And I notice that the people who keep screeching about the 'free speech rights' of platforms to selectively ban people and opinions are awfully quiet here.
I don't know what the back story is, but the easy argument (if I was going to take that position, trying to be good faith about it) is that the government banning a service isn't in any way the same as a service banning an individual, due to power differences, legal allowances, etc. Of course the UK is probably different there in some ways, so maybe it's less different than it is here in the US.
Either way, it's wrong of the government to ban rumble because they're butthurt, but the UK doesn't allow for actual rights, nor does most of the west.
Isn't that literally censorship? The actual definition of the government silencing people? And those same people are quiet? Lovely, isn't it? The whole "it's a private company" cannot even be used here so that's also out which is why they are silent.
Well yeah. Without knowing the back story, I can't really be more specific. But I think we can all agree that banning some things (eg leftists) would make our lives better. Is it censorship? Yes. But I'm trying to win, not trying to play to some higher standard while we lose.
It's good that you're playing devil's advocate, because it forces the rest of us to not spout off nonsense because no one challenges what we say.
To be more specific, they claim that governments like Texas restricting the ability of platforms to ban people is a violation of 'free speech rights'. And in fact, some idiot courts have struck such downs such bans as a First Amendment violation.
That would mean that governments forcing platforms to ban content is good and appropriate, and definitely not a violation of free speech rights, while governments forcing platforms to allow free speech is a violation of free speech rights.
We live in an upside-down world, so in that way it makes sense, but it certainly makes no logical sense.
Following that, I'd say that the government (Texas, in your example) recognizes that social media is the new public square, and shouldn't allow censorship.
I can see the logic there. The courts banning them are (imo) in the wrong because of that, but there's a legal history there and I'm probably more pro free speech than most people here (I'm also probably more pro playing by the lefts rules and removing them from power by any means possible than most).
Going back to your example about the other people who aren't talking, I can't say I understand that point of view. If I was trying to agree with them in good faith, I'd try to be consistent with small government principles, and note that a bigger government is historically bad. And I agree with smaller government being generally better, but sometimes they need to act, so I can't actually support that pov.
Another angle you can approach this from is that these businesses aren't acting like a business but are being ran similar to organised crime operating behind the scenes where basic consumer rights are being breached.
Noncooperation could leave Rumble executives open to arrest if they came to Britain, as the bill provides for senior managers to be held criminally liable.
Who in his right mind would go to Britain to begin with?
Who in his right mind would go to Britain to begin with?
Anyone non-white and from a culture of savagery. They get rewarded with cash/prizes and a police force too busy harassing 12 year old shit-posting online to hold them accountable.
So I went ahead and looked at a few of his videos. Russel Brand isn't saying anything revolutionary. He's just asking people to look into it themselves and form their own opinions based on the things they uncovered themselves.
It's mind bogglingly stupid how that can upset the government enough to want to shut you down.
"Hey, go ahead and find the truth, make up your own minds!"
Russel Brand isn't saying anything revolutionary. He's just asking people to look into it themselves and form their own opinions based on the things they uncovered themselves.
In today's parrot culture, that is revolutionary.
Hell, I think they mind people's opinions much less than the mere fact that people are thinking.
Until a few years ago he was a leftist himself maybe they are afraid to lose their online echochambers to this guy or just want to use this as a test balloon to bann all future wrong thinkers and as an example ofc.
To be fair, there's not exactly much to choose in the Western world. I guess Poland and Hungary, but even those are one US-funded election away from becoming basketcases.
If you can get a job located in the U.S., it makes the visa and nationalisation process easier, but obviously finding a non-woke job that won't subject you to the same sort of tyranny of where you're trying to get away from is the real challenge.
Under the new law Rumble will have to prevent children from seeing pornography and material that promotes self-harm, suicide or eating disorders.
That's 90% of mainstream media gone
Violent content and material harmful to health, such as vaccine misinformation, will also have to be kept from children.
If they actually meant fake information about the vaccine, then the BBC should be shut down because of this.
Rumble will also have to take down material that is illegal, such as videos that incite violence or race hate.
Stares at mainstream that supported BLM..
Noncooperation could leave Rumble executives open to arrest if they came to Britain, as the bill provides for senior managers to be held criminally liable.
Ok they won't come to Britain, these people really think they are the centre of the universe even though they NOWHERE near earned that idea, at least during the Empire they had actually gunboat diplomacy, I just heard UK cops are disarming themselves that they might need to bring in the army to deal with armed situations it's such a shitshow over there.
The age verification applies to any content that is not "suitable for children". That's a lot of stuff that has to go behind verification. This site included. Not just adult websites as the media kept claiming, it has wide reaching consequences.
Pretty much, the left (as UK Conservatives are left with a lower speed limit) make far reaching rules designed to catch ALL their dissenters, not realising if ANYONE else gets in power, they signed their own death warrants as they no longer have any legal protections because they just removed them.
I just heard UK cops are disarming themselves that they might need to bring in the army to deal with armed situations it's such a shitshow over there.
They want to act like American police and get away with shooting people.
The gov said no until they all threatened to quit so the gov caved in to them.
So its time to bury ofcom under complains about troonery, and blm glorification in the uk media. Ofcourse they will not do anything about it. The agency/office/tyrant is supporting those things.
Airstrip One is a total neoliberal clown show. Blocking the britbongs is the right course once the Online Safety Bill takes effect. I feel slightly bad for Sargon since Rumble is his main platform.
That thing I warned would happen as a consequence of the Online Safety Act is happening.
It won't stop with Rumble.
They look at North Korea's Kwangmyong with envy and jealousy but they know going that far in Britain would be overplaying their hand so they're emulating Russia - the same country they condemn for draconian censorship.
Sadly, despite telling them to fuck off, in no uncertain terms, it didn't even take two centuries for the USA to be nearly right back with them on these sorts of issues.
These people are the worst.
Rumble, a video-sharing platform based in North America, has become home to Brand and other figures with extreme views
I thought the claimed issue is that he totally (trust me bro) raped some women. What do his so-called "extreme views" have to do with anything? Oh, these people are lying liars, it all makes sense.
Just redirect all UK users to a splash page teaching them about free speech and which feminist tyrant is pushing to censor Russell Brand (and who her political opponent is)
Read somewhere that it would be a dns block, like the incredibly ineffectual danish "protect the children blocking" (which they got hijacked to block pirate sites of course). they hijack the dns and redirect to whatever site/splash they want. In Denmark its usually a splash about the poor rights holders crying about lost extortionate profits.
So the masses wont see that splash because its been blocked and replaced.
In my opinion, the United States armed forces should not be engaging in pointless forever wars in the middle east, but threatening belligerent states such as the UK with B-2 flybys and protecting the borders with lethal force.
Certainly not a fascist tactic.
And I notice that the people who keep screeching about the 'free speech rights' of platforms to selectively ban people and opinions are awfully quiet here.
Shocking, I know.
I don't know what the back story is, but the easy argument (if I was going to take that position, trying to be good faith about it) is that the government banning a service isn't in any way the same as a service banning an individual, due to power differences, legal allowances, etc. Of course the UK is probably different there in some ways, so maybe it's less different than it is here in the US.
Either way, it's wrong of the government to ban rumble because they're butthurt, but the UK doesn't allow for actual rights, nor does most of the west.
Isn't that literally censorship? The actual definition of the government silencing people? And those same people are quiet? Lovely, isn't it? The whole "it's a private company" cannot even be used here so that's also out which is why they are silent.
Well yeah. Without knowing the back story, I can't really be more specific. But I think we can all agree that banning some things (eg leftists) would make our lives better. Is it censorship? Yes. But I'm trying to win, not trying to play to some higher standard while we lose.
It's good that you're playing devil's advocate, because it forces the rest of us to not spout off nonsense because no one challenges what we say.
To be more specific, they claim that governments like Texas restricting the ability of platforms to ban people is a violation of 'free speech rights'. And in fact, some idiot courts have struck such downs such bans as a First Amendment violation.
That would mean that governments forcing platforms to ban content is good and appropriate, and definitely not a violation of free speech rights, while governments forcing platforms to allow free speech is a violation of free speech rights.
We live in an upside-down world, so in that way it makes sense, but it certainly makes no logical sense.
Following that, I'd say that the government (Texas, in your example) recognizes that social media is the new public square, and shouldn't allow censorship.
I can see the logic there. The courts banning them are (imo) in the wrong because of that, but there's a legal history there and I'm probably more pro free speech than most people here (I'm also probably more pro playing by the lefts rules and removing them from power by any means possible than most).
Going back to your example about the other people who aren't talking, I can't say I understand that point of view. If I was trying to agree with them in good faith, I'd try to be consistent with small government principles, and note that a bigger government is historically bad. And I agree with smaller government being generally better, but sometimes they need to act, so I can't actually support that pov.
Another angle you can approach this from is that these businesses aren't acting like a business but are being ran similar to organised crime operating behind the scenes where basic consumer rights are being breached.
Exactly
"It's okay when WE do it!"
That is their tried and true defense
this is unironically their mentality. to them, there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.
You have to commit fascism to prevent fascism. Jeez
Oh yea. I forgot that logic
Who in his right mind would go to Britain to begin with?
Anyone non-white and from a culture of savagery. They get rewarded with cash/prizes and a police force too busy harassing 12 year old shit-posting online to hold them accountable.
Africans mostly.
Normies seem to think we've evolved beyond that sort of thing somehow
So I went ahead and looked at a few of his videos. Russel Brand isn't saying anything revolutionary. He's just asking people to look into it themselves and form their own opinions based on the things they uncovered themselves.
It's mind bogglingly stupid how that can upset the government enough to want to shut you down.
"Hey, go ahead and find the truth, make up your own minds!"
OI, YOU GOT A LOISENCE TO LOOK FOR DA TROOF?
In today's parrot culture, that is revolutionary.
Hell, I think they mind people's opinions much less than the mere fact that people are thinking.
Until a few years ago he was a leftist himself maybe they are afraid to lose their online echochambers to this guy or just want to use this as a test balloon to bann all future wrong thinkers and as an example ofc.
To be fair, there's not exactly much to choose in the Western world. I guess Poland and Hungary, but even those are one US-funded election away from becoming basketcases.
If you can get a job located in the U.S., it makes the visa and nationalisation process easier, but obviously finding a non-woke job that won't subject you to the same sort of tyranny of where you're trying to get away from is the real challenge.
Lmao the more I read about this bill the funnier it gets. Why is Britain out of everyone the runner up on police states?
That's 90% of mainstream media gone
If they actually meant fake information about the vaccine, then the BBC should be shut down because of this.
Stares at mainstream that supported BLM..
Ok they won't come to Britain, these people really think they are the centre of the universe even though they NOWHERE near earned that idea, at least during the Empire they had actually gunboat diplomacy, I just heard UK cops are disarming themselves that they might need to bring in the army to deal with armed situations it's such a shitshow over there.
The age verification applies to any content that is not "suitable for children". That's a lot of stuff that has to go behind verification. This site included. Not just adult websites as the media kept claiming, it has wide reaching consequences.
Pretty much, the left (as UK Conservatives are left with a lower speed limit) make far reaching rules designed to catch ALL their dissenters, not realising if ANYONE else gets in power, they signed their own death warrants as they no longer have any legal protections because they just removed them.
They want to act like American police and get away with shooting people. The gov said no until they all threatened to quit so the gov caved in to them.
So its time to bury ofcom under complains about troonery, and blm glorification in the uk media. Ofcourse they will not do anything about it. The agency/office/tyrant is supporting those things.
Airstrip One is a total neoliberal clown show. Blocking the britbongs is the right course once the Online Safety Bill takes effect. I feel slightly bad for Sargon since Rumble is his main platform.
That thing I warned would happen as a consequence of the Online Safety Act is happening.
It won't stop with Rumble.
They look at North Korea's Kwangmyong with envy and jealousy but they know going that far in Britain would be overplaying their hand so they're emulating Russia - the same country they condemn for draconian censorship.
Brits gonna brit.
Sadly, despite telling them to fuck off, in no uncertain terms, it didn't even take two centuries for the USA to be nearly right back with them on these sorts of issues.
These people are the worst.
I thought the claimed issue is that he totally (trust me bro) raped some women. What do his so-called "extreme views" have to do with anything? Oh, these people are lying liars, it all makes sense.
Just redirect all UK users to a splash page teaching them about free speech and which feminist tyrant is pushing to censor Russell Brand (and who her political opponent is)
Read somewhere that it would be a dns block, like the incredibly ineffectual danish "protect the children blocking" (which they got hijacked to block pirate sites of course). they hijack the dns and redirect to whatever site/splash they want. In Denmark its usually a splash about the poor rights holders crying about lost extortionate profits.
So the masses wont see that splash because its been blocked and replaced.
what are you gonna do, fly a couple of lesbian traffic cops to florida?
Is this fascism or tyranny?
Porque non los dos?
That's how your response translates to English. Were you trying to say: "why not both" ?
I think it's a meme, but me no speaky Spanish.
Cool.
This meme originates from an Old El Paso commercial from the 2000s
If the translation is inaccurate, blame whoever wrote the subtitles.
The only appropriate taco is made with a deep-fried hard shell.
There is an extra "n" there so maybe that's the reason. "¿Porque NO los dos?"
Communism. Fascism is a national movement. This wef stuff is worldwide borderless
Isn't rumble based out of Florida?
In my opinion, the United States armed forces should not be engaging in pointless forever wars in the middle east, but threatening belligerent states such as the UK with B-2 flybys and protecting the borders with lethal force.
Link isn't working for me
Try: https://archive.is/LqZep
Otherwise, the Archiving service may be broken for you as it has been for some of us for a whole.
That one works, thanks.