Tolerant left wants to censor private conversations

The Left always become tyrannical oppressors over time, who end up mass slaughtering the people who won’t tolerate it. Lefty bigots.

Trump, when is he banning companies from getting involved in politics?

This is anti-democratic.

I told you not to talk to them. They have nobody to attack any more, nothing to fight – this makes them impotent. If you don’t cut the head off the Hydra, it can’t grow more! Avoid the control freaks (isolate them like they want – safe space?) or they will get you arrested. You can’t fix the stupid. And you’re making them stronger with your eyeballs on their twitter etc. They feed from attention and they’re starving.

She wants to ban jokes.
Seriously. Why not make it the Meme Banning Bill?

State sponsored sense of humour! When do we get a list of requirements!

Vice police of the mind!

This is anti-safe space, does tumblr know?

All the fandoms that would die?

Most fandoms are millions of people in groups online.

Hey, they arrested people for making public opinions known so people hid in DM and PMs and the like, how is this surprising? But how will they ban any forum? (members 500+)

YOU CAN’T KILL AN IDEA, LABOURITE.

They want to break up large groups so they can pick off each group and the others aren’t warned about this or tactics in good time to respond. A group of minds is essentially a supercomputer and trained on political info (e.g. Q) can uncover many things.

The sluts have the most to fear from this, because if they ban private conversations, all your flirting online will have to be public. All the girls will see all the tactics you try on the others.

This ruins freedom of association, including intimate (emotionally intimate) conversations. They’re trying to call everyone else a cult… the New Church Ladies.

It isn’t about women, that’s a straw man. They don’t like being questioned, especially journalists, anyone with bias. There shouldn’t be “protected groups”, we must be equal under the law? They’re allowed to judge us, we aren’t allowed to judge them (r-types fear The Mob).

She should fuck off and take her menopause meds instead of taking it out on us that she isn’t getting enough follows on twitter. Yeah, you can’t force people to like your message, Mz Hitler! All their signals are turning against them, because their mask is slipping….

And by banning all others rhetoric, that’s what they’re trying to do, they think they can force people back asleep.

She could start a blog but people have to be dedicated to read those and you can’t really shame people for seeking out ideas, a liberal principle. It’s freedom of speech. One reason I don’t advertise or shill. I’m not harming a fly over here so…. where’s the grounds?

Logically, she’d have to ban large social gatherings, including pubs. In London, the largest social gatherings happen in mosques….. so…. nothing will happen. Khan won’t let it.

She’s carping about online harassment, when that’s an SJW-pushed thing. Well, wouldn’t this then apply to all the SJWs who go around monstering random, normal people? Trying to ruin their lives? One rule for plebs, is it?

And you wondered why nobody wanted to vote for “I’ll make upsetting Muslims illegal!” Miliband? We know that ends in a very literal test of the phrase “sticks and stones…” or a gay club shooting. Let them all have their bloody diversity, don’t lift a finger.

She implicitly admitted she starts arguments with people then gets all triggered when they argue back? Like people? Maybe don’t get angry at everything?

You can’t win without having the debate first, you dumb cow.

You people have been politically retarded since the Blair era, they haven’t adapted for the times whatsoever and expect the rest of us to slow our roll.

You don’t have to have a twitter account. You don’t have to use the internet. Go home, old hag, you clearly hate what the internet is about. Nobody gives a shit if you’re an MP if your points suck donkey balls. Those people disagreeing were trying to help you! Become more relevant!

The internet is not for people like her, she isn’t tall enough for this ride.

Young people aren’t buying papers these days, let alone The Guardian (its readership is dead/dying, look up the data). If they had a paywall, their traffic count couldn’t justify all those journalists – and you know they wouldn’t fire all the white ones! The Guardian’s white journalists rake in the majority of their traffic because the Boomers reading it only want to read them (e.g. Toynbee).

This is Old Media (dying media) protectionism.

If politics is a “science”, they can hide data behind paywalls far, far away from the voting plebs!

Sargon: Censorious social media

Un-personing is against human rights.

Digital Sine nomine.

They’re depriving a person of their livelihood, nowadays a social media presence is compulsory. They brought this about, they are duty bound to it. They serve US, all of us.

Terms and conditions do NOT apply above the state’s law and common law.

Terms and conditions are not legally binding documents until proven so. They are literally made up and “complied with” completely arbitrarily – not how real laws work.

These are ideological witch hunts.

300 years ago, they’d be accusing the prettiest woman in town of being a witch because she wouldn’t sleep with them.

comment

I would question the moral code of these social media companies especially YouTube. I flagged content made by a YouTuber encouraging adults to sleep with minors (named kun Tyra or something) and YouTube kept the content up without flagging the channel for child endangerment. Let seek out this union and because this behaviour stinks to high heaven.

It’s like how tumblr is a porn site but parents let their kids on it because the kids only show them sweet Disney cartoons. On Youtube, most channels are shilling and they aren’t legally required to disclose this. You want full power? You need full responsibility. No “mistakes were made”. I’ve flagged things as literally toxic – nobody cares!

They are guilty of treason by acting as judge, jury and executioner, terms and conditions are NOT “enforced” because they are not a government. Nobody knows who they are, they are biased and nobody can vote them in/out. They are acting beyond their authority.

Internet access is a human right, it was proven in an EU court.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/innovation-industry/news/broadband-internet-access-will-become-a-legal-right-under-new-eu-telecoms-rules/

and the UN agreed

https://www.wired.com/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/

As in, “de-platforming” online is illegal. Equivalent to banning someone from a public park (speaker’s corner)!

Monopoly laws must be applied.

The world’s noosphere isn’t run by middle-class post-grad America.

They are just a platform, the power is with the people.

They’re scared of him, which will make more people listen, the morons.

Streisand Effect?

aka why hardly anyone links to me.

The best way to win on this is to push the classist angle.

They are. They’re keeping the lower orders in line. It’s all about classist brainwashing.

This isn’t like kicking a gadfly from a college class. That’s also technically illegal since they pay for the class.

You’re a utility, you can’t turn down anyone for service.

My electric can’t switch it off because they dislike my opinions on ketchup.

My water company can’t stop because my musical taste sickens them.

They are there to provide service. To serve. Censorship is illegal. Nobody signs up to be censored.

Social media FANG-type stock would collapse tomorrow if they couldn’t illegally handle your data and get away with it. PM/DMs/Email are privileged communications. If you’re speaking about medical issues over DM or to your lawyer by email, it is breaking privacy law (the human right) to scan or read it. They’re opening your letters.

Judging, editing, copying and/or banning it is…super-illegal.

They’re a public service. The Post Office doesn’t approve you for sending mail.

They serve the public. The public > Them.

Do you really think this info just stays in the companies? They don’t talk, compile hit lists, gossip to their friends about this one user?

The Left are the ignorant ones

I’ve never had to explain shadow banning to a right-winger.

It’s always the left wing.

You can explain in five different ways.

They still won’t get it.

“But I posted it, people can see it!”

Really.

It’s only up FOR YOU.

TO MAKE YOU THINK YOU AREN’T CENSORED.

To trick you into using a service that won’t serve you.

This means you won’t seek out or make competition.

It’s anti-competition and hence, illegal.

Done?

Good.

Another point:

Just because they write something in a shitty Terms of Service doesn’t make it legally valid.

It has to end up in court and be maintained, which almost never happens.

Otherwise they could take all your rights away because TOS.

Anyone can write a TOS. You can write a TOS. It means nothing.

So no, instagram don’t own your photos and if they use your copyright for a profit, you can and should sue. You didn’t negotiate terms and they didn’t expressly pay on a photo by photo basis. They can’t deprive you your IP rights as a content creator. Same with YT videos.

They are a hosting service with delusions of ownership.
On the DailyMail, a celebrity’s selfie will have the copyright logo and …”Instagram”.

No?

Challenge that, Trump.
The copyright is created when the photo is made, there is no transfer without a specific contract and exchange of money. No.
They use this data, sell it and things you always own (even after death) like your likeness can be used for deepfakes and AI “research”. Informed consent in experiments means you must know what you’re entered into, study by study, with an option to opt out. They stole the data for research so it isn’t scientific and none of it actually counts.

They are acting as an illegal government, over-ruling the real one.

That’s why their stock price is so high.

Silicon Valley’s social media will go down in history as the biggest attempted intellectual property theft in human history. They don’t own your crappy poetry, your book reviews, NONE OF IT.

Things also turn invisible, disappear entirely from the selected page the FIRST time you load it (because who loads twice) and Twitter decides to unfollow people for you and follow other people on your behalf if you’ve been away from it for a length of time and presumably, won’t notice.

Make an offence for digital gaslighting?

Video: Facebook Sharia

They’re murdering atheists. They’re killing agnostics, scientists, anyone who thinks. Freedom of speech does exist for atheists, speaking as a religious person.

This is evil, joining forces with savagery.

When you defend Islam, remember they’d kill you for it.
Appeasement doesn’t work on backwards ‘cultures’, Facebook should be tried in an international court of human rights.

As I’ve heard, “The peaceful Muslims are DEAD Muslims.”

FYI This is why we had a Reformation and now have the internet.

Meanwhile, our current PM advocates for her own slavery.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/674489/Home-Secretary-Theresa-May-says-Britain-benefits-Sharia-Law

Facebook helping the Left eat itself

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/facebook-is-helping-the-left-to-eat-itself/

Recently, I’ve seen otherwise moderate Lefties go insane.

Long rants to complete strangers on unrelated pages.

It’s been fantastic. The best part of the internet is reputation.

People can discern who the liars and nutters are pretty easily.

rdj claps applause mhmm

Also, our term.

Yes, there is an ouroboros of the left.

Local intel gathering

Rabbits are such lemmings the time to gather data on them is now. Before economic …difficulties

Before they think to delete it. After all, why would they be ashamed of their advocacy? They’re all about ‘raising awareness’, and making it very public.

They keep similar lists on blogs of supposed ‘offenders’ and it’s all on public social media so it might as well go into a more public database. What are the odds they could resist liking a single one of these?

https://www.facebook.com/Britishinfluence/

https://www.facebook.com/StrongerInCampaign/

https://www.facebook.com/UNWomenUK/

https://www.facebook.com/HeForShe/

https://www.facebook.com/unitednations/

https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanCommission/

https://www.facebook.com/europeanparliament/

https://www.facebook.com/EULawandPublications/

https://www.facebook.com/UNAUK/

https://www.facebook.com/Council-of-Europe-42276542714/

https://www.facebook.com/theguardian/ Incredibly predictive.

https://www.facebook.com/americans.against.islamophobia/

https://www.facebook.com/cageuk/

https://www.facebook.com/everydayfeminism/

https://www.facebook.com/BlackLivesMatter/

https://www.facebook.com/free.equal/

https://www.facebook.com/NEWSLGBT/

https://www.facebook.com/jesuslovesgays/

https://www.facebook.com/WFLAtheism/

https://www.facebook.com/libdems/

https://www.facebook.com/liberalyouth/

https://www.facebook.com/thegreenparty/

https://www.facebook.com/younggreens/

https://www.facebook.com/labourparty/

https://www.facebook.com/Labour-International-304250363016740/

https://www.facebook.com/MPACUK1Ummah/

https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/ Old but reliable.

https://www.facebook.com/SlutsForObama/

https://www.facebook.com/LiberalAndProudOfIt/

https://www.facebook.com/liberalandproud/

https://www.facebook.com/MinimumWageRaise/

https://www.facebook.com/greenpeace.international/

https://www.facebook.com/democrats/

https://www.facebook.com/WOMENSRIGHTSNEWS/

https://www.facebook.com/smashingthepatriarchy/

https://www.facebook.com/Jezebel/

You see the sort of thing. There are parodies like this.

https://www.facebook.com/socialjusticewarriors/

Feel free to suggest new ones. I based it on Facebook because most people are on there and lurk news on their timelines. I suppose you could list all the followers of each page but really the motivation is finding out the motivations of the people around you socially.

How to find out if your Facebook friends are Far-Left supporters

http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/how-to-find-out-if-your-facebook.html

– But how can you tell if your Facebook friends burn literature, physically attack people for their views and violently disrupt political meetings they don’t agree with?

To help our supporters, you can use the links below to find out if you have anyone on your friends list who supports Hope not Hate, Unite Against Fascism, AntiFa or the Labour Party.

To find friends who like Hope not Hate –
https://www.facebook.com/browse/friended_fans_of/?page_id=91897231853

To find friends who like UAF –
https://www.facebook.com/browse/friended_fans_of/?page_id=101124430813

To find friends who like AntiFa –
https://www.facebook.com/browse/friended_fans_of/?page_id=37315363535

To find friends who like the Socialist Workers Party –
https://www.facebook.com/browse/friended_fans_of/?page_id=132633832928

To find friends who like ‘Radical Independence Campaign’, the Scottish soap-dodgers –
https://www.facebook.com/browse/friended_fans_of/?page_id=566948540013005

To find friends who like ‘Left Unity’ –
https://www.facebook.com/browse/friended_fans_of/?page_id=327424650740809

To find friends who like the Labour Party –
https://www.facebook.com/browse/friended_fans_of/?page_id=25749647410

To find friends who hate music and like the band ‘One Direction’ –
https://www.facebook.com/browse/friended_fans_of/?page_id=121930497861753

We think that just about covers the most tiresome of the fascist, anti-free speech, pro-intolerance groups. If we’ve missed any off, please let us know and we’ll add them to the list.

Expose the rot.

red dwarf looking searching investigation

“Human Rights” as Property Rights

My short answer to liberals: my body and what comes out of it.
They twist themselves into pretzels trying to get round that one.

http://mises.org/daily/2569

Furthermore, couching the analysis in terms of a “right to free speech” instead of property rights leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. The most famous example is Justice Holmes’s contention that no one has the right to shout “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.”[3] And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.[4]

For, logically, the shouter is either a patron or the theater owner. If he is the theater owner, he is violating the property rights of the patrons in quiet enjoyment of the performance, for which he took their money in the first place. If he is another patron, then he is violating both the property right of the patrons to watching the performance and the property right of the owner, for he is violating the terms of his being there. For those terms surely include not violating the owner’s property by disrupting the performance he is putting on. In either case, he may be prosecuted as a violator of property rights; therefore, when we concentrate on the property rights involved, we see that the Holmes case implies no need for the law to weaken the absolute nature of rights.

Indeed, Justice Hugo Black, a well-known “absolutist” on behalf of “freedom of speech,” made it clear, in a trenchant critique of the Holmes “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” argument, that Black’s advocacy of freedom of speech was grounded in the rights of private property. Thus Black stated:

I went to a theater last night with you. I have an idea if you and I had gotten up and marched around that theater, whether we said anything or not, we would have been arrested. Nobody has ever said that the First Amendment gives people a right to go anywhere in the world they want to go or say anything in the world they want to say. Buying the theater tickets did not buy the opportunity to make a speech there. We have a system of property in this country which is also protected by the Constitution. We have a system of property, which means that a man does not have a right to do anything he wants anywhere he wants to do it. For instance, I would feel a little badly if somebody were to try to come into my house and tell me that he had a constitutional right to come in there because he wanted to make a speech against the Supreme Court. I realize the freedom of people to make a speech against the Supreme Court, but I do not want him to make it in my house.

That is a wonderful aphorism about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. But you do not have to shout “fire” to get arrested. If a person creates a disorder in a theater, they would get him there not because of what he hollered but because he hollered. They would get him not because of any views he had but because they thought he did not have any views that they wanted to hear there. That is the way I would answer not because of what he shouted but because he shouted.[5]

Marketplace of ideas…

Basically, if a person is creating a racket, kick them off your land. This includes digital space. They can rant about you somewhere else.

…There would then be no shortages, and no feelings of resentment at a promise (“equal access” of the public to the column, podium, or microphone) reneged….

This is why Occupy Wall Street failed, a small model of communism where there is no ownership of resource and hence, no leadership.
The Progressive Stack made the useful people resent being pushed to the back of the queue when they had merit.

But beyond the question of prices, there is a deeper matter involved, for whether by prices or by some other criterion, the resource must, in all cases, be allocated by its owner.

Professional victims must continually find new platforms for it because the audience turns on them.
Poor dears don’t realize they are the problem, they provide nothing worth listening to. Listening to the problems of others is depressing, comedians only get away with it because they aren’t really upset to make light of it. If those ‘victims’ leafleted the entire world they’d be boo’d, yet they think the problem is lack of a sympathetic audience. Diaries are meant to be private because they’re embarassing. Sharing it in public is a way for self-loathing people to feel better under the guise of sympathy. They are not your friends. If you need to discuss private issues, see a professional.

The solution is to recast the meaning of the “right to freedom of speech” or “assembly”; instead of using the vague, and, as de Jouvenel demonstrates, unworkable concept of some sort of equal right to space or time, we should focus on the right of private property. Only when the “right to free speech” is treated simply as a subdivision of property right does it become valid, workable, and absolute.

Your section of the internet is yours to control, it is your domain for your opinions and no one has a right to tell you what you should or should not put up there. However, if you put something they disagree with, or something very stupid, they can devote their own content to questioning yours or mocking you. Dissent is the price of discussion. Social media is tricky, but the privacy settings and seperation of accounts mean a person chooses to see and click on your content, they are entering your domain, although it is owned by a company, it contains your content, and this is how the companies make money.

Unless a space is open to the public e.g. a company’s page, a public campaign’s page, arguably a celebrity’s page, then it’s fair game because a person cannot be ‘banned’ from what is public.

A crucial point about the relationship between speaker and listener, it is a choice on both sides.
SJWs do not get this so people avoid them. Respect of boundaries.

This can be seen in de Jouvenel’s proposed “right to buttonhole.” De Jouvenel says that there is a “sense in which the right of speech can be exercised by each and everyone; it is the right to buttonhole,” to talk and to try to convince the people one meets, and then to collect these people in a hall, and thus to “constitute a congregation” of one’s own.  …(Provided, of course, we remember the right of another person not to be buttonholed if he doesn’t want to, i.e., his right not to listen.)

You can’t make me care about your opinion either.

De Jouvenel almost recognizes this when he considers the case of two men, “Primus” and “Secundus”:

Primus …has collected through toil and trouble a congregation of his own doing. An outsider, Secundus, comes in and claims the right to address this congregation on grounds of the right of free speech. Is Primus bound to give him the floor? I doubt it. He can reply to Secundus: “I have made up this congregation. Go thou and do likewise.”

Precisely. In short, Primus owns the meeting; he has hired the hall, has called the meeting, and has laid down its conditions; and those who don’t like these conditions are free not to attend or to leave. Primus has a property right in the meeting that permits him to speak at will; Secundus has no property right whatever, and therefore no right to speak at the meeting.

Door’s over there.

At work, we have a respectful rule we refer to as colloquially “Your Room” aka when somebody else is in charge, even if we may outrank them beyond that situation, they organised it, it’s their baby, and unless they request our help or need it urgently, it is “Your Room” to work with. This builds up trust and competence. It’s important around machinery too.

Similarly, the private ownership of all streets would resolve the problem of the “human right” to freedom of immigration. There is no question about the fact that current immigration barriers restrict not so much a “human right” to immigrate, but the right of property owners to rent or sell property to immigrants. There can be no human right to immigrate, for on whose property does someone else have the right to trample? In short, if “Primus” wishes to migrate now from some other country to the United States, we cannot say that he has the absolute right to immigrate to this land area; for what of those property owners who don’t want him on their property? On the other hand, there may be, and undoubtedly are, other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to Primus, and the current laws now invade their property rights by preventing them from doing so.

Succinct.

The way to halt immigration is to stop renting to migrants altogether. If they have no place to settle, they’ll leave, and residence is required to pick up welfare checks and have many children to pick up more. Encourage landlords to rent to natives, who cause less trouble, and punish harshly for housing illegal immigrants. Purchases should have a limit.

Honorary mention: freedom of association. To get in your house, a stranger must be invited in.