Was it fair that Andrew Tate got banned from all the major social media platform?
Fair Deplatforming Andrew Tate?
[Deactivated] on 10/09/2022 - 17:41
Last edited 10/09/2022 - 17:55
Last edited 10/09/2022 - 17:55
Poll Options
- 495Yes
- 201No
Comments
This is the free market in action. None of these companies owe you, him or anyone else a platform - they're here to protect their bottom line. Lo and behold, deplatforming antisocial misogynistic dirt bags tends to align quite well with protecting profits. Who could have guessed.
If you don't like the free market, maybe you're the lefty.
It's really not about profits, because he existed on these platforms for years while all of these companies profits grew (well the ones that are profitable anyway - lol twitter).
The left wing cancel mob are just constantly in search of the next "boogie man" and few companies can be bothered dealing with them so just remove whatever it is they are whinging about this week…
Not a great long term strategy though, they always eventually circle back and start going for their own that aren't "left" enough, J.K. Rowling comes to mind, a left wing feminist… But not left enough anymore lol.
I disagree with pretty much everything Tate says but de-platforming because the service doesn't agree with someone's point of view is a slippery slope.
Liberal communist is an oxymoron
They still hate him but Atleast have the integrity to admit that the most of what he says is harmless positive talk
So to be an ar$ehole, you have to be an ar$ehole 100% of the time?
100% of the time?
Are you okay ? I had written that in response to @dust saying that he/she disagrees with “pretty much everything that Tate says”
Read the thread again, with some honesty this time.
@Gervais fanboy: You are the one missing the point. Saying reasonable things does not negate the unreasonable extreme views therefore still an ar$ehole.
@singlemalt72: See, you got so much bias in your eyes you can’t even see clearly
I WASN’T debating/defending whether Tate is an @$$h0le..
@Dust said he/she hates everything about that fella… I only made the point that they must haven’t seen everything that Tate must have said.
That’s it, just thatYou interjected the rest of that conjecture and will keep arguing about it coz you have no integrity..
What about int he context of the human trafficking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tate#Criminal_investiga…
What about the Romanian woman held at his property? https://www.gandul.ro/actualitate/anchetatorii-au-descins-in…
@AustriaBargain: So you are gonna bunny hop from one false accusation to another, hoping that something sticks..?
How about you have some integrity and atleast first acknowledge that your initial suggestion was completely bogus and then go on to cite some foreign article that my mobile browser wouldn’t even translate into English.Btw I just looked up ‘Romanian woman held by Tate’..
NOTHING related to it, comes up.. can you cite a more credible example@Gervais fanboy: That Romanian link is the source for one of the claims in the Wikipedia criminal investigation link, it's not jumping from one point to the other, it's the same point. I'm guessing you didn't actually read the Wikipedia section I linked to..
I'm guessing you didn't actually read the Wikipedia section
Na, I made the even bigger mistake by giving your response more credit than I should have.
So you have just sent me an article that you yourself can’t read and vet but you shared it anyways because you based it on some Wikipedia editor who’s disingenuously attached it to their text..Next time, please also share the new and improved definition of inflation on wIkIPeDiA
@Gervais fanboy: Back in the day everyone knew to treat Wikipedia with skepticism. I'll never understand how it has become a de facto information source these days. The ridiculous dog-walking Wikipedia powermods happily admit that they don't care about verifiable facts if it 'goes against the consensus' or if their journo friends haven't written it up in an article yet.
@AustriaBargain: Man this wiki reads like a guardian column. It actually quotes random not for profits' opinions of this dude as part of the article…
@infinite: Exactly, it makes you wonder why people don't do their own Research.
I now see why a majority just went to get the vaccine without looking at the side effects.
If you got the vaccine and you knew the risks then yeah, cool, but most people didn't research it.
If you're going to use the term "slippery slope", you should probably include how you think this would get worse. Because by itself "slippery slope" is worse than meaningless, it's usually a sign of a bad argument. "Giving kids sugar is a slippery slope to cocaine because they're both addictive", doesn't mean we should ban sugar.
Social media companies live off "engagement" and the more controversial someone is the more views and ads it drives. They have no interest in banning this stuff, which is why they only ever act when it hits a level of batshit crazy they have to act. It's not a slippery slope to anything, it's them doing the bare minimum to maintain any kind of sanity on their platforms.
Allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope to owners marrying their pets.
Ordaining female ministers is a slippery slope in rewriting the whole Bible.
Euthanasia is a slippery slope for people offing themselves at the drop of a hat.
don't forget farting is a slippery slope to shitting your pants
Was it fair that Andrew Tate got banned from all the major social media platform?
If anyone goes down the incel/MGTOW path, they are never going to be truly happy.
It's a literal guarantee to make anyone miserable overtime.
But to answer the question, it doesn't really matter whether it was fair or not to ban Tate. The social media platforms have their own terrms of service and will act as they see fit, no matter how obscure or potentially unfair its users think of it.
This issue is he didn't appear to have broken any of their ToS though.
Breached their policies on Hate speech, apparently.
Nope, apparently it was because he wasn't taking any sponsorships.
The hate speech thing is misinformation. I love how he calls it Tate Speech. Hilarious.
I dare you to source this hate speech. You can't. Everything is unsubstantiated.
"Thou shalt not negatively affect our bottom line"
Social media platforms are not a democracy. They can ban whatever feel like and not have to explain their actions.
Not true at all. These companies are fined, investigated by government agencies and dragged in front of congress on a near weekly basis to explain themselves and their actions.
@infinite: The topic of this post is Andrew Tate.
I am only talking about moderation and banning of content creators.
Andrew Tate is a content creator.
He is not a tax loophole or subversive data harvesting process that needs intergovernmental oversight.
@infinite: They can be dragged in front of congress to listen to conservatives cry about being oppressed, but they have not been fined once for deplatforming because it's their platform.
Gotta love it when conservatives get upset about the free market in action. Beyond that, dragging a company to explain why they kicked someone off their own platform is big government intervention, something conservatives are supposedly against - but hey, probably too much to expect any integrity or consistency in the first place.
some woman prob made the decision to deplat him
banned from all the major social media platform
What was his Ozb username?…
“SlavOz”.
THIS
Thank you pegasx <3
Literally who?
This. I know I'm finally aging into the old-and-cantankerous grouch that I've always longed to be because all of this 'Andrew Tate' nonsense seems like it popped up out of nowhere over the last couple of months. Just out of nowhere. But apparently he's all the rage with the zoomer young'uns?
This is literally the first time I've ever heard of him, and according to ozbargain users I'm a far right extremist conservative scumbag. Strange.
I've only seen snippets of him on youtube, which is more than enough. Basically, if you're stuck in a room with him and you need CPR, he's not going to perform it unless you're a hot female.
If he's dating your mum, he'll consider your mum his property and he's entitled to her earnings.Your young impressionable son may or may not be watching him, taking his words seriously and living by his advices. Your mother, wife, sister, daughter is a female, fingers cross they will never meet these guys.
Ironically, the way people frame his clips on TikTok that made him popular are exactly what has come back to bite him. Smart people realise that these are obviously jokes (and not exactly funny ones) (especially the CPR one, which he said later on wasn't serious) and that this is a character he portrays, but the real issue is platforms like TikTok don't do age verification for content very well, and younger, impressionable minds could definitely take the wrong messages. That being said, you could use that arguement to ban all R18+ videos as well, and that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion.
I'm mixed as to whether or not he should have been banned, but the real issue is that Instagram etc should apply their ToS in a more uniform manner, and there's definitely people saying worse stuff out there that aren't being banned
I definitely think he's playing a character. It's a weird time to be in. Theres a huge monetary and fame incentive to become viral fast, either by doing stupid shit like Jake Paul and the like or controversial stuff like Tate.
Given his target audience, if he uses something like the CPR comment as a joke, he should make it very obvious it was a joke, instead of delivering it with his regular serious face and tone imo. Same thing with Trump and the bleach injection thing, there will be people who will take it seriously and cause harm.there's definitely people saying worse stuff out there that aren't being banned
Have they been reported though? Does anyone, including the platforms known about them?
If he's dating your mum, he'll consider your mum his property and he's entitled to her earnings.
So in other words, he thinks spouses should work together and share resources/time/availability in order to grow as a couple?
Unthinkable.
How's that any different to the typical household where the man is the breadwinner and women do all the spending? (women make around 80% of purchase decisions yet it's very widely known that they work/earn less)
Other people: "Red is an okay colour".
Slave: "So in other words, you worship satan, hate every other colour, including rainbows, thus you're homophobic too."
I'm sure he also means that his GF is entitled to his money too…oh wait
Tate: "a woman's earnings should be shared with her partner"
You (and everyone else) : "OMG he wants to enslave women and exploit them for money!"
Don't you see how you're doing the exact same thing? You're hearing one statement and then just assuming he meant the worst possible interpretation of it.
I'm sure he also means that his GF is entitled to his money too…oh wait
Well, he is a big advocate of men winning the approval of women by attaining wealth so yes, I'd assume he has no problem with a committed GF accessing her man's money.
Literally the only reason men chase wealth is to raise their chances of getting a GF who they can share it with. Tate has said this many times. He wants men to get rich so they can use that money for women.
Tate: "a woman's earnings should be shared with her partner"
Tate: she can have OnlyFans account only if I get ALL the money.
SlavOz: he's saying a portion of the profit of a woman's earnings should be shared with her partner and they're growing together and sharing time/resources/availability. He is advocating for beautiful equality in a relationship. Spouses should work together and grow and love each other!!
you are definitely high AF
@takutox: If you're in a serious relationship with a woman, yes you should get all of her income, just like she gets all of yours. It's called household finances. That's how any serious relationship works. This arrangement actually benefits women disproportionately more as it's well known that men bring home more money.
If my girlfriend wanted to get a job and keep all the profits to herself, she's more than welcome to do that. As long as she's happy for me to keep my income to myself too (in other words, we're no longer a couple).
Is Andrew Tate the new milo yiannopoulos?
was*
Say what you want about him, but at least Milo was genuinely funny.
Never found him funny, did find him very sad though.
Free speech unless you disagree with me. Then you are banned and cancelled.
He's free to say what he wants.
Twitter isn't obligated to let him stand on their soapbox and use their megaphone when he says it.
Would you like a diagram?
Did you know Sneako got banned from twitter just because he was challenging some youtuber to box him? which is very normal in youtubers, tiktokers and combat sports athletes. I think these social medias are on power trip
Let's not pretend these social networks aren't a huge part of the internet. Everyone just uses the sites everyone else uses and by censoring certain views they are shaping public opinion based on how they want you to think. It may be within their legal means but these platforms should be held to a higher standard considering the level of influence they have.
I miss the old internet when the internet was anti-censorship and had pro-libertarian left wing views. Nowadays it seems to be a mix of MSM propaganda from the left and fake news from the right. Neither are great.
Looking back these big sites had a huge impact on my political views growing up because that was where I got most of my news from. As an example when I was a young teenager I was very impressionable and before Reddit, there used to be a site called Digg and the comments on a lot of posts were always sexist memes about giving your wife panda eyes for not making a sandwich etc. I used to laugh and get giddily at those comments but looking back it was kinda messed up.
I can see parallels in society today where there are a large number of impressionable kids who only get there news from Reddit and don't realise r/politics has been hijacked and astroturfed for a long time. See some of the comments here to see what I'm talking about - https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5c1rql/wikileaks_…
This is why I am against censorship. Because it always get abused by big corporations. As cliche as that quote is that goes "then they came for me but no one was left", the past decade has clearly shown that if you give them even an inch they'll take a mile.
Dw Usenet and IRC are still around if you care to use them. Those of us who have been on varying forms of social media since the nineties know that you can always find somewhere for your particularly brand of effed up. Everyone getting their knickers in a twist over people getting banned for violating moderation policies need to calm down - those policies have been around forever, people have been getting booted forever. This guy (who comes in a long long parade of many), isn't anything different. He's got so many options. His views are fringe and hateful, they belong in fringe and hateful places. You can't violate moderation policy and scream censorship when there's a ton of other places that WILL platform you.
Twitter isn't obligated to let him stand on their soapbox and use their megaphone when he says it.
Then they should lose their legal status as a platform. Currently, social media companies aren't held liable for the content on their website as the law considers them a platform. But they also take aggressive steps to moderate and control the content, so they are technically not a platform - they are a publisher (no different to a magazine or TV station).
So they basically have the best of both worlds. The content control privileges of a private publisher yet the legal immunity of a public platform. That's bullshit, and the only reason they're allowed to have it both ways is because of their corporate donations and favour with politicians.
Perhaps, like Alex Jones, deplatforming them will just make them a lot more $
Perhaps you should he thankful if you're a fan of theirs.that only worked for Alex jones because he still had a radio show and a massive following when he was banned from YouTube. tate is going to go the way of milo yiannopoulos and grift further into the "religious" territory as he goes further into obscurity. tate has already gone on fox and started talking about how he's a devout christian and is one of god's chosen warriors etc etc
It's like they make up their persona purely to appeal to the easily appealed to and manipulated target audience segment….
and somehow it's the "free thinkers" that always fall for it
You must feel like this is your spotlight moment, where you grab your mic and ramble on aimlessly.
Anyways,
FACT - Tate isn’t trying to divulge into the religious territory. He jokingly in a self aggrandising manner said he’s a ‘soldier of God’ as opposed to the dozens of times he’s claimed to be an agnostic that’s unsure of the existence of God but understands the need for one, considering how demented our society is at the moment.
Also, he already has a ‘get rich’ scheme or whatever. Has 100k+ subscribers for quite some time now..
He’s always had a show that’s he’s now exported to Rumble (or some platform like that), for which they are paying him an exorbitant amount of money.
Basically you know nothing but can’t help yourself with all that conjecture.Also, Milo isn’t acting like the fame hungry ho he once was. He doesn’t say anything controversial anymore, REFUSES to be on any social media, denies the thousands of podcast interview requests he gets. And you all think that he’s trying to be relavent or something.
Reading your lot’s drivel, just pulling things out of your behinds.
Imagine having zero self awareness ?everything you have just said it false. why are you defending andrew tate so much haha it's pretty sad. my "spotlight moment" yet you've more than doubled what i wrote. looks like it's your "spotlight moment", with all the comments you've made defending this loser
also, about milo yiannopoulos: "He doesn’t say anything controversial anymore"
except for saying that he is no longer gay after he's realised he can longer continue on the token conservative gay man grift since his followers dislike gay people
yet you've more than doubled what i wrote
Sorry mate,
As it happens. It takes more effort to deconstruct a lie (lies*) as opposed to some smart arse like you who just poops out the first thing he can think of.except for saying that he is no longer gay
So I objected to almost everything you said.
In your response, this is the only and best example you could come up with to backup your initial claims ? Damn.Anyways, Milo saying that he’s no longer a homosexual because he wants to follow the book.
I disagree with him and yet i can atleast understand where’s coming from.
How is that controversial ?since his followers dislike gay people
You are a hateful human being dude..
Why would you even say that ? What is that even based on ? Shame on you.Secondly, what followers ?
He’s not signing up on Insta or TikTok, he didn’t make a YouTube account.
He has no followers. He’s not monetising himself.
It honestly feels like a prank rn, you saying the dumbest $h1t. Have some integrity my man.@[Deactivated]: I don't know about Milo, but everything he has said about Tate is right.
loser
How is he a loser when he is a world champion kickboxer, chess master (when he was a child) and runs business worth of hundreds of millions?
@[Deactivated]: Its insane reading through this thread and seeing how rabidly this one dude is ranting about his celebrity crush here
Cringe
He is more than welcome to start his own platform or website.
You have to play by the rules when you are on someone else's.
Kind of, but kind of not. Whilst social media sites are afforded "safe harbor" at law, this isn't really a good argument.
Kind of, but kind of not.
What's "kind of not" about it?
See: remainder of the comment. I'll replicate it for you:
Whilst social media sites are afforded "safe harbor" at law, this isn't really a good argument.
Why isn't this a good argument? Takes minutes to host a webforum, he's welcome to.
Because safe harbour laws exist which afford protection to sites for enabling free speech.
Can't rely on a free speech protection to protect yourself whilst dictating speech
He did, but the left wing cancel crowd keep going after his hosting companies & now their even harassing credit card and payment processors to ban him for his apparent thought crimes.
Yeah that's been said a million times before, then they just go after whoever is hosting his new website. They don't stop.
may be he'll start another truths who knows dude, like an Australian version of it ?
truths
Do you mean truth social? He's not Australian?
I mean how donald trump started truths, this Andrew guy starts his own version of truths (aka a similar social media platform)
… why Australian though
People don't seem to know what free speech is. It doesn't mean that you have to let every dropkick into your house to exercise their right right of free speech. It doesn't mean you have a right to publish in someone else's newspaper. Go and free speech in a cow paddock somewhere to your hearts content or build your own platform.
If you can speak out against the govt without being put in jail then you probably have free speech.
If so, clearly demonstrated by covid lockdown protesters in VIC how much actual freedom VIC had
That had nothing to do with free speech, that was straight-up breaking health orders. If they’d done the same thing without those health orders in place there would be no problem.
@whatgift: Imagine the level of ignorance here
People were reprimanded for opposing the mandates and the lockdowns online..
ONLINE, did you expect them to use the mask 😷 emojis next to their online publications ?If they’d done the same thing without those health orders in place there would be no problem.
OKAY Got it 👍🏻
But the BLM protest happened during the lockdowns, where they vandalised my Melbourne CBD.
But that was okay ?
Police did nothing. Our greatDictatorPremier said nothing.
The elite liberal class cheered it.
I bet, you didn’t oppose it either.
Do you know how double standards work ?@Gervais fanboy: There are way too many rebuttals to that rant my head hurts, I’ll leave you to it…
Edit: here’s a starting point though: https://www.humanrights.vic.gov.au/resources/explainer-prote…
@whatgift: This guy 🤦🏻♂️
You didn’t even my read my comment properly.
I didn’t debate the legality of the protests that happened on the streets.
I made a point about the online censorship and the police overreach in response to that.@Gervais fanboy: I read your comment just fine.
I’m curious about the police taking action against people expressing their opinions online - my understanding is that the police took action because people were inciting others to break the law, which is an offence, even in freedom-loving America. Edit: the point is that is not simply “stating their opinion” which got them in trouble with police.
- protesting against a law
and
- breaking the law and encouraging others to break the law
are two different things. It is the latter that people would and should be getting in trouble for.
You want to protest against homicide law? Feel free - although don't expect a huge turnout (IMO).
Committing homicide while protesting against homicide laws? That's a paddlin'.
Replace "homicide" with whatever you like.
@Chandler: Protesting is not against the law, and it never was (even during the pandemic). Public health orders are not laws. A law has to be ratified through parliament.
Aus defs does not have free speech then. Remember what/is currently happened to Friendlyjordies?
Whilst safe harbor is a thing, this is an un-nuanced argument to make
Is he the new King? 😷🤔
Deplatformjng.
No the dude is totally fine posting videos on his personal website.
If people don't follow that's on him.
@Binchicken22: As I said above, the paradox of tolerance is that in order to maintain a society that is tolerant of opposing views, we must be intolerant of those that are themselves intolerant of people's beliefs.