VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

[melonpapes]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

sorry bub we are a private grocery store n we do not wanna be caught selling FOOD to a LITERAL FASCIST get out of here go hit the food bank *cuts up your visa*

[melonpapes]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

RACIST idiot FACIST gets OWNED!!

[devonin]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

I mean...grocery stores have already had the right to refuse service to anybody for any non-discriminatory reason. They could -already- not sell to somebody whose politics they didn't like. So that slippery slope you're trying to show us has been running perfectly non-slippery for a very long time.

A private company reserves the right to control its private spaces.

He can say anything he wants on any platform that will have him. He is not guaranteed a platform or network beyond those available to all of us through the public arena.

If all he has left is an actual soapbox in a public square to stand on, he's still not been censored and his right to free speech has not been taken away.

I get that the centrist liberal position wants to obsess over "Your beliefs are only strong beliefs if you apply them in the cases where you don't want to" and anybody who cares about freedom of speech is obliged to care about the freedom of speech of everybody, not just people who say things we like. And yes, absolutely. 'Free speech for all' means for all, not just non-assholes. But BOY can you still support his free speech (which has not actually been impeded in any way whatsoever by being removed from any number of private platforms, because that is not how free speech works or has ever worked) without also pushing so hard to want to force people to help support the gross and harmful consequences of his exercise of speech.

[Zeldagurlfan1]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

This isn’t a scam right?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Funnygurl555]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

yeah its only every major electronic/internet payment handler and the credit card companies used to make the majority of these electronic/internet payments but you can still write alex jones a western union money order or stuff a 20$ in an envelope and hope it makes its way to him

you see, taking away the money he uses to run his platform isn't literally sewing his mouth shut (even tho the next step is likely not allowing him to purchase a domain or server to run his site on regardless of who funds it but heyyyyy da frogman is done for guys!)

I mean the claim that he is being censored or stopped from saying whatever he wants by not being able to get money from people via a private service is absurd.

I don't get any money via paypal at all, and I can say all the same things he does.

Are you guys deliberately ignoring that Alex Jones was deplatformed on YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, etc. etc. ??

I mean...grocery stores have already had the right to refuse service to anybody for any non-discriminatory reason. They could -already- not sell to somebody whose politics they didn't like. So that slippery slope you're trying to show us has been running perfectly non-slippery for a very long time.
A private company reserves the right to control its private spaces.

He can say anything he wants on any platform that will have him. He is not guaranteed a platform or network beyond those available to all of us through the public arena.

Yeah what the companies have done is totally legal and fine, but it's not good.

If all he has left is an actual soapbox in a public square to stand on, he's still not been censored and his right to free speech has not been taken away.

It has become considerably more difficult for him to spread his message. The fact that a few companies have the power to control speech that much is not.. good for free speech.

I get that the centrist liberal position wants to obsess over "Your beliefs are only strong beliefs if you apply them in the cases where you don't want to" and anybody who cares about freedom of speech is obliged to care about the freedom of speech of everybody, not just people who say things we like. And yes, absolutely. 'Free speech for all' means for all, not just non-assholes.

Yeah

But BOY can you still support his free speech (which has not actually been impeded in any way whatsoever by being removed from any number of private platforms, because that is not how free speech works or has ever worked)

I feel like this is ignoring the power of the companies that banned him.

without also pushing so hard to want to force people to help support the gross and harmful consequences of his exercise of speech.

I don't understand what this means.

[Funnygurl555]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

I'm double-posting and idgaf because this is another topic of its own

arch0wl's just been watching too many right-wing conspiracy theory vids lately

The view that he has isn't just a view that right-wing conspiracy theorists hold. I agree with Arch0wl, and I don't agree with him on many things. I'm quite literally on the other side of the political spectrum than him.

You can hate what people do but still support their right to do it. I'm sure we both think that Alex Jones is an idiot, but that's not the point.

... i'm gonna go i have more to say but hanging out with work friends

[aperson]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

Let's be clear here on why Alex Jones was deplatformed: He argued that the Sandy Hook school shooting was faked and that the victims and their families were "crisis actors". He argued that this was part of a deep state conspiracy to take away guns. He helped and continues to help publish details about the families of Sandy Hook school shooting survivors. He has encouraged his listeners to harass them to the point that they have to purchase private security and have hidden grave sites for their dead kids so they don't get harassed when trying to visit them.

Without Alex Jones pushing the Sandy Hook conspiracy, those families of dead kids would not be getting relentlessly harassed.

These are not ideas that grow and die in the "marketplace of ideas." Correct ideas do not prosper over time. Fast ideas that match our existing cognitive biases do. Longer debate does not make the correct idea float to the surface. Louder influence does however propagate ideas and cause listeners to stochastically start acting on those ideas. Maybe if you don't believe me you'll believe a conservative think tank's publication on the new era of propaganda: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

Interestingly, several of these features [of propaganda] run directly counter to the conventional wisdom on effective influence and communication from government or defense sources, which traditionally emphasize the importance of truth, credibility, and the avoidance of contradiction. Despite ignoring these traditional principles, Russia seems to have enjoyed some success under its contemporary propaganda model, either through more direct persuasion and influence or by engaging in obfuscation, confusion, and the disruption or diminution of truthful reporting and messaging.

...

The experimental psychology literature suggests that, all other things being equal, messages received in greater volume and from more sources will be more persuasive. Quantity does indeed have a quality all its own.

...

Due to their lack of commitment to objective reality (discussed later), Russian propagandists do not need to wait to check facts or verify claims; they just disseminate an interpretation of emergent events that appears to best favor their themes and objectives. This allows them to be remarkably responsive and nimble, often broadcasting the first “news” of events (and, with similar frequency, the first news of nonevents, or things that have not actually happened).

While Alex Jones is not explicitly Russian propaganda, he uses the same tactics and tools. This sort of propaganda is exactly what the "marketplace of ideas" is weak against, and the rand publication link provided above gives an excellent breakdown of why the marketplace of ideas catastrophically fails to deal with his form of propaganda.

What recommendations do we have to counter it? The Rand publication doesn't provide much direct alternatives; it mostly just laments the failure of fact-based counter-reporting:

The first step is to recognize that this is a nontrivial challenge. Indeed, the very factors that make the firehose of falsehood effective also make it quite difficult to counter: For example, the high volume and multitude of channels for Russian propaganda offer proportionately limited yield if one channel is taken off the air (or offline) or if a single misleading voice is discredited. The persuasive benefits that Russian propagandists gain from presenting the first version of events (which then must be dislodged by true accounts at much greater effort) could be removed if the true accounts were instead presented first. But while credible and professional journalists are still checking their facts, the Russian firehose of falsehood is already flowing: It takes less time to make up facts than it does to verify them.

We are not optimistic about the effectiveness of traditional counterpropaganda efforts. Certainly, some effort must be made to point out falsehoods and inconsistencies, but the same psychological evidence that shows how falsehood and inconsistency gain traction also tells us that retractions and refutations are seldom effective. Especially after a significant amount of time has passed, people will have trouble recalling which information they have received is the disinformation and which is the truth. Put simply, our first suggestion is don’t expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth.

...

Rather than just trying to counter disinformation with other information, it might be possible to thwart desired effects with other capabilities—or to simply apply information efforts to redirecting behaviors or attitudes without ever directly engaging with the propaganda. That leads to our third suggestion: Don’t direct your flow of information directly back at the firehose of falsehood; instead, point your stream at whatever the firehose is aimed at, and try to push that audience in more productive directions.

Emphasis mine.


In summary, Alex Jones caused families of Sandy Hook kids that were murdered to get relentlessly harassed. Trying to outcompete his narrative in the marketplace of ideas will be completely ineffective and he will still have reach to radicalize people into harassing others as long as he has a platform. To uphold free speech absolution for private corporations, we either have to accept that relentless harassment is a side effect of maintaining private corporate free speech, or we have to find an alternative strategy to inhibit the effects of his speech.

So for anyone who doesn't support private corporations deplatforming Alex Jones, my questions to you are:

1. Do you accept that relentless, arbitrary harassment is a side effect of maintaining free speech in our country? If so, what risks do you think outweigh the costs of this harassment?

2. If you don't think harassment is acceptable but you also don't think that deplatforming is appropriate, what alternatives that may actually work do you suggest? Remember, "marketplace of ideas" isn't an option here.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

Yes, relentless and arbitrary harassment is a side effect of maintaining free speech
Which is why I am accepting the relentless and arbitrary harassment of Alex Jones in this thread
I don't agree with Alex' harassment, nor do I agree with the harassment against Alex.
But not agreeing doesn't mean I will try to shut you up.
I'm listening to your opinions, I'm giving my own, and will change my stance if convinced.
Right now I am advocating not to perpetuate this cycle of aggression.
I see your intentions are good and all, but you're bullying the bully, and I will not join you in that.

Harassment is acceptable in as much as human nature isn't perfect.
Deplatforming isn't appropriate in as much as I've stated above.
What I suggest?
That we don't interfere.
That we listen to eachother and stay open to suggestions while remaining critical of all sides.
That we don't claim to be an authority on what is right or not right to say.
If people want to fund someone they agree with, who are you to tell them their decision is wrong?
Who are corporations to tell them their decision is wrong?
I suggest that we let people speak what they want, and let nature take its natural course.
Remember, "marketplace of ideas" isn't an option here? I disagree.

[melonpapes]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

Are you guys deliberately ignoring that Alex Jones was deplatformed on YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, etc. etc. ??

My post is like dripping in sarcasm or whatver u wanna call it. I'm sort of parodying the other side I think. don't quote or argue with me seriously based on that post lol. sry. no i'm not ignoring/forgetting that.

[melonpapes]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

I'm double-posting and idgaf because this is another topic of its own



The view that he has isn't just a view that right-wing conspiracy theorists hold. I agree with Arch0wl, and I don't agree with him on many things. I'm quite literally on the other side of the political spectrum than him.

You can hate what people do but still support their right to do it. I'm sure we both think that Alex Jones is an idiot, but that's not the point.

... i'm gonna go i have more to say but hanging out with work friends

I hate alex jones's snake oil commercial bullshit and think thats a big scam but thats obviously not why he was shut down from taking payments/donations/what have you and its an alarming amount of control in regards to a private corporation being able to limit one's ability to dispel information into the public sphere or otherwise scare them into thinking twice before freely sharing their opinions. which of course probably doesn't sound bad to those people who are happy to shut out certain demographics from the discourse, but, yknow, muh scary precedent. ooooo

[Aquellex]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

anybody who mentions the words "marketplace of ideas" has been watching too much Dave Rubin to be fair

[rayword45]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

Yes, relentless and arbitrary harassment is a side effect of maintaining free speech
Which is why I am accepting the relentless and arbitrary harassment of Alex Jones in this thread

lmao if u think this no name website constitutes harassment on an even remotely equitable level to the harassment families of school shooting victims have had to endure

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

no I meant the deplatforming

[Funnygurl555]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

My post is like dripping in sarcasm or whatver u wanna call it. I'm sort of parodying the other side I think. don't quote or argue with me seriously based on that post lol. sry. no i'm not ignoring/forgetting that.

Oh, okay. Sorry I didn't notice the sarcasm ><

Let's be clear here on why Alex Jones was deplatformed: He argued that the Sandy Hook school shooting was faked and that the victims and their families were "crisis actors". He argued that this was part of a deep state conspiracy to take away guns. He helped and continues to help publish details about the families of Sandy Hook school shooting survivors. He has encouraged his listeners to harass them to the point that they have to purchase private security and have hidden grave sites for their dead kids so they don't get harassed when trying to visit them.

That's the one part that I thought shouldn't have happened. I guess I don't know enough about this case. I wasn't finding this type of info on the articles I've read about the case.

These are not ideas that grow and die in the "marketplace of ideas." Correct ideas do not prosper over time. Fast ideas that match our existing cognitive biases do. Longer debate does not make the correct idea float to the surface. Louder influence does however propagate ideas and cause listeners to stochastically start acting on those ideas. Maybe if you don't believe me you'll believe a conservative think tank's publication on the new era of propaganda: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

In this case, it's pretty obvious that Alex Jones doesn't have a correct idea (even his defense team doesn't buy his shit), but in other situations, what's right and what's wrong is murkier. We shouldn't silence what we think is wrong. We all hold beliefs that are incorrect.

So for anyone who doesn't support private corporations deplatforming Alex Jones, my questions to you are:

1. Do you accept that relentless, arbitrary harassment is a side effect of maintaining free speech in our country? If so, what risks do you think outweigh the costs of this harassment?

It's a side-effect, yes. As I said before, it's the fault of the people who are actually harassing the families, not someone spreading "fake news".

The risk of this is honestly not having free speech and an open place to exchange ideas, that the only acceptable things to say are what the majority deems correct and appropriate. If we're not open to opinions that we think are wrong, then we won't question our own beliefs and be better.

There was a time where we thought slavery was okay. There was a time when we thought racism was okay. There was a time when we thought homophobia was okay. Now we know they're not okay, but would we have come to this conclusion if we kept silencing the people who went against those previously majority-held beliefs?

2. If you don't think harassment is acceptable but you also don't think that deplatforming is appropriate, what alternatives that may actually work do you suggest? Remember, "marketplace of ideas" isn't an option here.

Punish the people who make the families feel unsafe, the ones sending death threats.

Edit: Harassment is such a horribly misused term, lol. I read Scintill's thing and while we believe the same thing, I wouldn't call what's happening to Jones harassment. He deserves shit thrown at him. Not this shit though

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

Edit: Harassment is such a horribly misused term, lol. I read Scintill's thing and while we believe the same thing, I wouldn't call what's happening to Jones harassment. He deserves shit thrown at him. Not this shit though

Yes, I'm fine with word shit thrown at him aka freedom of speech
Not deplatforming actions aka not words