Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Wikipedia - Censorship: 

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.

Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

 Being banned from a platform for breaking their rules isn't censorship~ <3

Okay you aren't even trying anymore. 

 You're going to cry censorship no matter what, choosing to be in a community that has rules and then breaking those rules and being kicked out from it isn't censorship. There's no point in continuing. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change my mind. 

We've just been saying what the word means. 🤷

Turncoat said: 

We've just been saying what the word means. 🤷

 This is really just last word wins for you really, you may have it if you like.

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

We've just been saying what the word means. 🤷

 This is really just last word wins for you really, you may have it if you like.

No, it's discussing the presence of censorship. You seem to think it's not there, which is what ultimately led to nitpicking the word in the first place. 

Collectively banning 1 person from twatter, youtube, and FB at the same time, because the 3 companies agreed on it, is very much censorship, over political ideology.

You do know that companies always have a clause where they can ban or delete for no reason in their TOS ?

It is simple, if you want to get a following of people today, you do not go to the TV or the news outlets or the radio. You go on twatter, FB and youtube, maybe twitch. Why? Because that's where millions of people are. Those companies have a monopoly on discourse and they are using this power to its full effect.

If you get banned from all these, you literally can't have a following that can fight those chosen by the platforms to stay. You lose, end of the line, you are removed, censored, you are not irrelevant, and discarded. It is irrelevant if it's because of TOS lol, the effect is what I said. And the platforms know it, they are not retarded.

You wanted examples, here they are, now stop pretending.

Getting banned off SC is irrelevant because SC does not have millions of people to follow you... Think outside of the box.

Good said: 

Collectively banning 1 person from twatter, youtube, and FB at the same time, because the 3 companies agreed on it, is very much censorship, over political ideology.

You do know that companies always have a clause where they can ban or delete for no reason in their TOS ?

For inciting violence and he(if you're talking about trump) was only banned after the 6th of January. That's not so much a political thing as much as it is a liability thing. People died, remember? 

It is simple, if you want to get a following of people today, you do not go to the TV or the news outlets or the radio. You go on twatter, FB and youtube, maybe twitch. Why? Because that's where millions of people are. Those companies have a monopoly on discourse and they are using this power to its full effect.

They had that following, they literally just needed to follow the rules they agreed to use the service. Fuck many of them had been warned several times before they were finally banned. You guys act as if these companies should not enforce their own rules. 

If you get banned from all these, you literally can't have a following that can fight those chosen by the platforms to stay. You lose, end of the line, you are removed, censored, you are not irrelevant, and discarded. It is irrelevant if it's because of TOS lol, the effect is what I said. And the platforms know it, they are not retarded.

The problem is that they don't right out ban you do they, all of these people had been using these services for years. Some of those people were banned earlier for violating tos and came back under a different name. You act as if these people won't retain their cult following. As if thousands upon thousands of people haven't followed them to Gab, Parler or bitchute. 

You seem to think that these other platforms owe you something and that these rules should not be applicable to you or those you like or follow. 

You wanted examples, here they are, now stop pretending.

Getting banned off SC is irrelevant because SC does not have millions of people to follow you... Think outside of the box.

 You're right it's not the same, the posting of tos from this forum is an example that you have agreed to use this site as long as you follow the rules you've set forth, that you've the right to terminate or suspend the use of the site or access to anyone violating tos.

It was stupid when they banned him from Spotify. I guess they worried he’ll listen to the eye of the tiger and get too hyped.

Feathers said: 

It was stupid when they banned him from Spotify. I guess they worried he’ll listen to the eye of the tiger and get too hyped.

 It was a ban through WeChat which is owned by Tencent which owns a percentage of Spotify. Its not so much that he's banned from listening but rather from using the platform to make or upload podcasts really. 

Lenalee said: 

You seem to think that these other platforms owe you something and that these rules should not be applicable to you or those you like or follow. 

Going to those platforms = no new followers. Its a dead end.

They were not banned for TOS, they are banned for political views. Many people on the other side of the political spectrum are still tolerated and given special rights, esp if they are mainstream (in mainstream cases, sometimes both political sides get a free pass).

I don't think I need to explain this again.

And the TOS themselves are changed all the time to cater to one side of the political spectrum too... As I said, think outside of the box, TOS is not absolute.

The TOS on this site says I can ban you if I feel like it, btw.

Good said: 

Lenalee said: 

You seem to think that these other platforms owe you something and that these rules should not be applicable to you or those you like or follow. 

Going to those platforms = no new followers. Its a dead end.

They were not banned for TOS, they are banned for political views. Many people on the other side of the political spectrum are still tolerated and given special rights, esp if they are mainstream (in mainstream cases, sometimes both political sides get a free pass).

I don't think I need to explain this again.

And the TOS themselves are changed all the time to cater to one side of the political spectrum too... As I said, think outside of the box, TOS is not absolute.

They went to those platforms and their followers followed them, more and more people are still going there and again if you're talking about trump he was only banned after what happened on the 6th of January. 

The TOS on this site says I can ban you if I feel like it, btw.

 Exactly my point. Thanks!