GymWolf
Member
I know, i remember watching a video about his life ideology or why he hate training or some shit, the fact that a punchable face like that has 3 mil subscribers make everything worse.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Andrew Tate banned from Facebook and Instagram
- Thread starter West Texas CEO
- Start date
GymWolf
Member
Having a knowledge of self defence is always good depend on where you live.
You want to know how to defend yourself when cops are not an option, almost every skill is useful in life, you only go to jail if you attack first.
And being big and muscolar is a great deterrent from being assaulted to begin with.
Last edited:
I grew up in Ireland during The Troubles.
If you didn't learn how to fight, you died.
West Texas CEO
GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief and Nosiest Dildo Archeologist
You have to be aware of collateral damage as well. Andrew Tate is the most requested guest on the Fresh & Fit podcast. Now those two guys have one of the fastest growing podcasts on the internet today. They will most likely be targeted for having Tate as a guest multiple times.
Rollo Tomassi from ‘the Rational Male’ may also come under fire for his loose association with the Tate's. He has appeared on the Fresh & Fit podcast alongside Andrew Tate.
West Texas CEO
GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief and Nosiest Dildo Archeologist
Tate is a joker, but he was a very visible person talking about issues that young men face that most of society utterly ignores. His ways of dealing with those issues leave ALOT to be desired, but at least he was talking about it. Rather than say "we must silence people talking about men's issues", maybe it would be better to get some GOOD male role models talking about it.
It seems men either get:
A) Shut up and deal with it yourself
B) Listen to a guy who tells you to act like a simp (these guys tend to end up trying to exploit women more often than not)
C) People like Tate.
Can we please get some honorable men, who actually talk about shit MEN face? Then guys like Tate will just be jokers ignored by everyone. I swear that's why Joe Rogan is so popular, he is basically a male role model that seems to be exactly who he says he is. Can we get more of that of a variety that allows young men to have people to look up to?
It seems men either get:
A) Shut up and deal with it yourself
B) Listen to a guy who tells you to act like a simp (these guys tend to end up trying to exploit women more often than not)
C) People like Tate.
Can we please get some honorable men, who actually talk about shit MEN face? Then guys like Tate will just be jokers ignored by everyone. I swear that's why Joe Rogan is so popular, he is basically a male role model that seems to be exactly who he says he is. Can we get more of that of a variety that allows young men to have people to look up to?
Last edited:
Senua
Member
The thing is nowadays everything is an extreme, so maybe when or if we return to some sense of normality
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Bragr
Banned
This is madness. Who defines hate and misogyny? Is calling someone a nazi hate when they cleary are not? Why can you punch someone and only get reprimanded but write jokes online gets you jailed? What a sick way to pursue people.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Reposting this ... I think this is why he's off the SM farm... And good riddance!
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
Oh fuck, cancel culture is real after all.
Mato
Member
I've never watched any of his videos, I only read an article a few weeks back describing his content as misogynistic. I understand that the right to express bigotry within a society needs to be protected for the sake of freedom of speech. But it certainly doesn't need to be propagated through a mainstream social media platform. Freedom of speech allows for an individual's right to freely communicate his ideas, but it doesn't guarantee equal access to publicity, especially one that is provided by a private company. Marginalized spaces like 4chan and private real-life conversations are plenty enough. People with bigot ideas have the right to express themselves, albeit in a framework of total obscurity.
LegendOfKage
Member
That would be why. It's the same reason why John Denver stood up to defend bands like Twisted Sister and Motley Crew in the 1980s. I doubt he was a fan.
In my lifetime, back when they had principles that didn't alter depending on the speaker, the ACLU fought for the rights of literal white supremacist trash to march down the streets. Do you think they did so because they shared the same beliefs as them?
Toons
Member
Alex Jones actions online directly contributed to harassment of the sandy hook victims families, nd directly led to the suicide of one of the kids fathers.
If you are in any way trying to claim that his actions and his speech were just free speech and harmless, you are a part of the problem.
People like to compare internet speech to the free speech laws we have but thats incorrect. The internet is more like a block full of bars or clubs anyone can enter in. But if you get too rowdy, cause to many fights, or actively harass others, you can be kicked out of one or multiple of thos bars. That doesnt mean your free speech has been denied. That means we don't want you in these bars any more, and you'll have to go to a different one to get your fix.
Toons
Member
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I think we are still struggling with how to deal with these giant global platforms for communication. On the one hand people like Tate do need to be kicked off, but then there is the reality that a few companies do have the potential to dictate public consensus. Everyone should read 'The Mold of Yancy' by Philip K Dick as it tackles this idea of a benign totalitarian regime being created through use of media and how it also can be potantially weaponized but was written so long ago that it does so without all the modern bullshit.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Last edited:
LegendOfKage
Member
I can understand the general feeling of "good riddance!" due to, well, just about everything about the guy, but I love the argument Briahna makes here:
If you start to accept the morality police, where does it end? If this guy is "sketchy" and doing harm to society through pyramid schemes and such, then go after him with the law.
Last edited:
Mato
Member
Before he was finally banned, in how many instances did Andrew Tate express bigot beliefs and was given a pass by the platform holders?
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
We've always had morality police. Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone.
LegendOfKage
Member
Right, but the businesses in question refusing service were not the phone company or the post office. These days, major social media platforms are far more important than the town square when it comes to communication, but laws haven't kept up with that fact.
Last edited:
PaddyOCanager
Member
His "final message":
Jaybe
Member
This isn’t a ‘law thing’. Every company has terms and conditions meant to safeguard against this sort of Neanderthal huckster and other unwanted and can apply enforcement of their T&Cs at their discretion. Tough shit I guess.
farmerboy
Member
Tate is an arrogant flog. Fuck him. But why ban him? Whoever would have listened to him will find someone else to listen to.
The real problem is the paucity of good ideas and discussion, along with the celebration of historically bad ideals, that allows people like Tate to get a foothold.
The real problem is the paucity of good ideas and discussion, along with the celebration of historically bad ideals, that allows people like Tate to get a foothold.
funkygunther
Banned
Then regard them as public utlities and make them publicly owned.
LegendOfKage
Member
The government has already put pressure on social media to engage in more censorship, so I think direct government control wouldn't be a good idea either. I also do like the idea of TOS requirements and the effect it can have in keeping slurs and such off a platform, but I would prefer violations not lead to lifetime bans, especially without specific information of what rules were broken. Everything is always kept intentionally vague, likely to prevent "you say banned him for this, but here's someone else saying the same sort of thing, and you're allowing that!"
To be honest, it's an odd situation without an especially easy solution. I think selective enforcement, lack of transparency, simultaneous bans across multiple platforms, and making up the rules after the fact are some of the more objectionable elements when it comes to these situations.
Again, it's an odd situation. We've surrendered the "town square" to a handful of similarly-minded tech companies, several of which their founders don't even agree with their level of censorship and influence. So who wins out? Should companies be free to silence whoever they want for nebulous reasons, or should we prioritize the people whose freedom of speech is being limited these days in some of the areas where it matters most? I would guess anyone who has anything to promote these days would rather be silenced in the streets than on facebook, you tube, twitter, and tictoc, and that's a problem.
DKehoe
Gold Member
The thing about that is are they then just owned by one country's government? So the US would own Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.? What would that mean for people outside the US? Not that I have a solution really. I just think it's a really complicated problem we don't have an answer for. The genie is out of the bottle.
funkygunther
Banned
The laws, in this case the rights to keep using that platform, that the US people want on the platform would apply to them. Outside of that the company just performs as it does today, and users outside are as liable to those EULA as they are today. They would be just be operating as a private company overseas as a subsidiary or just as a stateowned multinational like EDF or Huawei.
Remember this is about laws wanting to be changed
and that is how you go about changing laws.
Freedom of speech, in the legal sense, is not being limited right now. So the answer to your question is that if you don't want further public control over these sites then everyone who uses those sites is subject to whatever random rules they want to create within the legal framework that allows them to create those rules.
Kenpachii
Member
I dunno why people bitch about freedom of speech. This guy isn't just saying something. He's selling a product, its a company and he makes massive bank on it. The platforms decide that the company is toxic for there brand and a huge group of people have issue's with it that they relay on for there own business, what damages there brand and they get rid of it.
If he was just a normal person making some normal statements and not make any money out of it, i would say yea its freedom of speech. But he's a business rather then a "normal person".
Look his message is incredible positive for many guys, and even for woman i would say. The problem however is how he goes bezerk on the idea of "your girl is a guys slave" which is simple not acceptable in a western society to say he should drop his idiotic act and start to focus on the positive message and filter out all the toxic shit.
He played a high ball game and he lost as result. He only got himself to blame for it.
If he was just a normal person making some normal statements and not make any money out of it, i would say yea its freedom of speech. But he's a business rather then a "normal person".
Look his message is incredible positive for many guys, and even for woman i would say. The problem however is how he goes bezerk on the idea of "your girl is a guys slave" which is simple not acceptable in a western society to say he should drop his idiotic act and start to focus on the positive message and filter out all the toxic shit.
He played a high ball game and he lost as result. He only got himself to blame for it.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
The fact that they ban him but that old black politician lady who said that riots and occupation of entire neighbours were a good thing(or really any cunt who advocate for violcence against police, white men etc.) still being in every social media platform tells all you need to know about free speech and double standards.
Last edited:
I don't recall Motley Crew or Twisted Sister ever going on record as saying they moved to a particular location just so they could rape people and get away with it, but sure - they're exactly like Tate. There's freedom of speech, and then there's being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt. Andrew Tate falls into the latter. He literally said he moved to Romania so he could rape people and get away with it. How are people still defending him when he's made comments like that? Or him blaming victims of sexual assault by saying they probably initiated it and therefore should take responsibility.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its because once you accept a mechanism or policy you need to realize that you've set a precedent for it to be used against anyone - yourself included- in the future.
Freedom of speech is the most foundational of human rights in a liberal democracy, once that's gone, its just a matter of time before everything else goes.
Without free speech, you can't dissent, can't publicly organize protest, its essentially criminalization of expression of thought. This is how tyrannies always begin.
Never forget the words of Martin Niemöller.
Konnor
Member
Funny how I predicted that the San Francisco cartel would ban this guy from all social media, huh? It's as if these fucks collude with each other and they're that predictable.
Most of them know this stuff, people like us have told them about it repeatedly, they just don't care because it's all about advancing their cult's dogma by any means necessary. Many if not most of them even call themselves liberals and they're actively trying to dismantle the liberal democracy while at the same time downplaying what they're doing. The answer to your post will be "just because they banned one guy doesn't mean they're dismantling free speech" or "free speech isn't about private companies using their right to kick people off their platforms", arguments that have repeatedly been addressed and are intellectually dishonest talking points in the first place. Don't expect an honest discussion with authoritarians.
Most of them know this stuff, people like us have told them about it repeatedly, they just don't care because it's all about advancing their cult's dogma by any means necessary. Many if not most of them even call themselves liberals and they're actively trying to dismantle the liberal democracy while at the same time downplaying what they're doing. The answer to your post will be "just because they banned one guy doesn't mean they're dismantling free speech" or "free speech isn't about private companies using their right to kick people off their platforms", arguments that have repeatedly been addressed and are intellectually dishonest talking points in the first place. Don't expect an honest discussion with authoritarians.
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
I hard disagree here. I don’t have social media at all and I’m doing just fine.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
How does this man getting banned from a few social media impact freedom of speech?
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The worrisome part is the coordinated nature of the ban across multiple, private and theoretically independent, institutions.
That level of collusion amongst non-governmental bodies, beholden to noone but themselves should concern us all.
As we saw during Covid when all the major social media providers can be controlled as a bloc, that's a powerful tool in the arsenal of government to enforce soft power beyond democratic recourse.
I personally couldn't give a shit about Tate, but I ask you what "good" is coming from any of this? Squash this clown and another will rise up with the same angle, the same rhetoric because it doesn't address the demand for his horseshit. The people to whom he speaks are still out there, they are just less easy to identify and makes an overt "problem" covert.
Beyond that its just a gaudy reminder that the digital public-square is a fiefdom controlled by powerful vested interests, and that you as an end user have no rights, no recourse, and they can squash you like a bug anytime they please.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Social media companies provide a service. To use their platform, you need to agree to their terms of service. Break the terms of service and you lose access to the platform.
Serious question, but would you prefer all social media platforms are absolute free speech forums. Platforms that allow people to say whatever they want without getting removed from the service?
Konnor
Member
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
I have a question. Is there a limit to free speech? Should we be able to say whatever we want.
thegame983
Member
I fully support the banning of everyone I don't agree with.
I got rid of my Facebook back in 2014. I had Twitter and Instagram up until 2019. I deleted TikTok and Snapchat earlier this year. My life is significantly better.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
By curating content they are doing more than providing a service, they are editorializing like a publisher, big difference.
Its not about free-speech absolutism, because under the laws of the land in which these services operate there are clearly defined parameters for free speech, and speech under which there is consequence and censure.
The issue here is that we have blatantly amoral corporations playing "guardians of the public good" whilst hiding behind legal protections that exist solely for those that provide an open service!
I personally support freedom of speech within the law, and being a douchebag isn't against the law *ANYWHERE* last I checked! Hence its over-stepping.
From a practical standpoint this is an issue of enforcement. Most people don't want crime but creating a police state isn't the solution they'd desire either!
Effectively un-personing someone seems like a pretty draconian act when done absent of any ability to mount a defence.
This should frighten you.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
I'm not frightened because I live in the UK. We put people into prison for using hate speech on Twitter, or arrest old people for sharing an image of a pride flag to look like a swastika on twitter because it gave someone anxiety.
Konnor
Member
Yes, the limits are clearly defined by law. The few megacorps that control the vast majority of speech on the internet and thus the biggest public forum on the planet should not be the ones deciding which narratives should be allowed (and even often promoted) and which should be censored especially since these megacorps are actively colluding to create a cartel. Either break them up into a million small pieces using antitrust laws that should have been activated a LONG time ago if the politicians weren't getting bribed by them or stop them from mass-censoring speech a democratic society hasn't deemed dangerous.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
Oh please, it would be like you said if this law would be respected by everyone, and then you have my example of that old bitch politician who was praising riots and fucking occupation or all the people who actively hate on white male, rich people or police.
Make sure that EVERYONE receive the same treatment before even start talking about censorship...
As it is right now is just a method to cancel people who think differently from who owns the platform, basically a joke.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Speech defined by law, but which law? These companies are international, but different countries have different laws when it comes to free speech. For example, in France it's a crime to deny the Holocaust happened, but this doesn't breach free speech rules in the USA.
I'm happy and content that social media companies are taking the correct approach and banning the right people. But then again, I live in the UK and I'm used to stricter free speech rules.
Everyone does receive the same treatment.