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
You know it’s okay to not say anything sometimes..
You are clueless.This comment broke my irony detector.
Seems pretty spot on to me.
You know it’s okay to not say anything sometimes..
And yet here you are on your umpteenth comment defending some loser who got deplatformed
no idea who he is or what he said but for the sheer fact i hate cancel culture im voting No
Hey look it's that kid from school who used to say "Everybody has to be my friend and play with me"
You're mistaking "everyone has to be my friend" with "i dont like X so we must destroy X"
He actively promotes rape
Are you gonna cite a video where he says that or are you gonna keep spamming this same comment everywhere ?
are you going to change your name to andrew tate fanboy?
@pformag: So you LIE. I object to it…
I am now a Tate fanboy ? WowIs that how you always get out of backing your drivel ?
@Gervais fanboy: Women have been exchanging sex for the opportunity for a very long time. Some did this. Weren’t abused. […] If you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility.” - Gervais fanboy
@pformag: You have resorted to some real dirty tactics
So let’s do this sonNow unlike your lying arse, I’ll spell out everything in the sequence that was said…
Some context - This happened during the Harvey Weinstein revelations drama
He tweeted this
• ‘Sexual harassment is disgusting and inexcusable. However. A man looking at you or whistling at you or asking your name isn’t harassment’
‘ This belief does discredit as a whole. Stick to the serious definitions and stop pretending normal male behavior is rape.’Women have been exchanging sex for the opportunity for a very long time. Some did this. Weren’t abused
You cropped that from the actual tweet. Mod: Edited (Name Calling)
This is the actual tweet
• ‘Secondly – harvey. Creep? Obviously. But women have been exchanging sex for opportunity for a very long time. Some did this. Weren’t abused.’
And this
• ‘ Of course now they will say they were abused. However at the time it was a simple exchange they partook in voluntarily. Not all. But some.’
And in the following tweets he said this
• ‘ Next point, if you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility. I’m not saying it’s OK you got raped.
‘No woman should be abused regardless. However with sexual assault they want to put zero blame on the victim whatsoever.’
And then after this
• ‘ If you go out. Meet a guy. Take his drinks all night. Go to his apartment drunk. Start to kiss him. Then he grabs your tits. Not harassment’
• ‘ Take some personal responsibility. This zero blame game is damaging to the female cause as a whole. Protect yourselves.’’
Now without digressing like you have been so far…
Where the hell did he say and I quote you ‘ITS OKAY TO RAPE A WOMAN’
Where did he say that ?
You can use some heavy manipulation to infer that but where did he actually say that…Don’t worry about my username, I’ll change it to whatever you want. I don’t care. Stick to the topic at hand. Stop digressing.
@Gervais fanboy: Lol, what point are you trying to prove? I had no idea who that guy is until now, but after reading your comment, I fully understand why everyone says he's a misogynistic dipshit who's downplaying rape. That's for this great collection of his dumpster fire of comments.
@MrTweek: The person who I replied to had make a false point about how Tate said that ‘its okay to rape a woman’
He was clearly wrong and had to slither away coz he couldn’t possibly extract that conclusions from the tweets that I had mentioned in their entirety.Now I have got you who’s making a different argument about how ‘he’s downplaying rape’
Well objectively, I don’t think he’s done that.
There’s context behind everything he’s said there.. context I think you should consider.
And if you do, please make some salient point and we can discuss if he’s actually as bad as you says he is.
If not, then why did you even bother me with your comment when you are not willing to have a civil discourse on this.Well objectively, I don’t think he’s done that.
sorry, but that's ridiculous.
if you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility
This is a textbook example of victim blaming and a massive slap in the face of any rape victim. It's just bullshit to pretend there's nothing wrong with that and everyone is misunderstanding him. There is no context that can fix that statement.
@MrTweek: Its hard to have a back and forth when you conclude your every point with such absolute conclusion like statements.
Have some humility, let the other person speak too…
Now stop with the buzzwords and let’s have an honest conversation about this…
if you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility
Now this tweet wasn’t meant as an absolute for all the Rape cases out there..
Just the very few that could have been avoided.
Trust me, it’s a delicate topic for me too and it’s not easy discussing such topics, even as a man.
But he’s right, the society can never be 100% perfect and unfortunately men are naturally stronger, making women at risk of being assaulted.
Tate was talking about ‘some’ young women not being aware of the risks involved in going out alone in unsafe environments. As there are some common sense risks that you are supposed to avoid.
Even as a 6’2 immigrant man myself at 18, coming back late from work via metro on the Dandenong train line, I was aware of the risks involved and the carriages to avoid being extra aware of my surroundings, aware of that emergency button to alert the driver. Most of my other immigrant friends were like that too… it’s not about victim blaming.
It’s about spreading awareness to the most vulnerable
As I repeat, the society can never be perfect. There’ll always be some sick bast*rds out there.
The same reason we lock our houses before we go to sleep.. it’s about taking obvious precautions.
I urge you to stop with this virtuous lingo and examine these points with an open mind.Now this tweet wasn’t meant as an absolute for all the Rape cases out there..
Uhm… the way it is formulated, it actually does say that. It doesn't say "in some cases" or anything like that. It's simply stating "if you put yourself in a position to be raped […]". That IS absolute.
Women get raped or harassed at workplaces, at schools, universities, while partying with friends, while taking a taxi home because public transport was considered too dangerous, or even inside their family homes. Not only in places like the Dandenong line late at night.
Being a woman is often enough to "put yourself in a position to be raped". Having a social life puts a woman in a position to be raped. Having a job where you work with people puts a woman into a position to be raped. Partaking in hobbies with other people puts a woman in a position to be raped.
And THAT'S why that guy is downplaying rape. He implies that the victims are partially to blame. I've done countless things in my life that most people would say are way too dangerous for a young woman, but since I'm a man, it was not a big deal.
So let me get back to your initial claim:
Now this tweet wasn’t meant as an absolute for all the Rape cases out there..
Nothing what you or that guy posted suggests that. You are making up context around it just to defend his statements. I do not know why you want him to be right so badly, despite it being obvious misogynistic, victim blaming and overall inhumane.
Uhm… the way it is formulated, it actually does say that. It doesn't say "in some cases" or anything like that. It's simply stating "if you put yourself in a position to be raped […]". That IS absolute.
Cannot believe the arrogance…
Dude, these tweets were in response to existing threads and other people’s tweets.
You have self-admitted that you know nothing on this matter but you still feel empowered enough to keep making assertions ?
Little bit of humility ?Women get raped or harassed at workplaces, at schools, universities, while partying with friends, while taking a taxi home
Yeah but you are using that unfortunate reality as a precursor to what he had said… when he didn’t address any of those events. He didn’t and
neither did I, no one here did…Being a woman is often enough to "put yourself in a position to be raped".
Yeah I already said that too
When I said this “But he’s right, the society can never be 100% perfect and unfortunately men are naturally stronger, making women at risk of being assaulted”
I admitted to that unfair reality too.But he wasn’t replying to such incidents. It was about the tiny fraction of cases where some precautions could have been taken. Using such cases to spread awareness for other men/women.
And THAT'S why that guy is downplaying rape. He implies that the victims are partially to blame
You are making a feeling based argument, completely devoid of facts and reality.
If he had actually done that, 99% of people who would have heard him say that he would have instantly tuned against him. ( including myself)
But they don’t because it’s what the media wants you to think and believe.Look at you as an example, you know nothing about him or any context behind what he had said and yet you are looking for points to align with your pre decided conclusion rather than the other way around.
Nothing what you or that guy posted suggests that. You are making up context around it just to defend his statements. I do not know why you want him to be right so badly, despite it being obvious misogynistic, victim blaming and overall inhumane.
Wow, I actually took the effort to compile his actual completely tweets and explain the context behind them. Unlike the other user who had deceptively clipped portions of his tweets into quotes..
You know nothing on this and yet you are being constantly rude here. I have been nothing but polite and professional here..
I guess, most people are incapable of having an open discourse with an open mind.
Believe what you wanna believe. Take care@Gervais fanboy: Woah, do you really not see how you are digging yourself into a hole here?
Dude, these tweets were in response to existing threads and other people’s tweets.
Sorry, but a statement like this:
if you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility
IS ABSOLUTE. It's not relating to something else. Even if it's a reply to something else, it is still clearly referring to rape victims in general, not a particular person or situation. You keep insisting that it's not so bad in the context, yet you haven't provided any of that context yet.
You are making a feeling based argument, completely devoid of facts and reality.
Before this statement you are quoting, there are three paragraphs of facts and reality explaining how I get to that conclusion. Yet you are the one complaining about things getting taken out of context.
I actually took the effort to compile his actual completely tweets and explain the context behind them
I'd say you desperately tried finding something that makes his tweets sound less misogynistic, but miserably failed at explaining this. Most likely because it can't be explained.
I guess, most people are incapable of having an open discourse with an open mind.
Yeah, quite likely that you are right and everyone else is wrong. I'm probably to close minded to see that the guy is a totally nice dude and when he said women need to take responsibility when they get raped, he actually meant something completely different, which you can only tell from the context.
when he said women need to take responsibility when they get raped,
LIE
Well, he didn’t say that. You keep misquoting and misinterpreting him…He said if you ‘ put yourself in a position ’
That ‘put yourself in a position’ came with a context that I have already explained over a dozen times. But you don’t care do ya…
That put yourself in a position isn’t an absolute blanket term which covers all rape victims/cases.Just answer me this, in your powers of interpretation
If a woman’s at home and someone breaks in and …..:
Do you think that Tate is blaming and asking that women to take ‘some responsibility’ ??
Because you keep saying ‘absolute’If you reply yes to that situation, I’ll atleast be able to know what absolute means in your head ?
@Gervais fanboy: Oooof. Thanks for showing his tweets and things. He's a real sexist moron - glad he's banned.
Given you share his views presumably, please try and think a bit more about why what he's writing may NOT actually be ok. I can look at almost all the tweets you shared from him and see he's downplaying rape and blaming women for being raped. Pretty disgusting.
If you can't see that then it's a problem and you are also contributing to rape culture.
@Gervais fanboy: Nah your mind can't be changed unfortunately. You aren't open to it. I'll point out why the tweets you mentioned specifically are shitty and you can have a go and trying to change your mind. I'm not going to post/reply further though as you won't listen and that's ok - I accept some people are just like that.
Here:
• ‘Sexual harassment is disgusting and inexcusable. However. A man looking at you or whistling at you or asking your name isn’t harassment’
Whistling at women is harrassment actually yes. Just because it used to be a norm doesn't make it non-harrassment now. And men looking at you can be harrassment depending on context (i.e., staring etc.), so this is just flat out wrong.Of course now they will say they were abused. However at the time it was a simple exchange they partook in voluntarily. Not all. But some.
Horribly shitty attitude to have for a variety of reasons (disencourages victims to step forward, discredits victims etc.) - The law is there to decide if they are lying or not, not some Twitter mofo.‘ Next point, if you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility.
- ‘No woman should be abused regardless. However with sexual assault they want to put zero blame on the victim whatsoever.’
Seriously? Again this is just (profanity) up. Maybe Andrew is very poor at wording, but no - there is no responsibility on the rape/assault victim, it's not deserved. His example of the titgrab during making out is not sexual assault agreed, but it's also irrelevant to his above statement which suggests that sometimes the victim did do something to deserve it. So (profanity) up.
Whistling at women is harrassment actually
Not everything is binary…
Just because he said it’s not harassment doesn’t mean it’s okay either.
What happened to just saying that whistling is rude, inappropriate or just lewd behaviour.
Harassment is a strong word and should be used for actions that deserve it.This over-dramatisation of comparatively lesser sins, takes away the alarming meaning of the word ‘harassment’…
This is the exact point he was trying to make.
What you are doing actually hurts women and somewhat trivialises the real crimes that are inflicted against them. Because you have already reduced the meaning of the term ‘harassment’ by using it willy nilly.. for things like staring, whistling etc
They are still wrong, don’t misconstrue what I am saying. But they are not harassment.Of course now they will say they were abused. However at the time it was a simple exchange they partook in voluntarily
You mean the casting couch situations ?
Where women voluntarily did what they did to advance their careers ?
The man/men who did it are still mostly to be blamed because they had the power etc
But the women that still consented to it, can’t allege that they were ‘sexually abused’ or ‘raped’…This is objective reasoning when you are being soo emotional about his subject.
The law is there to decide if they are lying or not, not some Twitter mofo.
What are you on about
People are still allowed to have opinions on anything. Seriously, you have a problem with that too ??Okay, so when the same ‘law’ that legally overturned Roe v Wade (giving discretionary powers back to the state), the ‘Twitter Mofos’ who objected to it should be shut down too —- Your logic.
Next point, if you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility.
Firstly we need to give some context to that statement..
Its taking blame in the sense that one could apply some caution in the most common sense situations. If we can’t admit that, we are bound to be victims again.
Listen, I don’t care about blaming women either. All I care about is the best way to avoid bad things from happening.
Other than castrating all men alive, there’s no other way to 100% ensure that we have no sick people in our society.
There’s nothing wrong with telling off our young girls/boys for not being sceptical of the random people around them.Just because he said it’s not harassment doesn’t mean it’s okay either.
What happened to just saying that whistling is rude, inappropriate or just lewd behaviour.
Harassment is a strong word and should be used for actions that deserve it.lol, what? rude, inappropriate or lewd behaviour IS harassment.
@MrTweek: Just to be clear here, are you saying whistling and staring is flat out ‘harassment’ ?
Yes/No will do
@Gervais fanboy: Staring not necessarily, but whistling after a random women on the street is harassment, yes.
@MrTweek: Well then, we fundamentally disagree with the crux of the point that in question..
I would have interpreted ‘harassment’ differently. I always believed that it was a very serious thing. But okay,
@Gervais fanboy: Right, that explains why you interpreted so many things differently.
Maybe start reading here to get a better understanding what harassment is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment#Sexual
Sexual harassment is an offensive or humiliating behaviour that is related to a person's sex. [..] It includes unwanted and unwelcome words, facial expressions, sexual attention, deeds, actions, symbols, or behaviour of a sexual nature that make the target feel uncomfortable. This can involve visual or suggestive looks or comments, staring at a person's body, or the showing of inappropriate photos
@MrTweek: Are you seriously gonna do that ?
Share a Wikipedia article ?The same organisation that changed the definition of Inflation, just to protect the Democratic establishment, just so they could save them from some bad PR.
Can’t you see it mate ? We in the West live in a mostly gynocentric society.
Everything is geared towards favouring the women. From the courts to the police, even the whole welfare system.
Ofcos they’ll keep changing definitions to legally allow women more and more rights over men.
Look at any family court proceeding.. A woman can claim ‘harassment’ if her partner commented on her weight… these are such loosely used terms now. A man can’t do that, a man has very minimal worth infront of the system (court/police/society)
I was referring to a more common sense definition.@Gervais fanboy: Yeah, right. I think we should end this discussion now. You've proven to everyone what you think and I don't think anyone is changing their mind now. If posting a wikipedia article upsets you that much that you go full conspiracy nutcase, I'm out of here.
@MrTweek: Its a terrible source of information, even universities fail you for using Wikipedia as a source for anything.
Its run by a bunch of woke moderators that are politically driven and can’t be relied on anymore…
Anyways, I can understand how you feel so far removed from what I have said above. The majority here wouldn’t resonate with it.
Steve Price took out a full page in a major newspaper saying he was being cancelled and that he hated cancel culture too. Nothing to see here eh.
Fair - yes, it’s clear what the expectations of conduct are when joining those platforms.
I see no problem with him. I don't agree with him, he says odd things but most of it is wild misinterpretation. I've seen women say way worse things about men and the blue haired feminats just laugh and applaud. Social media companies/world are ruled by shit heads.
I watched a video detailing he & his brother's unscrupulous practices in their UK webcam business. IMO, he could be fairly described as a 'douche bag'. If he has been banned from social media platforms, there is probably good reason for this.
Social media companies do what they want. If you let yourself get worked up believing otherwise, you’re gonna live a very frustrated life.
This would be an ok argument to make if safe harbor wasn't a thing
Hmm?
If you don't understand maybe you shouldn't have an opinion on the matter just saying 🤷
@Scantu: This is a friendly reminder that your unwillingness or inability to meet the extremely low threshold of explaining the bare basis for your argument, is a reflection on your position, not mine
@Kayrhcp: Seeing as I did I'm going to take it as you just don't understand the concepts I'm referring to :)
@Scantu: You understand that "safe harbour" legislation in the US originated simply as a copyright protection issue right? i.e. protecting ISPs and other service providers from liability if their users shared copyrighted material using their service. And they still have to make necessary steps to take down the material if they are made aware of it or are directed to by Government.
It was never intended to be used as a "You can use our site to say whatever the heck you want, and we can't kick you off" provision, like you seem to be implying.
Quite the opposite, it's intended to be "We're not liable for what you share on our site (namely copyrighted content), but we can still remove it if we think appropriate or as directed".simply as a copyright protection issue right
Stopped reading right here, this is completely false lol. Get the basic facts right, then we'll continue.
@Scantu: Please enlighten me as to what "safe harbour" you are referring to then rather than being dismissive and unhelpful?
As far as I'm aware the "safe harbour" related to online service providers in the US is the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act". There's also safe harbour provisions for online content in Australia as part of the Copyright Act 1968.
If there is another Act or Provision that you are referring to as "safe harbour", I'd be interested to hear it.
@NigelTufnel: Sorry Nigel, I think you have the wrong idea here. This isn’t a discussion where we ask tablewhale to explain himself and he actually does. This is something where he vagueposts, blames us for asking him to explain what he’s vaguely alluding to, and then declares himself the winner of an argument we never had because he couldn’t, or didn’t, actually tell us his position or explain it.
Don’t waste your time on him, he’s either wrong, doesn’t know what he’s talking about, a troll, or all of the above.
@Kayrhcp: It's alright.
The only reply I'm really expecting is "Do your own research sheeple!", but I'm hoping to be informed and surprised.@NigelTufnel: So arrogant! A natural tendency to believe someone who has a different opinion to you must just hold it for no reason, because of course you are intrinsically right… nice.
A natural tendency to believe someone who has a different opinion to you must just hold it for no reason
No it's a natural tendency to believe someone who has a different opinion to you has some reason to believe it that they should be able to explain.
You don't seem to understand that providing immunity "safe harbour" to online platforms for what their users do and share, and allowing them to choose who is allowed to share what content. In this case, they may not be liable for the things that Andrew Tate shares on the platform, but they are also free to not allow him to share anything.
Also from the wiki of Section 230 you shared (Literally the second paragraph):
Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
So while free speech might be enshrined in the US constitution, platforms are still allowed to remove or moderate the content anyway without fear of civil liability. It seems to go completely against what you are trying to imply (in multiple comments) about safe harbour laws.
[Edit: unless you are referring to Trumps EO that said that companies restricting posts are "engaged in editorial conduct" and may forfeit any safe-harbor protection (the opposite of what you've been saying as far as I can tell). If so, Biden rescinded the EO last year. So it's irrelevant now.]
@NigelTufnel: So, you spend a gigantic paragraph reiterating something we all understand? Does that make you feel good or something? If so - good for you!
@Scantu: Mate, what point are you trying to make with your comments about safe harbour then?
You replied to a comment that said:Social media companies do what they want.
With:
This would be an ok argument to make if safe harbor wasn't a thing
You also replied to:
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.With:
Whilst social media sites are afforded "safe harbor" at law, this isn't really a good argument.
and
Because safe harbour laws exist which afford protection to sites for enabling free speech.
So I've inferred (maybe incorrectly) that you don't think platforms have the right to deplatform someone for sharing something or someone they don't want on their platform, which is so obviously false and not what safe harbour is about…
@NigelTufnel: You have inferred incorrectly yes, I do not believe we should provide safe harbor protection to websites when they stray away from platform status by making moderation decisions based on political belief
Mate, what point are you trying to make with your comments about safe harbour then
Literally the same one over and over again
I do not believe we should provide safe harbor protection to websites when they stray away from platform status by making moderation decisions based on political belief
Finally we got to the specifics of your argument! So you're anti the Good Samaritan protections in section 230 as they stand, and pro Trump's Executive Order changes that were overturned. Got there eventually!
Btw, when you make vague points about 'safe harbour' (when so many different 'safe harbours' exist in legislation) it doesn't help your argument. You can say people are dumb by misinterpreting you all you want, but to paraphrase someone:
If you put yourself in a position to be [misinterpreted], you must bare some responsibility.
@NigelTufnel: That's what I've been saying all along, if it took you this long to get it it's on you :)
Do you think a website like Kiwifarms shouldn't be liable for the content that's posted there if it's specifically filtered to be hateful and damaging?
So you're anti the Good Samaritan protections in section 230 as they stand, and pro Trump's Executive Order changes that were overturned. Got there eventually!
Cute little try there to force me into some sort of alt right stance - fail :)
Do you think a website like Kiwifarms shouldn't be liable for the content that's posted there if it's specifically filtered to be hateful and damaging?
Don't know anything about kiwifarms. But no, which is why there's other legislation to guard against hate speech in many jurisdictions.
@NigelTufnel: Luckily google is at your disposal. The legislation on "hate speech" would not apply to these platforms under s230.
Nice to know that you think intentional curators and disseminators of hateful content shouldn't be prosecuted :)
And Nice little smooth over of your fail to paint me as some right wing weirdo.
@Scantu: There was a double negative there. I said no to them not being liable for their part in spreading hateful content (read your question).
It still sounds like you support companies engaging in editorial conduct forfeiting any safe-harbor protection. Which is what the EO was about. I didn't say anything about that making you an alt-right wierdo.
But anyway, I joined this conversation as I think it's an interesting topic and wanted to clarify what you were referring to when you vaguely mentioned "safe harbour", as I'd only really heard it in in an online context in reference to copyright in the old Napster days. But I think we've successfully clarified it now and I'm leaving the convo better informed.
I think there's been some misinterpreting (as often happens when not discussing in person), and I fear the further we go, the more we'll find division. But I think we're broadly on the same page. Any safe harbours in law should be there to better society not promote hate.
@Kayrhcp: Do you find often people who you don't agree with are trolls? Perhaps you need to look inward a little because I sense a lot of projection in what you write
@Scantu: Nope, I don't, just those that refuse to explain their argument when asked, while simultaneously declaring themselves the winner of a non-existent argument.
BTW, I gave three options, and you were the one that confirmed it was trolling. So thanks in advance.
@Kayrhcp: "I gave you three options" damn how far up your own ass do you have to be to say things like that, crazy stuff
Coupled with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, Section 230 provides internet service providers safe harbors to operate as intermediaries of content without fear of being liable for that content as long as they take reasonable steps to delete or prevent access to that content
Section 230 doesn't give the end user free reign to post what they want.
Did you even read the wiki, let alone understand what Section 230 is for?@SBOB: Ahahaha I can't imagine you are serious right? You are accusing me of not reading it after making that comment?
Section 230 doesn't give the end user free reign to post what they want.
Point to where I said that 😂
@SBOB: Yes, I do not believe that websites should be provided safe harbor if they are going to be moving toward the publisher side, rather than the platform side.
What point do you think you are making here out of interest? I'm failing to see it.
@Scantu: You're the one that claimed social media sites were unable to 'do what they wanted' due to 'safe harbor being a thing'
(https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/12658754/redir)You then quoted Section 230 as the 'reference' for your 'safe harbor' basis.
(https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/12674875/redir)I'm unsure what point you think you were making if you now arent claiming that 'safe harbor' laws prevent social media sites from removing users that do not align with its requirements/TOS.
A 'platform' that chooses what content it allows on it platform does not make it a publisher.
You're the one that claimed social media sites were unable to 'do what they wanted' due to 'safe harbor being a thing'
You've misread what I've said then, that isn't my fault
A 'platform' that chooses what content it allows on it platform does not make it a publisher.
I've been saying I don't think it should. I don't get why you are so confused and flustered about all of this?
Seriously should have third option of who? I cant be bothered to research who your talking about.
Just some random nobody who is "famous" on social media that is the current focus of justice boners. It must be exhausting being continually outraged.
Okay there’s a lot of other polls on Ozbargain that aren’t relevant to me too..
But I don’t go there to tell the op off for asking an opinion.
You could have just kept browsing and ignored this like you ignore thousands of other posts here..Reminds me of this bit from Gervais
https://youtu.be/uEawbnXaIDs
The cancel culture based on alternate opinions being acted out by disgusting leftists is a great sign of just how pathetic these communist losers are. They cannot accept any opinion except their own and what is even worse is that they actively try to supress any alternate views using total bile lies that muppets have accepted as being ok. In the old days the leftist would actually debate, now its just scream and shouting CLOSE THEM DOWN
You reap what you sow people.
the multi-billion dollar leftist communist woke cancel culture safe space snowflake corporations are at it again!
You're free to get your own glorious Reichtist platform
Off you go
…still waiting
You reap what you sow people
…a platform that kicks off losers? Seems like an awesome crop. Ima go sow some more
Aaah the tolerant leftist in full bloom, bless….. Sorry to have triggered you, please seek help from the confines of your safe room
For all the complaining it’s not like conservative sites don’t moderate and silence dissenters - just look at safe spaces like r/conservative and Truth Social.
You don't understand, those poor people have been oppressed and forced into own safe spaces.
Username checks out 👍🏻
Whatever, they're not the ones banning books in the US. You know who else banned books? Chairman Mao. Pol Pot. Strange innit.
Yes.
Anyone who peddles in negative societal behaviors, whether it's Trump encouraging riots or Tate pushing antiquated beliefs that strip people of their human rights to young impressionable people or those youtubers that pretend to be angry over every decision Lucasfilm makes as being woke, should not be given a platform to millions of people. I don't even believe that they believe what they are saying, they just see an opportunity to create a following and money and say whatever they need to pander to the audience. Alex Jones is another one of those assholes.
This ^^. If it smells like hate speech….
In fairness, with the exception of perhaps Rogue One all Lucasfilm since the original trilogy have been utter trash.
You've just canvassed probably over half the population though. Yikes.
I'm not sure if you are joking or you are just stupid.
Yes. There’s literally video of him beating a woman, that’s all you need to know what sort of person he is.
There is no reason social media companies should allow the amplification of degenerate, sexist views like his. Banning him isn’t ‘unfair’, unfair is the harm done to women by the spread of views like his to the next generation of young boys/men.
‘Slippery slope’ argument is nonsense. Should social media companies allow neo nazis to share their views online because banning them would be a ‘slippery slope’? Obviously not. There is no slippery slope, because Tate’s views are clearly offensive and harmful to a huge segment of the population. They’re not reasonable discussion points, they’re just inflammatory backwards views.
video of him
Do you mean the video that he recorded and shared himself ?
beating a woman,
You mean him spanking her in a kinky way, 100% consensual ?
The same ‘woman’ who said this :
https://youtube.com/shorts/QHA_mVs5td0?feature=share
You are just a deceitful being.. TYPICAL, So TYPICALShould social media companies allow neo nazis
Which neo nazis ???
You lot call everyone a Neo Nazi,
Someone called me that once on this site. I have seen consecutive leaning Jewish people being called that.
Btw someone like you who starts their comment with a lie. Mate, you need not tell us what’s right and wrong.
TYPICAL, So TYPICAL
consecutive leaning Jewish people
Like, a conga line at a bar mitzvah?
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/031/854/126…
Seriously dude ?
He just falsely accused a man of being a woman beater and has since gone radio silent like a coward.
And he’s not ‘mad’
I am ?consecutive leaning Jewish people
Like, a conga line at a bar mitzvah?lol, that was quite clever. Good one.
@Motek Benzona: Tell me about it mate..
All these psuedo intellectuals on this site btw
I have shared a clip as evidence and yet they’d rather suppress that with dislikes and still support their ‘buddy’. As disgusting as he may beNone of them would ever call out such abhorrent behaviour because they are all ideologically aligned, especially when they all act as a ‘group identity’ rather than as unbiased individuals.
They protect each other even when they know they are in the wrong.@Motek Benzona: The modern leftist: Opinions on everything, knowledge of nothing. I laugh at some of the schoolboy mutual masturbation that goes on in here…and whirlpool.
It helps to laugh at them, stops you wanting to eradi…..well i cant say that hey?
@Motek Benzona: Ah yes, as opposed to conservatives who notoriously have a fact based understanding of climate change, vaccines, and the winner of the 2020 presidential election 😂😂
Great generalisations there mate!
@Gervais fanboy: So how do you explain him being investigated for rape in Romania?
I’ll concede that, if the woman came out and said that it was consensual, then clearly he didn’t do anything wrong in that instance (assuming the woman also consented to releasing the video). But there are clearly many other reasons to say this Andrew Tate is an f-wit.
I’ll concede that, if the woman came out and said that it was consensual, then clearly he didn’t do anything wrong in that instance (assuming the woman also consented to releasing the video).
That’s a very strange way to write ‘ I am sorry ‘ or ‘ I was completely wrong ‘
Quite strange indeed.Look at all those if’s you still use.. omg.
Zero integrity.So how do you explain him being investigated for rape in Romania
Anyone with half a brain would learn from their very recent history of being 10000% defamatory and wrong, to atleast do some research before they make their next 10000% defamatory and wrong claim.
But that’s just you… one in a million.And I bet your mates will still agree with you and downvote me..
Btw he wasn’t even falsely alleged for rape…
He was falsely alleged to kidnapping a girl that was actually partying there (footage available online).Atleast get your false allegations right.
@Gervais fanboy: From all I see online the investigation is ongoing, so not sure how you could conclude the allegations are false already?
the investigation is ongoing
Now how do I even disprove the existence of something that doesn’t even exist outside your brain.
Having said that, investigation into what ?
You said rape earlier ? Do you still maintain that ? Or is it something else now ?Because it seems like you’ll keep throwing literal shit at the wall until something hopefully sticks.
You have been wrong about half a dozen things now and yet the continued arrogance in your comments.. 🤦🏻♂️
As I said, TYPICAL
He's on Rumble, has 500k+ subs