Internet Censorship.

[tigermud]

PayPal still works! Just not for Alex Jones. People can still use PayPal for those other things.

I noticed that! Did you also know soros is behind it?

The ban was handed down just weeks after George Soros-funded group Right Wing Watch published an article demanding that PayPal terminate its agreement with Infowars for “egregious violations of the platform’s own terms of service.”

 

[sggatecl]

I noticed that! Did you also know soros is behind it?

The ban was handed down just weeks after George Soros-funded group Right Wing Watch published an article demanding that PayPal terminate its agreement with Infowars for ?egregious violations of the platform?s own terms of service.?

Did they?

 

[tigermud]

Did they?

Wow I had to use yahoo to find this again google is filtering out infowar results

The company claimed that Infowars violated PayPal’s “acceptable use policy” because it “promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions.”

No specific examples whatsoever were officially provided to back up this claim, which relies on a nebulous definition of “hate” which is so vague that virtually anything could qualify.

Off record, Infowars was told that criticism of Islam and opposition to transgenderism being taught to children in schools were two of the examples of “hate”.

The ban was instituted despite InfowarsStore.com containing no political content whatsoever, emphasizing how the decision was a broader attack on the Infowars platform.

PayPal banning Infowars is the ultimate culmination of what represents a de facto Communist Chinese-style social credit score, where first you are demonized, then censored, before your basic ability to operate freely in the marketplace is withdrawn.
The decision is also blatantly political given the fact that the mid-terms are now just weeks away.

 

[Spartanmack]

Paypal is not the internet. Credit cards are not the internet. I totally get why these things dramatically impact his bottom line, but those private companies don't owe him anything. The amount of power certain private companies is scary, but that's not the same thing as trying to argue the Alex Jones has a right to someone else's private property.

this seems like a very different tune from the one you sang re: a baker's right to refuse to use his talents to participate in something he/she finds objectionable. Paypal finds Alex Jones objectionable and that's ok since he's not a member of a protected class? The baker has no issues with homosexuals, just gay weddings. I think that makes his situation a lot like the Alex Jones situation.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think phone companies could probably ban him too if they wanted. None of that has happened, but it's fair to consider as an exercise. If you want to take the next step, how about banks? Don't legal pot companies have this problem where a lot of financial institutions won't do business with them?

Legal at the state level, aren't they're still breaking federal law?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Legal at the state level, aren't they're still breaking federal law?

Good point. That's it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

this seems like a very different tune from the one you sang re: a baker's right to refuse to use his talents to participate in something he/she finds objectionable. Paypal finds Alex Jones objectionable and that's ok since he's not a member of a protected class? The baker has no issues with homosexuals, just gay weddings. I think that makes his situation a lot like the Alex Jones situation.

I'm trying to play both sides here, so it can get confusing. I worry about these companies having too much power. Especially political power. I'm sympathetic to what Tigermud is talking about because I agree there's a concern there. At the same time, the government has no business telling companies who they can and cannot deny service outside of protected classes.

The first argument doesn't apply to the baker. There's no baker with such overwhelming market share that they influence politics or people's ability to engage in politics.

Just talking about the 2nd argument, I'm not sure where you think I've been inconsistent.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm trying to play both sides here, so it can get confusing. I worry about these companies having too much power. Especially political power. I'm sympathetic to what Tigermud is talking about because I agree there's a concern there. At the same time, the government has no business telling companies who they can and cannot deny service outside of protected classes.

The first argument doesn't apply to the baker. There's no baker with such overwhelming market share that they influence politics or people's ability to engage in politics.

Just talking about the 2nd argument, I'm not sure where you think I've been inconsistent.

I think I'm following - it's not that confusing. As I recall, you came down on the side of the gay couple and saying the government could/should tell companies who they can and cannot deny service to. the distinction to me is, he's not denying service for any of his "generic" or regularly produced items, he views his custom work as participation in an event he's morally opposed to.

Following the logic from this discussion, the baker is not denying or disrupting their ability to get married, he's barely even inconveniencing them (certainly less so than Alex Jones AND Tigermud are being inconvenienced by PayPal) by not participating, as they can simply go to the next baker.

 

[Spartanmack]

The issue I have with Paypal and the left in general is using such vague standards for who they ban and who they don't. Anything they don't like, they just label as "hate" and that's the end of it. If anyone doesn't see the obvious inconsistency and blatant bias in their labeling of hate, they're either na?ve or a leftist or both.

 

[tinselwolverine]

PayPal banning Infowars is the ultimate culmination of what represents a de facto Communist Chinese-style social credit score, where first you are demonized, then censored, before your basic ability to operate freely in the marketplace is withdrawn.
The decision is also blatantly political given the fact that the mid-terms are now just weeks away.

Infowars is never gonna influence any election. It?s not even political as what you posted actually says. It?s a cult entertainment site specializing in tasteless nonsense. It?s the old Weekly World News on the internet. It?s Rosie O?Donnell screaming that fire can?t melt steel. Virtually nobody takes Infowars seriously.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think I'm following - it's not that confusing. As I recall, you came down on the side of the gay couple and saying the government could/should tell companies who they can and cannot deny service to. the distinction to me is, he's not denying service for any of his "generic" or regularly produced items, he views his custom work as participation in an event he's morally opposed to.

Following the logic from this discussion, the baker is not denying or disrupting their ability to get married, he's barely even inconveniencing them (certainly less so than Alex Jones AND Tigermud are being inconvenienced by PayPal) by not participating, as they can simply go to the next baker.

I think the distinction I got hung up on was whether or not the cake counted as speech. If it's a product that is not speech, he has to bake the cake. If it is speech, he doesn't.


In this case, money transfer services are not speech and Alex Jones is not a protected class, so there are few parallels to the Paypal half. On the social media side of things, Jones still isn't a protected class, but it is speech, which strengthens the media platforms' right to deny service.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Are money transfer services speech might be a more complicated issue than what I just said? Not sure. But if they are, that enhances PayPal's right to refuse service, since private companies and citizens don't have to participate in speech they don't agree with.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think the distinction I got hung up on was whether or not the cake counted as speech. If it's a product that is not speech, he has to bake the cake. If it is speech, he doesn't.

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion supporting the baker.

I didn’t read the entire decision, just outtakes that were published in media. From what I read, the decision more protected the bakers first amendment rights to freedom of religion, more so than freedom of speech.

EDIT: His first amendment rights to freedom of religion were violated by the Colorado civil rights commission the court ruled.

ABC News.
.

 

[Spartanmack]

Infowars is never gonna influence any election. It?s not even political as what you posted actually says. It?s a cult entertainment site specializing in tasteless nonsense. It?s the old Weekly World News on the internet. It?s Rosie O?Donnell screaming that fire can?t melt steel. Virtually nobody takes Infowars seriously.

for the un- or ill-informed, the Weekly World News on the internet is the Weekly World News on internet...

http://weeklyworldnews.com/

 

[tinselwolverine]

for the un- or ill-informed, the Weekly World News on the internet is the Weekly World News on internet...

http://weeklyworldnews.com/

I was comparing info wars to the old weekly world news publication before the weekly world news was on the Internet.

The Old weekly world news - The publication of version before the Internet version-was never on the Internet.

 

[Spartanmack]

I was comparing info wars to the old weekly world news publication before the weekly world news was on the Internet.

The Old weekly world news - The publication of version before the Internet version-was never on the Internet.

what you did was you disrespected one of the most revered institutions in media. just admit you made a mistake and move on.


Edit: just to be clear, is the WWN news you disrespected, not Alex Jones.

 

[tinselwolverine]

what you did was you disrespected one of the most revered institutions in media. just admit you made a mistake and move on.


Edit: just to be clear, is the WWN news you disrespected, not Alex Jones.

Well it was a double edged sword. While almost nobody cared about the weekly world news publication, it was a favorite of the tinfoil hat crowd - and it actually was a little amusing, It never inspired any kooks to violence, even the tinfoil hat crowd didn?t take it that seriously.

Now the tin foil hat crowd leans toward Alex Jones on the Internet, and doesn?t care much about the Internet version of the weekly world news.

There have been a few nuts who have been inspired to violence by Alex Jones.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well it was a double edged sword. While almost nobody cared about the weekly world news publication, it was a favorite of the tinfoil hat crowd - and it actually was a little amusing, It never inspired any kooks to violence, even the tinfoil hat crowd didn?t take it that seriously.

Now the tin foil hat crowd leans toward Alex Jones on the Internet, and doesn?t care much about the Internet version of the weekly world news.

There have been a few nuts who have been inspired to violence by Alex Jones.

I'm not feeling inspired toward anything, just a little offended on behalf of the weekly world news.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm not feeling inspired toward anything, just a little offended on behalf of the weekly world news.

I don?t know if I ever bought a copy or not. I sometimes was amused at the headlines when I was waiting in line at the grocery store.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion supporting the baker.

I didn?t read the entire decision, just outtakes that were published in media. From what I read, the decision more protected the bakers first amendment rights to freedom of religion, more so than freedom of speech.

EDIT: His first amendment rights to freedom of religion were violated by the Colorado civil rights commission the court ruled.

ABC News.
.

They very narrowly ruled that the previous court showed prejudice against religion and was unfair. They didn't establish much of a principle that would apply to future cases. The next similar situation could go the other way.