantee the right to wide distribution of speech.

The US Constitution does not guarantee that you will be successful in business only that you are free to pursue happiness. When you are in business there are always environmental changes that you have no control over that will 'ruin' you. If, for example, you have a car wash place... then the city closes your street for three months for road repairs, you are screwed. I've seen things like this happen all the time... it is the nature of business.

It might be wrong, but it is their right to do this. If their advertisers are telling them that they do not want their products marketed side by side with content that their customers do not approve of... well.... then it is a business decision. Companies have the right to protect their brand... if in the process of protecting 'their brand' they end up losing content and viewers... well then they will suffer the consequences of their actions.

This is a different topic and really this is an old debate that actually goes back to the Gutenberg Bible in the 15th century where people were worried that the printing press would have an undo influence on the masses, where a publisher of a printing press who be able to exercise undo influence on the masses. Then radio... then TV... now the internet. But people always find a way to get their points across. When conservatives felt their voices were not heard on TV... they went to AM Radio, eventually an entire TV cable station was dedicated only to conservative content (FOX)... if there is a demand for content, people will find a way to get it... unless the government mucks things up and tries to control the market of ideas.

You are mixing Constitutional protections with with ideas that are not an enumerated right. It is illegal to discriminate on race, religion, and the courts have ruled discrimination against sexual orientation, in certain instances can also be illegal. Now if the government steps in and compels equal access for political and social opinions, well okay... change the law. But if we do that you would be opening up a whole can of worms that I'm not sure many people would like. Anytime the government steps in and tries to control anything it gets fvcked up. Let the free market work.

SJWs and political correctness have been around for centuries. This is not a new phenomenon. People will always use media in an attempt to shape a narrative or promote a political position... and every time there is a new 'technology' be it the printing press... radio... TV.... now the internet, people have always been fearful of the results. New media ALWAYS brings about change... it is the natural order of things. The only time this is a problem is when government attempts to control this, dictating content. If we allow Government to order private companies and individuals what the MUST allow... then where does it end?

You have a point to some degree but then there is the realistic implementation of your points and then there is the idealistic implementation. In the idealistic implementation, you say they don't have to give you a platform. However, there is then the realistic implementation, which says they own the social media space at this point and if you want to reach literally billions of people, you need to have their consent to use their tool. It's not a matter of whether or not you can profit from your speech, it's being allowed to say it. Being censored off of their platform severely limits your ability to make your speech known. It would be like being banned from using the Gutenberg press at the time. Yes, you can publish your materials but your ability to do so is severely hampered by not having access to the press and having to do it by hand. Either the government supports and accepts the citizen's rights to free speech or they don't. Allowing companies that have the market cornered on digital speech to make arbitrary calls, from moment to moment, about what is acceptable speech is infringing on those rights.

I'll say it again, you can't protect ideas without protecting all forms of speech, at least those that don't encourage illegal behaviors. If you allow people or companies to censor or discriminate based on an idea, then all forms of discrimination are on the table. If I, as the government, allow a company to censor based on a political idea, then allowing for them to discriminate on a value set, say religion, is on the table. So is your race, color, creed or sexual orientation. You can't allow freedom of association in one instance and then deny it in other instances, you have to be even handed in how you apply your logic.

Facebook and others in this genre of business have made the claim that they are simply a platform in court. This allows them protection from being sued for various things that are posted on their platform. Whether it is slander, copyright issues or some of type of legal matter, the platform argument can work in their favor to protect them against damages. However, now, in public, they claim to want to censor based on mostly, political or social ideas that the SWJs find abhorrent. Of course, the SJWs are essentially third wave feminists or cucks who support them and their sense of fairness, decency and morals are unbelievably skewed towards fascism and communism but many people have difficulty seeing this for some reason. Social media platforms can't have it both ways, either they are a platform, agnostic of ideas, thoughts or content posted or they are a publisher, who gets to use that defense to censor people and ideas that they do not find worthy of their platform or audience/users. If you allow them to use the platform defense in court, then that's the label that they are stuck with and can't censor people.

You are right, SJWs have been around for centuries and the pendulum swings back and forth. This is though, a fairly skewed swing for the pendulum this time though. We have not seen many times in history where the pendulum went to this kind of extreme and the few times that it does, empires fall. What we are witnessing, unless drastic measures are taken, is the fall of the west. The last time we saw this type of extreme move towards one end or the other, I daresay, led to the dark ages. Science, medical and logic deniers beware, we are in dangerous times.

 

[highSpeed]

You are asking for increased government... you are asking that government force privately owned companies to allow people they disagree with to freely express opinions on platforms they own. The argument was made in courts that social media and on-line content service providers dominate the internet to such an extent that they are a defacto public space... ALL these arguements have been rejected in summary decisions and NONE have risen above the district court level, ALL have NOT been reviewed in circuit courts, much less Federal Courts, therefor no where near a judicial review by the USSC.

I am not ignoring FACTS... I am accepting reality. These platforms that are regulating what people can post on their websites is NOT illegal. What you are arguing is that is SHOULD be illegal... Fine... try and get the laws changed... good luck with hitting your head against a brick wall.

A conservative USSC has ruled that organizations and companies are entitled to individual free speech rights (See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) and that 'right' extends to political contributions. Conservatives that have blurred the lines between what can be legally done with Super PACs.

This is where you are wrong. Even if you want to set aside the notion that they are the de facto digital space for free speech, they themselves claim that they are merely a platform in court, a humble purveyor of digital content, agnostic of a judgement on that content. They have used that defense in a number of court cases and have been successful in using that defense.

However, now in public, they claim to be willing and able to censor people based on ideas that mostly lefties find abhorrent. They have to be held to account, either they are a publisher or they are a platform. You can't use one defense in court and them claim to be something else in public. If they want to be a publisher, then those court rulings that they won based on the platform argument should be vacated and they should be successfully sued for allowing whatever content that was deemed in appropriate on their tool. You can't have it both ways.

 

[highSpeed]

How I look at it is a condition of realities. A person can have a different reality than mine and I can just acknowledge it's different and then just ignore it.
So what is the nature of a government that it has to squelch other realities just because they exist? What motives are they withholding? We can talk about diversity but in fact it cannot be allowed to exist according to the governments. This make me think of Thomas Jefferson and his writings on government.
Jefferson was right all along. A powerful government can't and won't let thoughts other than their own exist. A government's "thought's" are created by who gets voted in. It is not true cultural evolution as masses can be swayed and have forgotten that they are individuals with their own reality.

Would censorship need to exist if those doing it were free thinking and on the up & up? No. Censorship is needed when the prevailing message is an aberration to the natural inclinations of human beings.

+1 on this, great last couple of sentences. This sums up the entire issue, no more needs to be said. Now it remains to be seen what the logical people left in this society will do to ensure that this type of logic stays at the forefront of our decision making situations.

 

[RangerMIke]

Let me make it exceedingly simple for you.

This is a corporation engaging in activity reserved for Super PACs. That is ILLEGAL.

Yes.... you need to make it simple for me, because I obviously do not know what I'm talking about. Please explain how a social media platform is a Super PAC?

Because in my simple mind, I always believed a at a Super PAC was a tax exempt 527 organization that is formed to spend money on issues and they are free to do whatever the fvck they want provided they do not 'coordinate' with any one campaign or actually donate money to a particular political campaign. Individuals can contribute whatever the fvck they want into these organizations, means "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" (which ironically all their claims were proven to be fabrications) only has to have 4 contributor funding millions. Or on the other side Soros can put over $20 million of his own money supporting Super PACS supporting liberal causes. The only time Super PACs run at odds with the FEC is when there is evidence of direct coordination or funding with campaigns.... which is really hard to prove.

The FEC regulates CAMPAIGN finance.... not free speech... and the REASON why the lines are blurred and it is difficult to prove is because the USSC has RULED that you can not limit what people put into Super PACs because spending money is 'free speech' and organizations have individual rights.

I agree that Corporations operating as a 527 tax exempt organization as a Super PAC could be illegal. But PLEASE explain to me why you believe that social media platforms are behaving like a Super PAC? They are not tax exempt... they do not take donations form private individuals, They do not promote issues, they do not limit political speech, the top two most popular Twitter accounts of political people are President Obama and President Trump, and Twitter has NEVER limited or deleted anything either man has ever posted. As far as I know, no politician of either party has been banned from any social media platform for expressing a political opinion that does not violate the terms of use.

But let's say you are right, and they are acting like Super PACS, they can not violate any campaign finance laws if they are not taking donations. So unless there is evidence they are doing this, then the FEC has no jurisdiction. But lets say they are, and they are taking donations, and they ARE LEGALLY structured as a Super PAC... even then they are STILL allowed to promote whatever the fvck they want... and thus can limit what they do not want to promote. And there is no obligation that they have to be truthful... in fact if truth was a requirement in political advertising, then just about every single ad ever run in the USA would be illegal.