Very much in-line with the recent "Google Manifesto" and the sacking of an employee for wrong-think, the big-hitters in social media have been heavily clamping down on those it disagrees with.

This now comes in the form of Twitter suspensions, Facebook bans and de-monetisation of YouTube videos. The level at which this is occurring has stepped up. This well put together video (approx 10m) captures the state of play a year ago - things have accelerated since then:

[Link]

Once again, Sargon of Akkad (https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad) has been suspended by Twitter. Lauren Southern had her Patreon account shut down. Ladies Diamond and Silk(https://twitter.com/DiamondandSilk/status/895693343522398208) have had their YouTube videos de-monetised, seemingly because they support POTUS (indeed, they are one of the 45 accounts Donald Trump follows on Twitter).

These are just a small drop in the ocean - there are hundreds more examples, and with very little opportunity to appeal. The same is just not happening on the other side of the political spectrum, with many examples of more extreme views being entirely green-lit.

These platforms are becoming ideologically dangerous safe-space echo chambers. Where there is no dissenting viewpoint, you do not grow as a society. You stagnate.

Frankly, it is becoming frighteningly Orwellian, as Google has aptly demonstrated. These companies, however, are merely doing the bidding of a political agenda that (IMHO) is losing the argument, and now must resort to stifling the argument.

Whatever your viewpoint, the exchange of viewpoints should be facilitated by these platforms, not controlled by them.

I would ask that, if you choose to comment here, you first watch the above video, and also please keep on-topic.

Edited by davenotamonkey (11 Aug 2017 9.20am)

Edited by davenotamonkey (11 Aug 2017 9.30am)

Reminds me of the old days with Thatcher's cabinet. If you disagreed with her you were out. And does Leave's total disregarding of the truth about that £350mill count as censorship?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Problem you have here is that these are private companies and social media is not protected as free speech, as the forum they provide for communication is a private one, to which users subscribe.

Now I'm not going to defend people closeing down free speech, because that's wrong. There is nothing wrong with being a Trump Supporter, a Flat Earther, Conspiracy Theoriest of 9/11 - but some times people do stray into (and I'm being generous) areas which really are about infringing on other peoples rights, especially minority groups, that really tend to be 'agenda driven' such as holocaust denial, anti-gay rights that border on being highly inflammatory and deliberately insulting to other users of that social media - and that I don't have a problem with it being shut down - Because its outside of the terms of agreement that the user signed up to.

Problem is that a lot of those being shut down also have a tendency to attack other users as well, which creates a problem if you're a moderator. Who do you represent, the rights of an individual that are not applicable, or your general user base which are applicable under the terms of agreement.

But and here's the but, if people are staying within the terms of agreement, or their employee contract, then they should not face disciplinary proceedings or censorship.

Also I think that when people say they're losing the argument, they're tending to miss the point that a lot of these people aren't engaging in debate but oratory and rhetoric - not engagement.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (11 Aug 2017 10.48am)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I don't really agree much with Jamie on this....we can talk about 'private companies'...but we can also talk about practical 'monopolies'.

At the end of the day censorship, outside of dictatorships, never wins. Alternatives spring up and I'm eager for that 'Youtube killer'.

I've already started using 'Minds' a lot....I'm eager for more platforms that haven't been infected with the kind of censorship these insidious 'wrong-think' guardians want to impose on us.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Ethically yeah...practically I'm yet to be convinced it works.....maybe it does....maybe it's like the original minimal wage argument and the Tories are wrong.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I think maybe the compromise is that if you can be demonstrated to be lying to an independent body, then you could be banned.

Its hard to sympathise with some of the right wingers on Facebook, because they're so aggressively in your face and distributing of thinly veiled hate.

In truth, I think you should only be censored if your regularly attacking other people, trolling, inconsiderate to other users or committing an act that is criminal, liablous etc.

A cousin of mine, regularly posts all kinds of absurd s**t, including accusing Bill Clinton of being a rapist a murderer, holocaust denial, that anyone who has an abortion is a killer, that trans people are mentally ill and not human as well as occasional right wing arguments that are fairly well formed.

I'm surprised he hasn't been banned truth be told, because in between his decent points, are legally questionable content and statements there is a really scary level of thinly veiled hate.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]