Andrew Tate Banned: Should Instagram & Facebook Be Able to Censor Anyone They Want?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2024
- Andrew Tate getting banned from Instagram and Facebook could mean a lot more than you may think. Should social media websites be able to ban anyone they want?
► Asmongold's Twitch: / asmongold
► Asmongold's Twitter: / asmongold
► Asmongold's 2nd YT Channel: / zackrawrr
► Asmongold's Sub-Reddit: / asmongold
Thank you all for watching! Stay tuned and subscribe to the official Asmongold TH-cam Channel to always be kept up to date about the best Asmongold Highlights, Asmongold Reacts and funniest Asmongold moments from World of Warcraft, Elden Ring, Lost Ark, Final Fantasy 14 (FFXIV) and other games played on stream!
Channel Editors: CatDany & Daily Dose of Asmongold
► 🎸 Outro song: CatDany - Get Enough
If you own the copyright of content showed in this video and would like it to be removed:
► / catdanyru
►
#Asmongold
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 70 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IbBEqbse4Oo/mqdefault.jpg)
we need to use social media less
Best advice imo
@@djnausea975 Hence the 'touch grass' idiom.
By less you mean not at all right?
@@zzzzzz-rn3oh ideally yes i guess. youtube is in a way social media too so idk... i stopped using facebook though
@@zzzzzz-rn3oh eh, TH-cam is social Media and you can learn a lot from it if used properly. Keyword "properly"
I think there is a difference between having an unpopular opinion and outright promoting violence against a specific demographic of people.
Thank you
unpopular opinions should not be banned. give one example of where he promometed violence towards women ?
Where did he EVER promote " violence against a specific demographic of people". WHERE??? Just cause he calls ppl out on their BS dont mean he "promoting violence against a specific demographic of people"
@@network735 He told multiple times things like grab her by the throat and tell her to shut up. I didnt really mind his presence. He was entertaining to listen to. Always wondered at what point he believed hisself. I always thought he was desillusionnal or something. Who knows how true all his stories were
this is absolutly false, Andrew never said its womens fault that men are like this, he says its feminism, stop liyng asmon
idk if it’s in tos but setting up an mlm scheme to flood social media platforms with accounts that spam similar content should be a bannable offense on any platform
Omg I've found someone with a brain!!!
100%
Ty
Why are you parroting hot takes from Twitter?
@@Spellchecc1OO what do you mean hot takes, this is such a cold take that anyone could have come up with it, not surprised more people are talking about it over there
It's like, but why aren't they banning every scammer or cult leader, that grifting on their platform? It's really easy to find them, they hurt so many people, but this companies doing nothing
People don't care there are literal terrorist leaders on social media, they just care the bad guy in current day pop culture gets banned because he says words they don't like.
My best guess is ignorance or they are just pure hypocrites. Idc if they ban people they don’t like but do it to everyone doing crazy shit not just a select few.
@@user-Caleb0312 lack of reporting they can see the facts on? Probably. How many cult leaders actually get reported as such?
Network effect, enough people and enough evidence that correlates to content on the platform.
You bring up a reasonable point but that's still not a reason for NOT banning him, right? It's like, "good job arresting Epstein and Maxwell, but also screw you for not arresting any of their pedo friends".
They just banned this one because it was becoming very big. This happens in any corporation. Blizzard unbans Asmongold quickly because it was a PR risk, big companies are quick to fix problems when it comes to something big/popular. They banned Tate because it was becoming big and he clearly had done enough to warrant a ban, they're not efficient/effective enough to ban these muppets when they "only" impact a few thousand people.
"I strongly suspect the things people believe in are usually just what they instinctively feel is right; the excuses, the justifications, the things you’re supposed to argue about, come later. They’re the least important part of the belief. That’s why you can destroy them, win an argument, prove the other person wrong, and still they believe what they did in the first place. You’ve attacked the wrong thing."
Edit:
Source: "Use of Weapons" by the late Iain M. Banks. A book in "The Culture" series, a scifi universe with some of the most overpowered stuff out there.
Also, my take from the quote/scene is: You can't argue away the stupid in people. Therefore, just avoid talking to anyone. No ad hom or physical violence required. 5head
No, it's because of several things like differences in definitions in the argument and also disagreement of severity. The winner of the argument is often only winning due to a communication break down. Not an actual win.
Amen
@@ricky4673 Nahhhh dude sounds like An excuse to losing a debate
@@ricky4673 That just sounds like the words of a person who has never won an argument or understand what winning an arguement even is.
@@DragonReaver he is just saying that aside of op's argument, there are additional reasons.
Freedom of speech and freedom of press does NOT pertain to TH-cam. TH-cam is a business that someone owns. Every business has the RIGHT to not allow ANYONE THEY WANT from participating in their business.
@@demonsluger it's their business. They can do what ever the fuck they want. If I own a store and I want to hang up political signs in my store I will do what ever the fuck I want because it's my business.
he is saying rape is the fault of the women, he talks about hitting his girlfriends when they accuse him of being with another woman . this is NOT just fakin opinion its used to radicalize young people who then go on to do this shit offline
Simon. You have seen very small, well designed clips taken out of context to make him look worse. If you actually bothered to do your own research you would be as baffled as everyone else that has. It's cancel culture without investigations.
This somewhat relates to making internet a utility and thus gain the same protections other utilities have for citizens. Speaking of the ISP talk.
Uh what will that do? Calling something a utility isn't going to remove a company's ability to remove someone from their service or platform.
@@Garbagemangamingofnewyork I was referencing the talk is an isp, Internet service provider. Being a utility does provide protections for citizens, guarantees, and oversight.
@@demonsluger The simple fact that you are being taxed for it mean you have a say. Much of it at this point comes to your state. It may change to have federal protections as we have already seen in the past discussions in Washington. The fact of the matter is being taxed provides a lot more open discussion, can result in more access guarantees, and let’s citizens vote on it if the subject matter is worthy of voting for in their state. Believe what you want about taxes, good or bad.
@@demonsluger ok.
@@demonsluger lol "tax is theft" trolls would be funny if they werent so boring from having been around so long
As long as they’re private companies, they do. The real question is, should they be private companies? The problem with a private company running a public utility is that these things happen. And don’t think for a second that a private company is less in bed with the govt than a public utility. It’s just who’s running who.
The problem is that they get the legal protections of a public utility but also have the freedom of a private company.
@@redridingcape bingo
@@redridingcape exactly, they have to do something about that but, no one seems to care.
You want the gov to own Facebook? Wtf
@@sh0ker they already do, because their party is in power.
The way he opened up already told me he doesn’t listen to the content. He states men should improve them selves so they can have a better life outlook and better opportunities. Whether it be physically socially or mentally or financially. He mentions it all
Sometimes he says that, other times he says some outrageous stupid shit.
Let’s be honest also. He is also doing a favor to all girls. That if they act/are ho3s no man is going to treat them seriously.
@@joppekim yeah old videos where he's making jokes but you only watch 5 second clips of it to the point where you think he's a bad person.
Idk why people have chosen Tate to get all up in arms about freedom of speech. There's so many better people you could reference that don't think that men should have authority over woman, which, by the way, would be completely antithetical to the idea of free speech to begin with.
If people use their right to free speech to cause demonstrable harm, that would be an element of our free speech we must get rid of in order to preserve the value of free speech itself. Free Speech has no value in a society where we don't hold people to account. It's opposed to the objectives of free speech. If you're a fan of freedom of speech, you can't really be in favor of a set of circumstances that can lead to the destruction of it.
The point of contention with most free speech advocates ultimately ends up boiling down to "I think the harm in doing or saying whatever you want is less important to society than the ability to do or say those things.", and I think we have a much healthier society overall when adhering to things that harm the fewest amount of people possible.
Why do we need to get rid of the speech? If someone has caused demonstrable harm we have civil and criminal systems to hold them to account. If those systems aren't working the way we want then it is those systems that need to be changed. He has the right to be a repugnant douche bag and we have the right to call him that and rail against his regressive views.
@@Iniak. He left the UK to avoid a sexual assault investigation, so in terms of the criminal justice system, he's actively trying to avoid charges (and just describing him as a repugnant douchebag is a bit underselling them with this in mind). The system must be changed in this regard, but I've seen vague statements like yours about "the system must be changed" all the time, but nothing really about what in specific should be changed about it.
Overall, I think we have more free speech than people like to screech about already, but if people want to argue for more, more power to them I guess. I just wish you guys picked someone that wasn't under an investigation or hated women to champion the free speech movement. It makes everyone look silly.
If they are private companies yes. They have that right… but in the press no. So until social media is constitutionally considered apart of the press then they should be allowed to do as they please. They way Andrew Tater does, by moving to a country that he admits he moved to because of corruption and lack of accountability of criminals.
The only reason they aren't considered part of the press is because they have section 230 protections (can't get sued for things said on their platform), which are only supposed to apply to them so long as they don't act as a publisher, but they are acting as a publisher by censoring people and editorializing their posts. So they're simultaneously acting as a publisher while having section 230 protections, which isn't supposed to happen.
Social media, private platforms, already do not have the right to do whatever they want. They have to abide by the law, like everyone else.
@@Khalkara They have the right to ban whomever they please, it's not like it's a public building and someone is trying to trespass you. It's a private entity.
@@Garbagemangamingofnewyork No they don't. If they banned someone, for example, for being gay they can be sued. Because sexual orentiation is a protected class.
Nor can they refuse to ban people who encourage illegal things like murder.
Private entities can only do what they want, in so far as it does not cross the law of the land.
"constitutionally considered apart of the press"
This will not, or at least should not, ever happen.
Social media and journalism are 2 very distinctly different things.
Journalism entails gathering, (hopefully) verifying, editing and then disseminating information. The entire process, from start to finish, is under the control of the journalist(s) involved.
Social Media is just another form of open forum where anyone and everyone can enter and express their opinions and ideas. Unlike journalism, there is very little proactive control over what gets posted on the platform, it's almost entirely reactive. Outside of some algorithm based filters (i.e. filtering profanity / vulgarity, etc) the platform has very little control over what gets posted until after it gets posted. Reactive in the sense that they do not actively gather, verify or edit the information before it gets released. They primarily rely on reports from other users to find and eliminate any questionable items that get posted.
In other words, journalists active create the content they release. Social media sites do none of those. They just provide a platform for other peoples' content.
With that being said...
I fully agree with a "their house, their rules" approach, as you suggested, with the obvious exception that, as khalkara brought up, they don't break any laws.
If the rules were equally enforced, then YES.
But they are not, so NO.
True !!!
@@alexandrebelair4360 meaningless argument, just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. This would be a reasonable argument if they enforced this equally but clearly they’re biased and have abused these powers. Section 210 needs to be removed cus they’re being editors and no longer forums. Stop arguing in favor of a monopoly lol
@@alexandrebelair4360 hahaha ur so wrong and u dont even realise it, u know reddits ceo edited comments HIMSELF that critized him? and he edited them to make the commentors shit on trump and not himself. also your argument is so bad, "if u dont like it make your own one", is basically saying that people cant voice their dislike for the corporations censorship for things they dont like and should instead make their own app. which lets be real, itll never reach the amount of people twitter, FB, Insta, reddit etc reach. how authoritarian of you holy sht hope u people arent like this in real life.
Yes, if they are legally blocked from purchasing smaller competitors.
No, if they continue to hold a monopoly on information.
Good, reasonable and nuanced answer
Rumble is suing Google for suppressing content from their site in search results, will be interesting to see what they find in discovery.
Monopoly on information? Ever heard of this cool thing called: LIBRARY?
@@dydx_ I think Grey ment monopoly on public discourse. META & Google have their tentacles everywhere and these authoritarian f*cks know when you are heading to the john for a no2 wayyy before you do.. If you really think it through, we are already digitally controlled, nudged and manipulated by AI, we just don't fully grasp it yet.
A quick thought experiment. If these companies know everything about us and can go full minority report on us, doesn't that mean they know everything about everybody including government officials? Let's be real, who has the leverage thus the real power? Big tech? Washington? or is it a thin slice of the global elites? Just realize and take in, that people and their families creating the inner workings of these platforms or working on AI/Algorithms avoid their own products like the fucking black plague. We as humans don't even comprehend what mental/psychological/social effects these platforms have on us, but the first signs and studies show us a really bleak future. We will discover a whole new variety of side effects over this, mark my words
Regardless of plattform illegal content should not be allowed on any of those. We are not talking about some unpopular opinion here or one that conflicts with facebooks world view, we are talking about radical hatespeech. Tate is wanted for human trafficing and moved to romania to avoid investigators.
So nobody should get banned from Asmon's reddit unless they're breaking the law?
Right? Lol go back and watch his vid of the JD/AH trial with the old gf testimony. He immediately jumps on commenters for saying sexist, ageists creep bs. But Tate should have the right to using private companies’ platforms to spread hate speech? It’s not just unpopular opinions or politics. It’s literal hate speech against women from a guy who very likely is involved with trafficking. Irony being Asmon would ban Tate from his stream in a heartbeat.
Here we go with a "got ya" andy lmao.
@@mrs.h2725 Who decides what is hate speech? Everything Tate says about women, you can find the inverse from feminists saying shit about men (men bad, toxic, violent, oppressors etc), yet their speech isn't nearly as censored.
That would be essentially blocking. They can still use Reddit just no longer asmons subreddit. Same thing as asmon blocking someone on twitter, they can still use twitter jsut not look at his profile. In both cases they can still use the platform. Now is there a difference when someone blocks someone compared to when a company removes someone off of their platform? I would say yes because they are on completely different scales and one can be considered preference while the other censorship.
@@steakdriven Exactly
Eh, Asmon is factually wrong on just about every part of this commentary. I can't point to a single sentence that is true. Here's just a few obvious points of fail.
(1) "Public companies" aren't public charities. The word public in "public company" refers to how their stock is traded and regulated NOT that the company is altruistic and providing free services to the public. These are private entities with no duty to you unless you buy their stock. Even when some internet services have been setup as 501c3, such as Craigslist, but even they have TOS that ban harassment, incitement to violence, and hate speech.
(2) ToS isn't about disagreement with opinions. Jack Dorsey isn't paging through tweets deciding who to ban based on whether or not they disagree. It's usually about what's in the ToS. What's in the ToS is about a combination of the law and lawsuits. You can't do targeted harassment or hate speech on any platform, not because of Jack Dorsey's opinion, but because the platform would get sued. Any content that gets the platform sued is going to be exempted in the ToS and get you banned, becauze Twitter doesn't want to have to budget hundreds of millions of dollars for lawsuits. Nobody at these companies gives two craps about your opinions, it's when you cost them money and get them named in the lawsuit.
(3) Andrew Tate was allegedly involved in just about everything discussed above, in terms of targeted harassment, hate speech, incitement to violence. His whole scam also appears to me to be a Multi Level Marketing (MLM) scheme, which is illegal in most States, so to the extent he's using platforms, again, there's liability and the potential the platform gets sued, allegedly, in my opinion. Just about everything that comes out of Andrew Tate's mouth is a lawsuit and insta-ban.
Ahhh, c'mon man. Go easy on Asmon. He worked very hard to build and maintain his echo chamber, specifically so he wouldn't have to read things like this. You're just a gotcha andy. /s
Most of the shit Asmon says either makes no sense, or is the most basic shit possible, and for some reason people eat it up.
"Andrew Tate was allegedly involved in just about everything discussed above, in terms of targeted harassment, hate speech, incitement to violence." - It's not. His affiliate marketing is only a single level. Affiliate marketing is very common online and not the same as MLM. Please point me to targeted harassment, because I haven't seen it. And hate speech? Everything is hate speech these days. It's obvious he flirted with fire to get attention. Oh no he said women aren't as good as drivers as men. This is what we call hate nowadays?
@@icecream-soup Asmon would just insta-ban the OP of this comment chain and not even discuss it. Gotta keep that echo chamber flowing.
The same could be said about if anyone could kick a guest out of their own home at any time, the answer is yes, the owners of the property can kick out whoever they feel is no longer welcome on their property.
Literally this and not even to say I agree with the censorship but this is the only point that actually matters
Then they should lose protections they get as platforms which would automatically delete every platform from the internet.
@@Shadowh8ter What protections do they have that other businesses don't have?
Not really. If we are using your analogy, the person brought someone into their home and said "these are the rules... don't break them and you'll be fine"; and then because someone grabbed a beer from the fridge without asking, they get kicked out, even though that wasn't a rule.
Is it within their right to kick them out? Yes; but its not within the spirit of the invite into the house. The companies should be held to their own TOS, and normal legal conventions for the founding nation; and if you don't break those rules, you don't get kicked from the platform.
@@Shadowh8ter they don’t have any special protections that any other company doesn’t also have.
It's not just that Andrew Tate has "unpopular opinions", its that his takes literally make women out to be nothing more than servants to their husband. An unpopular opinion is not liking Pizza, this is thinking all women are nothing but servants. Destructive stuff like this definitely deserves to be de-platformed.
Not true, there are many videos where he explains how women have unique and better roles than men.
@@patrickstar1164 Well, the point I’m trying to prove is that he has the same kinda of “hate” towards lazy men who don’t fulfill their “duty” the same way women “should”. But it only seems to create an outrage when it’s about women. Adults should be able to take what he says with a pinch of salt but yeah that’s just my opinion.
@@patrickstar1164 and your puppy example is not a good example at all cause i’m using the same type of example, but for different genders, and you’re comparing 2 whole different things with each other to sound reasonable.
Karen
@@Shosty Coming from someone who is a loser themselves. I-R-O-N-Y.
Let's be real, we are all people on someone else's sidewalk on social media. These are privately owned companies. If you are shouting on the sidewalk outside a restaurant, maybe they don't care for a while. But if the owners get annoyed or they start losing customers or they get complaints, they can get you removed (particularly if you're inside their property line). Should this be how it is? Maybe, maybe not. But just pointing out there are similar situations outside of digital owned space.
In terms of deplatforming, I do think platforms should have time limit guidelines when they ban. I think bans should be long term suspensions outside of law breaking like Asmon said. People can express themselves, but not on the company board's sidewalk. Until these companies are public entities, I think outcome is still going to be tied to the bottom line, which means they make and modify the rules.
Asmon says "publicly owned company" but they aren't publicly owned. They're publicly traded, still privately owned.
The medium / publisher debate is long gone. They can ban whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. They even banned the guy who invented ivermectin from youtube. He won a nobel prize, but it goes against political goals, so suddenly this prestigious scientist becomes a conspiracy theorist. People who still talk about these things like these companies are acting as anything else than an extension of oligarchical control are living in a fairy tale.
@@baraka629 editorializing also includes "adding context" to people's posts, like fact-checks, or a CDC/WHO banner whenever you mention covid or vaccines.
@@baraka629 the restaurant only faces legal liability in instances where they did something wrong. They are allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason so long as it's not on the list of protected classes/reasons, but doing so doesn't suddenly make them liable for any stupid thing that person might do or say. A company like facebook allowing members to post freely is equivalent. It's not special. They are free from liability because they are not the one doing anything wrong. Just like the restaurant -- they are free to eject anyone for any reason so long as it's not protected. That does not suddenly incur liability from what somebody who is not them says. In fact the only way you'd likely be able to claim they were liable was if somebody used their platform to do something awful and they didn't stop them. Which is what we're seeing them do. Protect their business from people who could have a detrimental effect.
@@fal4cy you are wrong, they are 100% free from liability so long as it is not against law
They are protected from liability with Section 230
@@hby7768 Actually, they are protected from liability even when something on their site IS against the law, as long as they have a policy that says it's not allowed. They don't have to enforce that policy in a timely manner or seemingly even enforce it at all.
They don't owe anyone a platform, and the people bitching about it are the people who made it that way.
Also saying that shit like Twitter is a public utility and should be run by, assumedly, the government, is quite a take from a bunch of people who want "small government"
when you capitalist so hard that you communist
It's refreshing to hear your take on this whole thing. Social media is crazy but it's also full of good youtube content creators. It's the little things in life.
Do you mean like making jokes about a rape victim being a perpetrator?
@@IgnoreMeImWrong what are you even talking about? did we watch the same video?
@@11dennys11 for real though
If there's a house and the house has a sign "Everyone is welcome, but don't poop in the corner" and you enter and you poop in the corner, guess what happens. You get thrown out. Social media is a house metaphoricly and the owners can make their own rules. And I'm glad sexism, homophobia/transphobia and other extremist and damaging "opinions" are on the no-no list.
Honestly if you go into public and say without meming: "if my gf does only fans I want 80% because she's my product" youre lucky people don't spit on you on the streets. It's disgusting to a level I can't even fathom.
I agree. However what’s considered homophobia/transphobia etc as an example (there are a lot of topics) vary in perspective and that’s the issue when snowflakes in groups start to control the main platform. Same if any majority bias gets full control of huge social media platforms. This will only create even more separation between the total population and the sides (left/right) will get stuck in their own bias bubbles. The only outcome is more hate and possible open physical conflict. Separation only creates more conflict not less.
@@lexxisful You're definitely right with the bubbles, but what is discrimination or not should be in the law of a country. USA is lacking a lot in that department. Just as a comparison and perspective : if you insult someone on the streets in Germany, they can lawsuit you. In the USA you have to suck it up unless they start harassing you. Discrimination doesn't start at losing a job because you're a woman. It starts earlier. But America doesn't really have a good basis to work on.
@@shakeweller Yeah I don’t live in the states so I don’t have much knowledge on ur laws. Either way I’m happy that Tate is getting less attention. He for sure is an idiot that went to far with his mouth and scam. Tbh I’m surprised he lasted so long
@@lexxisful @lupy both of you are soft fragile minded snowflakes lmao. Suing someone because they disrespected you? The left constantly attacks people from the right openly on the media, where is your response for that? Modern women are allowed to walk around shitting on men verbally, they're allowed to hit men without repercussions most of the time, they get half or more of a mans income when divorcing, they have the right to bind a man to a child but a man has no right when a women kills her child, etc.. We are sick and fucking tired of the double standards and the slander. This cognitive dissonance has to stop on your end, ASMON included, and I like his content. But this take is so far from the truth, and it shows he truly doesn't listen to Andrew and has never actually dove into his content personally. Hearsay isn't damning evidence in court and it definitely shouldn't be here. Take your opinions and shove them up all of your asses, either speak logically and factually, or keep your opinion to yourself and to your friend circles, these kind of moments don't require them.
Some people really underestimate what a government can do if it decided that it's going to fck people over.
Or they conclude that giving that power to a board of unelected executives who are only beholden to the stockholders, is far worse.
Good thing this has nothing to do with the government at FUCKING ALL
@@Khalkara I mean a private platform that you pay nothing to use and or get money and or make money off should totally get to police their own platform and content especially for harmful and violent rhetoric.
@@mckenzie.latham91 There was a small talk about gov in there somwhere
@@mckenzie.latham91 As long as private platforms are a thing, yeah ofc. But ideally it shouldn't be an unelected executives who are calling those shots.
He touched on it at the start of the video but doesn't realize how deep the Tate stuff goes. I don't think Asmon realizes how his teachings are creating a cult-like following with some stuff that is just asinine.
I just got a 24 hour ban for "incenuating violence" by saying id beat someone's ass in elden ring pvp lol
I think there is still a moral and ethical obligation to operate with similar rules as a public space. Private company aside.
With how much power and influence social media has on the daily lives of individuals, I think it should be concerning to everyone when they have a strong bias
Fair take.
It doesnt though, people are just addicted, and refuse to admit it. These platforms have 0 power of your life. The IRS has more power of your life than any of these social media platforms combined. . . Your local city government has more control over your life. Fuck it, the TRASHMAN has more control over your life.
why do people make this stupid argument? You can live your life offline ya know
"private company aside" ummm no.
These are not public spaces these are apps made to market and sell products and services you just happen to be talking to your friends with them while they do it while watching you and making note of what you might like to buy. It's like preaching in a mall... Try it and see how quick security boots you out the door.
@@juggernaut1011 then fuck the internet entirely, grid down. What you're saying doesn't actually offer anything to the argument other than people need to go outside, go to the gym and spend much less time on the internet. People being addicted and stupid to the realities of life doesn't stop the fact tech companies silence those for dismantling their agendas. From the rhetoric I see you speaking, you should be able to grasp and at least somewhat agree with this sentiment. Also...the IRS has filled 87k positions under the pretense of "using deadly force" which is more personel than the Canadian Army.
Public squares are controlled by the local government. This is a private establishment.
I generally dislike cancel culture, but that's because I feel like a lot of people that get cancelled are called out for something tiny or that they did a long time ago and have apologised for and made changes. But when someone is actively teaching people to treat other human beings like trash, I think they deserve whatever happens to them.
I kind of disagree with you. I have watched many of his videos to find out whats he all about.
One thing i couldnt find a single time where he threatens women with violence.
I firmly believe alot of people dont understand at all whats been said. All the shit he speaks about women is voluntary. ''If you dont like how it is, take your things and leave.''
Thing is, alot of women will agree to these terms and those that dont you just let go. Its a harsh reality so take it as it is.
Also, he has spent a lot of time in Dubai dealing with muslims and he had a lot of good things to say about Islam. I find it kind of ironic that someone like Tate, fast bullshit talker gets banned for the same shit Islam preaches open for all to see. Also Tate's perspective of how man should treat a woman is a MILD version of what is considered normal under Sharia!
All i can see is HYPOCRACY!
@@1est1 Tbh. I kind of feel personal connection to Tate through some other guy i used to know long time ago.
All i can say is: Hustlers are hustlers whereever they are and however rich they are. Theres a hierarchy of competence in any field and Tate happens to be quite competent in the field of Hustling.
It is funny for me to see how he riles up people, telling them whatever they expect to hear and pocketing a lot of dough in the process. World and especially social media and internet is full of fools these days, if you got the skills you can play them all like a damn flute!
@@rockmcdwayne1710 That's a strawman argument. I never mentioned violence nor women. It doesn't have to involve violence to still be dangerous. Preaching things such as it's all a woman's fault if she gets cheated on because she's a dumb bimbo that has saggy tits or something, and should stay with the man regardless because everyone is going to cheat on her anyway so she should just stay with the man she loves and put up with it, should not be tolerated (see Asmon reacts to the most pathetic alpha male). I would disagree that most women would like to be treated in such a way. Abuse isn't always physical, and this type of shit contributes to emotional and mental abuse. I feel like you're placing way too much faith in men, specifically the ones that listen to people like Andrew Tate, if you truly believe that they would just 'let them go' if their partner no longer wished to be controlled and manipulated. In this example, why wouldn't the man just break off the relationship if he feels he really needs to cheat? The pain of cheating is easily avoidable but he's encouraging it. The way he talks about other men is equally as horrendous, basically calling them all bitches if they don't act the same way he does, and insulting their wives if they speak out against his behaviour (see Leon Lush). I also don't believe a lot of modern society, at least in the west, agrees with Sharia law, but we can't do anything about it unless the people partaking choose not to. Or we start a war.
A lot of it comes down to tit for tat. 'If they treat us badly, we'll do the same'. Which shouldn't be the answer.
"treat other human beings like trash" He never did. Nice try promoting false narrative sheep's try to spread about this. He always was about fairness and logic in this corrupt world and to try get the best out of this. Sure, he has controversial opinions and view of the world, but some of his stuff actually were hard facts/thruth few dare to say openly.
Are you really suggesting a company cannot choose who represents them on their platform? That a company cannot chose who to do business with?
Yeah Asmon really has shittiest take ever here.
If the users represent the business then the business is a publisher, not a platform and then they do not have the protections granted under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. All of the social media sites claim they are platforms and thus claim the protections.
Shitty smooth brain take, when the internet is becoming the public square that influences politics you've gone beyond mere 'business'
Yes, if the company has become a public space they don’t have the right to do what they want.
internet has to have the same rules like a person run around in the street.
@@blackdeath099 HEs not very smart and I wish he would go back to collecting mounts. It's all I ever watched the guy for but like most people that make it big he started to think his opinion on everything mattered. He's slowly gotten more and more deranged and deluded. sad. Do not get rich sitting in your attic on the internet is a good lesson for us all.
He's not banned from the internet, he's banned from a private companies websites. If he were to make and host his own website, he could do and say anything he wants at all, without getting banned. Until he's banned from doing that, his 'freedom' is not being infringed
@@Ar1AnX1x Pretty sure libertarians also go against corporate monopolies dude, it’s just tyranny in another name, just that the one treading on them is a corporation.
Okay did you miss the beginning part where he says being banned from those sites is effectively being banned from the internet?
@@ennui-at-night What Americans refer to as 'Libertarians' have no problem with monopolies, because they tend to imagine themselves as - someday - being the one owning the monopoly.
@@bhardasullivan720 incorrect completely.
Aside from Tate’s hateful views he was also actively promoting his scam
it's only a scam if it doesn't work. those guys are making money that's why nobody in the world isn't seeing this guys face.
@@robertfugate2232 lol it’s multilevel marketing scam. The money only goes to the top. The people paying $50 a month are just trying dig themselves out of the hole by trying to find another sucker to lessen their financial loss. That cycle continues until they are shut down or they’ve run out of plausible deniability.
To top it off there isn’t even a product to sell; you just listen to random people tell you that you should stop being a loser
@@kenkessler301 lmao the program is 5000 dollars
@@LeonardoTheMomo No, thats the War Room program.
Why is this question being asked now with Andrew Tate? Far less disresputable people have been banned from social media for far less than him, the guy is a peice of shit completely outside of having "bad opinions" and is the most obvious case of breaking reasonable ToS imaginable outside of someone posting a shock site or something lmao.
How so?
Lmao so many people don't get banned for doing worst it's all about cry baby's like you that complain
If it's OK for games to ban their players for breaking their rules, why cant a website do that?
Their 'property', their rules, simple as.
I agree with this.
public company btw
Well then remove their section 230 protections, let them be held liable for all the illegal stuff on their site.
@@backstabber3537 so do their share holders want him on the platform?
Because no rule in a game is "You can't practice your right of free speech." Yes, Tate's opinions are dumb, but what's being debated is whether or not a company should be able to decide to take someone's right to free speech away.
I just love (hate it really) how every time when someone takes a grey opinion on something that is not clearly against something or pro something, people translate this to ---> Oh so you are supportive of the thing i am not supportive of?! Its because people have become fuckign drones and their tiny brains can not helpt it but categorize everything into two groups. Either against something or for something and everything else does not excist. SO afraid that someone else might think differently then you. I see this over and over again and i swear its like the more logical you think? The more often you have a grey opinion on something, and the more you get attacked for it.
Amen
Sure, its just a bit weird having a "grey" opinion on things like say for example basic human rights. And even complicated ones. Not everything in this goddamn world is a subject for a debate.
@@The86Ripper Wich basic human rights? Does this have to do with Andrew?
@@jameswayton2340 No i was talking in general. As you said we dont have to polarize and i can agree to that many times. The world definitely could use more critical thinking (asmongold is a good example here).
However there are certain matters where there's nothing to be discussed/debated because there is everything to be respected and accepted.
I see lots of people with the argument: They are private companies they are within their rights. Here in Germany youtube had to revoke bans because of court decisions because these companies have monopolies in the internet which makes such bans very problematic
if he's using the platform to break the law and it's proven in a court then it's justified, otherwise it's not justified. accusations aren't enough to justify it, many people were accused of crimes and were later found not guilty (not enough evidence), or completely proven innocent when the real culprit was found. even in situations where everyone is 100% sure they did something wrong like with Kyle Rittenhouse, everyone who said he broke the law was wrong and he was proven not guilty in a court and they had to give him back his social media but he should've have lost it to begin with.
Yeah but social media platforms are private and therefore banning someone is more like a bouncer of a club pulling someone from the bar who caused trouble and saying gtfo of here. Many people have been thrown out of bars, and many of them were innocent but who gives a fuck? Don't stir up shit, pay your bar tab and have a good time engaging with people. If you can't do that you're out of there. And if you happen to get into trouble by no fault of your own, well shit happens, that's life. You still gotta stfu and go home.
Well he left the country to avoid being in court. Pretty suspicious. He also thinks he should have the right to pay off cops, and was insulted when he couldn't do it in London. From his own mouth. This is what he's said. This guy is stupid, and basically is saying he's guilty.
@@themangastand8475 Not at all tho he never said he's guilty as he understood he had the right to defend himself from ruthless liberal pedophiles regardless of illegally carrying rifle that's like saying a child who's receiving brutal child abuse have no right to defend himself from his parents by stabbing them cuz technically stabbing is illegal too. You need to understand law first.
Not only were these not "just accusations", Andrew admit to these himself, hell he even BRAGS about most of this stuff, thats how much delusional he is.
@@themangastand8475 that's not true, the human trafficking accusation happened whilst he was in Romania
Asmon says he is not guilty or proven. But by Tates own words he has said that if he leaves Romania he will go to jail for a long time, and will probably never see the outside again. Implying heavily he knows that he will be convicted and sentenced to a longer time period than most for human trafficking charges. Makes you look even more guilty with multiple countries trying to charge you with human trafficking. It is also easier for me to believe Tate who doesn't deny he is guilty, than the seven accusors to all be lying. Running from warrants doesn't make you look more innocent, not sure why asmon keeps insisting on it.
That’s literally false…. He frequently travels to whatever country he wants freely. The human trafficking shit came from a girl that was at his house, his brother hooked up with her and never called her again. This girl had a boyfriend and the boyfriend found out, instead of telling her bf she cheated on him, she made up a lie about how she was kidnapped and kept in the house against her will alongside other women. Andrew was arrested and released within a few hours that same day because it wasn’t true. There is no investigation it’s just false info that bitter women have spread around like parrots. The reason he left the UK to go to Romania is because he had a falling out with a cam girl that worked for him and she went to the police with again false accusations, and the UK wrongfully raided his house and stole thousands of dollars worth of equipment, so he left to a country where the police don’t blindly believe women just for being women.
Yeah, people are so quick to defend a dude who admits that he lives in Romania because he can pay law enforcement to turn a blind eye to his behavior. Holy fuck people are stupid
Have you ever saw his warrants tho?
Where does this even come from lol
Man I'm sure all the asmon fan boys disagree but watching your takes on andrew, then all the info that has come out in the last week if you're following the drama...insane how many assumptions were made and how wrong the takes have been.
you can't expect Asmon to actually think about the message that Andrew is trying to put out, while he lives the life he does
What drama? Im just curious
"I don't think the policies matter" lmao there's so much I agree with but this argument is very intellectually dishonest. If the company doesn't like you saying stupid shit in their house, they can kick you out lmfao
I think the issue is that policies tend to be applied in a slapdash manner which makes the policies as written hard to take seriously.
There is stupid shit all over Facebook and Instagram, you can hate men on there, no problem... this is a political statement and effectively a virtue signal. Big tech are our gods and they dictate what we can talk about. This is the future. They will mold and shape public opinion as they see fit.
If a social media platform is allowed to kick people out for anything they say, they should lose section 230 protections and be held liable for all the illegal stuff on their site
I think a point he was trying to make was that their policies aren't enforced evenly for everyone. There's far worse people on these social media apps that have no action taken against them.
they don't. and if you don't see that, then just wait until a company turns their back on you.
Love you asmon and all the world experience being a WoW streamer has given you.
LMAO
Not sure if sarcastic. But I hope it is.
@@yourdude9942 fr. i love asmon but some of his takes are really out of touch
If only he had as much as you gather in your 9 to 5 job, where you interact with so many different people, their situations and every day is totally different and you experience the world.
this is absolutly false, Andrew never said its womens fault that men are like this, he says its feminism, stop liyng asmon
He’s not really saying it’s women’s fault for men being losers. He actually said multiple times it’s men’s fault.
I have zero clue where people get these quotes from this guy lol. Maybe it’s just TikTok shorts and everyone just agrees to feel good about them selfs short term.
@@kevin9035 people put words in his mouth all the time i have never heard him incite violence against women telling women not to be sluts is misogynistic these days
wait, if what he said was advocating for violance, and you don't see any sign that it was humorous or satirical in any way, then why is this "a gray area" for you?
You set the boundaries in which you would be fine with someone being de-platformed and then placed his behavior within those same boundaries. i am confused.
He did 0 research and was speaking in platitudes, so that's natural.
Andrew Tate literally raped a woman and was under investigation for trafficking. Instead of facing the charges, he fled the country. Now he's being banned from social media? Why does he have ANY following? Fuck the rapist Andrew Tate, why is Asmon making a video defending his rights? I'm just so puzzled by this whole scenario.
Legally it is a gray area. If you just want to ban illegal speech on your platform that would not include all instances of "advocating for violence," only ones that fail the Brandenburg test, aka the imminent lawless action test.
Did Asmon actually say that he was advocating for violence? I know he read comments saying that, but from what I saw Asmon usually replied with a "I don't know about that".
This depends on his intent too.. You can easily say he is playing a character and what he is saying is ment to be viewed the same way you would a comedian saying outragous things. Same with the music we all consume, we can say this advocates violence or we can say it is entertainment. A rich rapper talking about killing people or slapping hoes can be viewed the same as Andrew.
Should they be able to: yes.
Should they for the reasons they do: absolutely not.
@Joshua Pawlak nothing he says is close to ban worthy
I will disagree with the first half of that statement because I see a place like Twitter and other such platforms as "public squares" because people use them in the same way as the old town squares before the internet: Information gathering. With that in mind, you can't get all the information in a story if Twitter bans Billy from saying his side of the story on why he hit Jimmy in the face.
The 2nd half is something I will agree with. Twitter and other such platforms openly do not follow their own ToS and even prove it openly by banning people for saying something that is explicitly in the boundaries of the ToS (no calls for harm or r--ism or whatever). To this extent, Twitter and other such platforms need to be held accountable on some level that they should be required to clearly define what breaks ToS and why your post breaks it.
they shouldnt ban anybody thats fascism
@Joshua Pawlak??? Andrew tate is getting decked against real men.... I don't call a guy who flex all the time masculine he is basically women with extra steps.
@Joshua Pawlak He isn't banned for his masculinity he is banned for his hate speech, which yes is the point people hate it..... His mysogony is too high..... he is serious with his every word.... gets triggered easily.... I'm not happy with just banning him. Send in the IRS.
Asmongold has a best understandings of words traps like “freedom of speech”, “censorship” and “Capitalism” than just
about any content creator I’ve come across. Very balanced, well-worded takes.
No, he doesn't. Asmon is a reactionary. His takes aren't even pseudo intellectual and he can't form a coherent thought. He wants platforms to be regulated but doesn't realize that platforms aren't exclusive to the fucking United States. So who gets to regulate what? Does Australia get 10% of Twitter? Do we divide it by population? This isn't like the rail system or phone system that operates in one country and obeys that countries laws. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, TH-cam are all international companies. Because of they have multiple work places around the world they can claim HQ anywhere. Second Freedom of Speech does not exist on a companies site. That is the product and property of the business. Freedom of Speech stops the government from telling you what you can and can't say in public. That doesn't mean you can shout whatever you want in someone's business.
@@dadthewiseplays You’re debunking yourself. He covered freedom of speech as a mode that would cross the line when someone commit a crime..verbatim. You already acknowledge many of these platforms operate internationally, in the same sense they could operate differently to conform to local laws. While you can’t go into someone’s private business and “say what you want”, Asmon is explicitly saying these giant social networks should operate in a way that doesn’t unduly stifle freedom of speech. Ala, they should act less draconian and only use their censorship powers where it is absolutely necessary. I don’t think you even listed to this video.
@@TTgarland Coulda shoulda woulda, this is where the argument wanders into subjective territory. Freedom of speech is the protection against a government entity trying to shut you up because of what you are saying, or if you are in a public place you have the freedom to speak your mind without being locked away by the authorities. Doesn't matter how big the social network is, it's still a private entity and they can ban you if you say toxic shit like Mr Tate does.
He's never blamed women on being the problem, he blames society. Dude people aren't even trying to understand cobra tate.
Why shouldn't a company be able to control its own website lmao? If you don't like it, don't use the website. If the business in question doesn't kill their own website with their conduct, clearly they're doing things right. Otherwise, people would agree with you and use another platform. If they don't, you're obviously acting like a fool.
"clearly [social media are] doing something right" -- yoR, 2022
You banned Andrew Tate! Ok
Now take action against po*nography of your platforms
which platform you talking about?? twitter has no issue with porn
A firm yes from me, private companies/businesses have a right to decide their own clientele. Doesn't matter if it's a restaurant, movie theater or a digital platform (like TH-cam or Facebook).
What should be a consideration, from a government or even global standpoint, is if these business superpowers are "healthy" for marketplace competition. Here in Norway we have regulations in place that prevents certain markets from being controlled by a monopoly, like supermarket chains.
That's very true. The "FAANG" have too much monopoly on the net now, and probably this wouldn't be considered a problem by most back in the 90-2000's when the net was much smaller and competitive. This is partially our fault too, as we flocked to only one service and used them; rather than touching grass and talking to people physically.
They are publicly traded. The rules are different.
@@michaelwarren202 they are publicly traded private companies. That means that it is a private company anyone can purchase stock in. It does not mean that they belong to the public or to the government.
My issue is they get special treatment via section 230 of the CDA. Protecting them from lawsuits on the basis that they're a "public platform". Meaning they're not responsible for content on the platform. Now that they're deciding who gets a seat at the table, they're no longer a public platform, they're a publisher editing what is allowed.
I'm fine with them being able to do what they want, but they need to lose 230 protections.
@@Mark_87 The funny thing about it is that 230 was advocated as a means for a comeptitive market in the web (although the legal protection and free speech was the larger issue), and now we are seeing the same SMSs hampering new platforms by hiring influencers or just outright banning those topics.
I think "inciting violence" is a reasonable line for a private company to draw.
There's more to it than what you've said here though, he's not blaming woman for men's issues within themselves lol
lol yeah. It’s an entanglement of things that are causing the decline of America culture. And it’a clear that his perspective on tate is based only of on a few clips of TikTok
FB/IG/YT can ban anyone they want, so long as they become compliant with regulated platform policies instead of being “service providers”.
By all means ban who you want, just be also subject to trust laws, monopoly laws & different tax laws…
This is what people get wrong. “They’re a private company they can-“ no, they are operating as service provider. AT&T is a service provider. They cannot deny anyone service. They also can’t hand over your phone call or text data without a warrant. David duke can use AT&T & say whatever he wants on his phone calls unless they get a warrant from the fbi, & even then, they just get his calls & texts, they don’t get to stop him from using the phone.
Services must be publicly available to anyone. They also receive subsidies, tax perks, & are immune from trust/monopoly laws, and other things.
A platform or a private business can do what they like & refuse service to anyone. But they are also subject to a wide range of other laws & taxes.
The issue is social media platforms cannot claim to be service providers if they police content/creators. They try to get around this by saying “hate speech” / “problematic” & other made-up, vaguely defined terms to justify themselves. It doesn’t matter what Andrew tate says or anyone says. You’re a platform or a service, not both.
Ban whoever you want, just also pay billions in platform fines/taxes/fees along with it
Show me where they are classified as a service and not a publicly owned company? As far as I was aware they have stock holders and are part of a free and open market. They just crush all the competition. Thus being a platform. Everyone that uses it agrees to a terms of service when using their platform. They can and are both. And the since the laws enacted after 9/11 they can pull any electronic records with out a warrant. That's why that whistle blower ran to Russia
Literally every business is a service provider. And private businesses, again, can deny whoever they want. I can’t just go to a private bank and demand they open an account for me if I’m delinquent with payments and have a shitty credit score.
An internet service provider can absolutely deny people service or provide limited services to an individual or individuals.
Uh nope, that's not how that works. They aren't providing a utility. You don't need facebook.
I think you just made a bunch of shit up and threw it at the screen quite frankly.
I generally agree with Asmon's position of "even if you have differing opinions, people should still be heard" but this is different. Private companies are allowed to decide what/who they want on their platform and you do have to agree to their rules in order to use their platform. Usually there is a clause stating they have the right to ban you for any reason they deem necessary as a legal protection against things they cannot predict. If you don't want to follow the rules of their platforms, you have to create your own platform, like your own website or social media app. The comparison of "an internet company banning you from a furry site" isn't at the same level, considering the internet itself is a critically protected infrastructure to our modern way of life, so an internet company wouldn't legally be allowed to do that. I understand Asmon's stance that he believes the government should take away a private company's right to determine what they can and cannot ban for, but that is a slippery slope. In the real world, that would apply to things like McDonalds not being able to ban people who aren't wearing a shirt and shoes in their restaurant. You have to allow private companies their right to ban things that they deem harmful, even if it's harmful opinions or misinformation. That's just my take on it though. Love you, Asmon.
**edited: "bad opinions" to "harmful opinions"
It isn't a slippery slope though, just cuz McDonalds can no longer decree that people w/o shirts and shoes are banned from their stores, doesn't mean the government can't decree that same ban. The difference here though, is that if you put this in the hands of the government you have a body, making decisions what is acceptable, which is accountable to the people (putting the flawed democracy of the US aside for a min). Right now the people making the decisions for McDonalds are a very select group of unaccountable unelected people.
Honestly this is one of Asmon's stupidest take I've heard so far. Dude is sinking
As private organizations they should be allowed to make whatever rules they want to, within reason. As consumers, we are allowed to not use their products if we aren't satisfied with them. Personally, I stopped using Facebook and Instagram a few years ago. Somehow my life has not ended.
Then they should lose their section 230 protections if they aren't going to behave as a platform.
@@BoatMurderedDF As consumers that isn't under our control. The only control we have are the choices that we make.
@@TheJudgementofDog yes, but if they are to get the government protections of section 230, they need to be held accountable for their behavior.
@@BoatMurderedDF I don't disagree with that.
They're not private organizations if the government is using them to silence people. Jen Psaki specifically admitted they are doing that. Reported July 15, 2021.
On one hand these are private companies and their spaces ought to be under their control. In the same way that a bakery owner should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple social media owners should be able to host or not host whoever they want.
On the other hand it's asinine to pretend that sites like Twitter or TH-cam are actually used as private spaces, the fact of the matter is that the internet is so integrated into people's daily lives at this point that they should arguably be considered public spaces regardless of the fact that someone owns them. And that people should get the protections on these platforms that being in public usually grants.
So…Walmart is a public space? More people in the US have been to one than own a Twitter account (probably)
Its not censorship since its a private company. Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they want. The fact is that parts are the internet are privatized and not public property and people are realizing how far their rights actually go all this time later. People have the right to go build another social media platform that's their own and say what they want... But that's not feasible for 99% of the population, So the question really is. Should the companies who have become entrenched so heavily in everyone's lives throughout the years, be able to flex their rights to not do business with someone or to ban people off their platform? Ultimately, I don't see any change happening unless the government steps in and does something. The corporations are doing what they are designed to do, make money regardless of emotions and more on the profits to be made. The goverment (worldwide in this case since he lives in/operates from Romania) has failed the people.
Every time someone starts on about the first amendment, it just tells me they don't understand their precious law in the first place, because that law is exactly what let's companies ban people
It's like if you had someone put a microphone out on their lawn for people to use as long as they follow the tos. Then it's like someone coming along and saying that microphone now belongs to them and they are entitled to go onto your lawn and use it no matter what they say or do. All of a sudden their freedom to speak as loud as possible overrides your ability to exert control over something you own
I don't care about tate but you know what's funny and hypocritical about all this is if Tate was a woman and said the exact same thing she would be praised to death, the other thing is that this banning is the same on both Facebook and instagram people or other youtubers were the ones dishing out more of tate's content than he was. Lately a ban on networks is like a badge of honor that you are doing something so this is likely to boost his strategy.
I used to think like this too but then I saw the video of him beating a woman and he definitely deserves to be deplatformed
That is such a dumb argument. Andrew Tate hits women. Don't you think that would be criticized if he was a woman hitting a man? Your little peanut brain thinks the whole world now holds hardcore feminist beliefs just because you are in your shitty bubble that makes you think like that. Broaden your horizon a bit, it would NOT be okay if it was the other way around. Besides, we do NOT need to talk about some stupuid "what ifs", we need to talk about REALITY and what's now.
Women aren't praised for saying that a "real" woman should physically abuse men, they're not praised for only dating teenagers when they're in their 30s, they aren't praised for being accused for assault or for possibly being involved in human trafficing. You're just straight up delusional if you think that a female Tate wouldn't get hate.
@@Kyuupire Well congratulations, I applaud you you make good points about tate, but read the comment again, I'm talking about the things Andrew says that if a woman told them would be "empowering" tate is a copy and paste of modern feminism but male, while women say o waw society and men do x or y to women tate says o waw society and women do x or y to men they all fight in their ego chambers. And seriously women don't get praised if they take advantage? Apparently the Jonny Deep thing is soon forgotten.
@@setrakus10 Women aren't being praised for saying that men with a high body count lose value, for saying that men shouldn't be allowed to work, for saying that women should use violence against men. These are all things he's said. You saying that he'd get praised for what he's saying if he was a woman is simply wrong.
Andrew Tate is like the Kaiser Soze of current thing, everytime i hear about him its like a completely different person is being described
Yes exactly! It actually is kinda genius if you think about it. His 'front-personality' hooks right in with everything that is seen as an issue or controversial, it's like he took time to actually take everything and cooked up an over-the-top personality, which would gain him a lot of attention quick on 'issues/controversies' which would spark outrage, negativity cooks up way more engagement. I like to believe Tate thought this through from the moment he stepped on the gas verbally, can't blame him, he already had money, but this brings in 7 figures a couple times over per month. kudos to him. Just have seen him open up more and conversate more calmly and carefully picking his words here and there on some not really mainstream podcasts.
@@oxithius_official big tate subscriber energy
I just happy people still know the Usual Suspects. Please don't kill Me people....... spacey was good in that movie
Top G is God LMAO
This is why i watched HIS content ..awful person with a few good points
This is such a terrible take. The man is actively influencing very impressionable children to hold absolutely terrible views on women and mens role in society, is literally being investigated for human trafficking, is actively engaged in a pyramid scheme, etc. This is not that difficult. The ban is justified.
Yep, but you gotta recognise the audience of this channel, this community sadly leans fairly decently to the right, so they eat up the "cancel culture" nonsense.
They are companies just like McDonalds or any other. They reserve the right to not serve anyone they want. You don't like it then behave like they say or you don't get to stay. Tough
there was a bakery who didnt surve gays and everybody got pissed
@@Ldoechannel You don't have to like it
Mcdonalds is not permitted to discriminate
Now imagine a world where there are only 5 food chains.
@@Ldoechannel and guess what happened? The courts ruled in favor of the baker.
These women acting like they’re in an arranged marriage to Tate
Under Section 230 should no one be able to delete any content at all , if so take him out of sec 230 and pull him in front of a jury
if your breaking the law or advocating violence , sure. otherwise just block the person if you dont like what they post
except there's a million channels run by 14 year olds with the tate tag, i wish i could get rid of the bastard, but his pyramid scheme is working wonders for him
He literally broke that platform's only rule which is to not be a bigot, he had it coming
@Lars Steffen People get banned daily on all of those platform's , but as soon as it's andrew you ignore others being abnned? You smoking bathsalt????
@@vex080 You're making the claim that he's a bigot, surely you can back that up right?
@Lars Steffen 1. He broke the rules. 2. Anything with Nazi ideology is not allowed in germany for obvious reasons. 3. You can literally just read the book online, you wont go to prison for it buddy. 4. Free speech doesnt protect you and make you immune when you break the rules. 5. How do you not know your own laws?
Hate mongering shouldn’t be tolerated. Incentivizing others to harm others… shouldn’t be normalized.
shouldn’t be normalized.
or business required to let themselves be used to monetize that behavior.
It's blatantly obvious that these social media companies selectively enforce their rules (which aren't all that clear to begin with) against people they dislike while letting some of the worst offenders off the hook. Section 230 exists to protect these companies from being sued for stuff said on their platform, so long as they act as a platform and not a publisher. By arbitrarily banning people they don't like they are acting as a publisher and should lose section 230 protections imo, or at least section 230 should be reformed and made more clear and allow for these companies to be sued when they selectively enforce their rules or have rules that aren't clear as to precisely what constitutes a violation of those rules.
I agree, either go after all the cult leaders, or don't go after any of them and let the cycle of hate continue. Freedom of speech never means freedom from consequences.
exactly. they create very loose and arbitrary 'guidelines' that basically everyone has 'violated' in one way or another. then they selectively enforce them to censor any dissident or alternative voices.
If you are yelling "fuck" at a Chuck E Cheese, they won't remove you because it's illegal to say "fuck," they'll remove you because of the people there that don't appreciate your conduct. Same rules apply here. The social media companies aren't acting as publishers by barring harmful people from using their service, they're protecting their own interests from a PR and legal perspective, which as a capitalist, you should be PROUD for. You should be HAPPY that a company gets to conduct business at their own discretion. That you're frustrated by this decision reveals your hypocrisy, and suggests something awry regarding your personal stakes. Perhaps you empathize with Andrew Tate? A human trafficking/rapist fugitive?
@@LavosGaming NPCs really love that 'freedom from consequences' line. you've really had that line drilled into your firmware, huh?
@@A38 Bingo. It's the people who sympathize with cult leader criminals who are defending him in some capacity, but trying to squeeze out of it by acting like a neutral party saying they support freedom no matter what. They don't want to be honest and say they support misogyny, racism, and homophobia because they KNOW it's a bad look. Some are more brazen than others, and I respect that on some level, because at least they're honest.
The right for men to express themselves is more important than the women’s human rights? Think about it…
Well, I'm generally 100% when it comes to freedom of speech. But people sometimes forget that this includes freedom of association. So, if I start a company, and I don't like how someone is using my servers etc., then I should be able to boot them. And if that gets abused enough, then a competing product will eventually exploit any bad will I've created. The waters get murky with critical infrastructure (like banks, schools, etc). But I don't know that I'd call social media "critical infrastructure". Though, maybe that's an argument I'm open to.
@@bryson8918 Right, that's what part of what I'm saying. I'm just also reminding people that freedom of association IS freedom of speech. It's odd to me that we'd require bakers, for example, to bake a cake they didn't want to bake.
But it does get a little weird when you start extrapolating to critical infrastructure. Bank loans, for example. So, there's clearly a continuum here, or a set of exceptions or something.
@@bryson8918 Is-Ought moments are fun, and I've enjoyed your input.
@@harambe4267 I'm in ought territory, if it wasn't clear by words like "should". So if you're arguing that we "ought" to have exceptions to freedom of association, then I tend to agree in practice, if not idealistically. The world's a shitty place, and assholes exist. But I think a more compelling argument for your point of view is that there's perhaps fair reason for public spaces, including storefronts and their accessibility via public roads, to be considered as subject to some amount of public governance re: freedom of speech / association. And from there, it's a simple hop to Twitter and the rest of social media. But that doesn't necessarily mean I think it's very clean idealistically. I think it's worth grappling with a bit.
Fuck freedom of speech
Only dangerous thing is when opinions meant to harm other human life is pushed into a movement to make that opinion, fact. That's when this companies should step in is when a movement starts up around harmful opinions.
So antifa and blm
The word "public" in "public company" has nothing to do with "serving the public". It means that the public can buy shares in the company. A "public company" isn't a government company. it's like Asmongold is trying to intentionally mislead people by using word associations in dishonest ways. I don't think there's a problem with deplatforming someone from a private space. if your ideas aren't terrible they would survive or there would be a legitimate platform you could place them(that's not considered a hive of shit ideas)
If you think it should be acceptable for platforms to remove anyone for any reason simply because they don't like them, then you should be fine with those same platforms losing their privileges and protections as platforms.
So democracy, protesting are terrible ideas since there is no way you can learn about it in north korea?
@@xijujangliti4906 i'm talking aboutnin america where there is freedom of speech, not sure i follow you
@@Shadowh8ter no i shouldn't. Why should i?
If you're ideas aren't terrible they would survive...... maybe but that doesn't mean people in power won't try to censor them if they're a threat to that power. I guess Chinese people on VPNs who think they shouldn't have a social credit system where the government can shut off access to your own money whenever they want, they're ideas are terrible because they don't have a "legitimate platform" "that's not considered a hive of shit ideas" by the vast majority of the Chinese populace.
Private companies with things like Facebook can do whatever the hell they want.. only time a company MUST consider consequences of decisions is when they are publicly traded with shareholders
Both twitter and Facebook have shareholders fyi.
@@Chaostheory1980 almost every company does and I'm pretty sure most of those shareholders don't care about this
Yeah both of these are publically traded. I don't understand the premis of this comment.
If people don't want to be removed from a platform, they can make their own platform like trump did
My point was blurry, being this - if a company with a product like Facebook was private they could do whatever they want, if publicly traded they cannot because of the responsibility to the shareholders.. sorry confusing
It was in reference to James comment with him saying private companies can do what the want but public ones can't yet his example is public. I was pointing something out I have no horse in this race as the saying goes as I only use the platforms discussed to keep up with family and a few interests so it will never effect me. If they all vanished tomorrow I couldn't care less.
Facebook and Instagram are companies. If you want to use their services you have to follow the rules just like any other companies. If you do something bad/break a rules in a company. The company have all the rights to fire/ban you.
When 90-95% of the country use a service it’s no longer a private company and essentially a public service
@@n1ck1930 why hasn’t governments made a free area of social conversation?
But they have the legal protections of a public utility, so they need to be treated as one.
@@adegaming3998 cus free government services are ass
@@redridingcape they also have a ToS that you sign and if you do not follow it, you getting yeeted. It is not censorship if you break the rules.
Once I learned his business was based on a pyramid scheme, I was no longer in doubt everything he said, was bullshit and self promo.
Fair, but is it not funny that he says it right after he got banned and nothing before?
@@imbekhit9286 Who says what?
he knows its bullshit hes trolling the world xD
How did you learn that his business is a pyramid scheme?
@@ilikeyoutube685Some YT’er who enrolled explained that they use referral coded and get cashback on new subscribers. Those above them then get a portion as well.
I agree as well that users should have more control of the algorithm used on you as a user. How data collected on you should be transparent and in your control. I would go as far as to say it should default as a need to “opt in” and if you do you can negotiate your cut in the revenue.
So simple if we use our brains to answer this.
If they want to claim to be a private business that can ban anyone, then they should NOT be given immunity against lawsuits arising from their content.
If they want to claim to be a publisher of public discourse and have immunity against lawsuits against libel, then they should NOT claim a right to ban anyone they like.
Simple and easy to understand. Yet people cannot see it.
So. Either they get sued every time someone posts porn, and go out of business. Or they can’t ban people posting the porn and lose their identity/go out of business?
@@nikkosmit6985 Porn is not free speech/expression. Just like you can't masturbate in public, you can't post porn on a public forum, unless their are heavy filters/blockers available, like NSFW tags ans censors to prevent kids from seeing it. So your example is flawed.
Im glad you're not in charge, because your "solution" has been picked apart so many times already
@@nikkosmit6985 I think the actual law would be more thought out than that. Regulations are pretty specific and lay every situation out usually, it wouldn’t a binary thing where you can’t ban at all or you can ban everyone
You literally described recent feminism "Its so easy to blame someone else". Thats literally what they do ask any feminist why are you afraid to go outside? "men". Why are you always getting into relationships with the wrong guys " men suck" thats what they do. Now a man does it and its wrong come on
The problem with an open Internet is someone owns the physical connections. Radio and TV can be regulated because the public owns the air waves. The Internet would need to be classified a a utility to achieve what you're wanting
all the wires run across public land and easements obtained through eminent domain, it's public land the same as radio waves travel across public airspace.
@@joshieecs and they pay regulations and fees to lay the wires. Again, it would need to be a utility for the govt to regulate what is in the wires.
I think he was talking more about the social media companies banning people which could be regulated. I think you’re talking about isps, which are already under regulations
I completely agree with you. Just because something is in a contract does not mean it’s magically okay. We can’t contract for $1/hr labor, or for corporate immunity for workplace injuries. We can legislate restrictions on contracts
first of all if you have the power to influence a big number of people you SHOULD watch out what you say and if its wrong/harassment/hate you should be deplatformed, as for "freedom of speech" does NOT protect harassment, hate and violence...
Congratulations, you've just formed an authoritarian government! All you have to do is declare any dissenting voices as 'hate' and you're good to go. I'm sure it will be different when you're in charge though, you'll totally be unbiased even with all this power. Not a big deal, not like power corrupts or anything.
People can think for themselves, people are responsible for themselves.
Your line of thinking just leads to fascist censorship, esp when you realize that people who hate Andrew Tate will send death threats or act like lunatics on his behalf to get deplaformed.
The fact that you put "freedom of speech" in quotes means you are a fucking controlling lunatic.
You hate anyone who doesn't push YOUR ideas so you label them as hateful. You should be spoken out against and told you are wrong.
Andrew tate should have the power to influence free thinkers who choose to follow ideas of their own free will.
Actually freedom of speech does protect hate, harassment (depending on your definition of that word), and threats of violence (so long as it passes the Brandenberg test aka the imminent lawless action test) in the U.S.
@@Cartel734 only in US you can see something like that
@@wabachi Well then I guess the US is just better in that respect
"Should Instagram & Facebook Be Able to Censor Anyone They Want" ignoring protected classification (being a tate-like is not one of them), yup. Dont like that? change the law, but be prepared for the very negative consequences.
I generally agree with Zack's take here, but I think a handful of the things Tate has said can easily be taken as advocating for domestic violence and abusive control. It's one thing to be misogynistic with your speech, it's another to encourage people to use abusive tactics to control their partners.
He also qualified that he hasnt really seen his stuff besides a few shorts. He'd most likely agree with the ban if he sat down and looked him up.
I’ve watched pretty much all of his podcasts at this point. The guy never advocated for violence, in fact complete opposite. He consistently talks about traditional relationships in which a man is a protector and provider for his family. Everybody is running with a single out of context clip about choking some girl and ignoring literally everything else. It’s quite insane how powerful the brain is, I’m sitting here watching it in real time.
@@bestkickz2464 Did you miss the part where it’s non consensual and coercive? He says things like “She’s not allowed to work”. “She can work if I take all the money. She’s mine”.
How’d you gloss over that?
@@olliecherpuzi5045 the problem is he has never said that. The only people saying things like that are those who aren’t actually watching the podcasts. You all are creating someone who doesn’t exist based purely off emotion. The logical thing to do is educate yourself and then form an opinion.
@@bestkickz2464 ive looked into Tate myself and even with all things granted to you so far. Are we really going to go back to a time where men lead women throughout life and ignore the fact that women are becoming more competent than men in certain workplaces? He quite literally talks about women like they are prizes to be won and not people. He doesnt all the time or only objectifies women as examples of a bigger point, i get it, but that goes over so many people's heads and actually gets young men to objectifiy women so at the least he is Irresponsible with his messaging and even if you think people should be smarter, well they arent atm and thats the reality we live it. Maybe he shouldnt be banned, but he definitely deserves the criticism he gets and it's sad because young men need better role models to look up to.
Honestly, Social media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and tiktok...etc are companies. They should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason.
untill someone u dont like owns them. Elon Musk
yes, the companies should be able to ban anyone, even groups as whole
Do you find it concerning that you can be permanently removed from major internet real estate at a moments notice for any reason? "If you have nothing to hide." Type of mentality.
so you agree that if in the future you might say something that companies don't agree with, all your rights should be revoked. Get your bank access revoked, get health insurance revoked, get your store access revoked. Do you even realize how stupid you sound? This is the direction in which these companies are going. Obey or be cancelled. You are just too stupid to realize regulations and terms of agreement aren't made to protect, but to control the people the way it is dictated as to be "right" by the ruling order, not in they way of being right for the benefit of the population. But you think like a slave and you will always be one.
@@tukos7370 If it was that big of an issue people wouldn't use the website.
If they are breaking the law.. like the accounts that are inciting riots and doxing people.. The radical leftist type accounts and antifa accounts etc. Tate basically giving trollish dating advice for clicks. Even if he did beat women before.. thats his personal life.. was he posting the videos himself and saying its good? thats a different story
@@B1u35ky I don't use social media, it's garbage. I think it's retarded though to think a company shouldn't be able to manage its own property. That is a very leftist idea.
Remember that many Countries around the world dont acknowledge hate speech as free speech, Cananda included. I dont believe you have the right to advocate the violation of other peoples rights. There's a difference between stupid opinions and evil opinions.
Since he has freedom of speech he does have the right to say that lol
Saying it should be according to law is a bad idea, platforms are used by all countries, not just the US, and that's why you have to adhere to ToS regardless of country, because law is not the same everywhere. ToS should be the ultimate rule here.
People with harmful ideas like Tate should be deplatformed because even if you can debunk those ideas (and if the algorythm even decides to show a rebutal to viewers) people who already bought into them will rarely change their mind, the damage is already done.
Asmongold only has a basic understanding of Tate through online shorts clips based on what he said.
yeah and he is still Blue Pilled. He did not Evolved ...he is stuck in some ideas and dont understand Redpill in meaning of Woman and our toxic system
There's no reason Facebook should be a public entity.
They are not a public entity under US law they are a private citizen and afforded all the same rights you are, including kicking an asshole out of your own house.
Tbf he did say women put themselves in the position to be raped and compared it to leaving his lambs in a bad neighborhood expecting nothing to happen to it.
I disagree. The platform owner should be able to yeet whomever they wish, whenever they wish, for whatever reason they wish.
What if you could only ban chatters who were breaking the law? Last I heard, spam/ad bots were not against the law. Should they be allowed to stay on the platform? Let the owners run their platforms, and let the people left behind after bans decide if they are okay with it and want to continue to use the platform.
Well it IS their platform. What’s the point of ownership if they don’t even have this kind of power. And that’s without taking into consideration what this guy did that got him banned.
@@harambe4267 did you fall and hit your head? Platform is just a description, not a legally protected designation. There are no "privileges'" associated with being a social media platform. They are a company, period.
Further, no simping here. Just stating that owners should retain control, or there is no point in building or owning anything.
@@harambe4267 Section 230 is not limited to ‘internet platforms’. It’s available to any entity that operates an online space where third parties may post content-including brick-and-mortar businesses, newspapers, and content creators.
@@harambe4267 you are missing the point entirely.
The only obligation that comes with section 230 is that they make parental control notices. Section 230 simply states that online entities are not responsible for 3rd party posts.
You are trying to make fetch a thing when there is nothing there.
The difference between WaPo and social media, is the content that comes from WaPo is not third party. Not sure what you don't understand about section 230. Section 230 in no way restricts a company's rights to delete content or content creators. In fact it limits their liabilities if they are removing contents for good reason.
To be clear, multi level marketing scams ARE against the law. It's not just his really awful takes, claims women are property and his support of domestic violence.
its not a multi level marketing scam. Its just affiliate marketing. I don't even like him but this is common business sense. I guess you're not educated 😂
MLM's are LEGAL, yes, but not when the fundamental system is a pyramid scheme. I'm sure you're both like 19 so you have no idea the massive fines companies like Amway and Herbalife have paid because they ran pyramid schemes. Feel free to educate yourself.
@@ruggedlymansome9614 I don't use his course, but no its not a pyramid cause its NOT multi level, it's just single level. This is a simple B2C customer acquisition strategy. The recruit is NOT tied to the recruiter at all, Yes the recruiter gets a commision for every affiliate but ultimately the recruit is just tied to the back-end product which is the course, therefore making it single level.
The course can be trash idgaf But in no way shape or form is it a MLM PYRAMID, it's just an aggressive affiliate marketting scheme 😂 Every BA or MBA student knows these basic differences. I don't think you are educated to understand this shit, so don't go around throwing business jargon you don't fully understand. Herbalife and amway is a legit pyramid hierarchy unlike Hustlers university.
You ban people for their behavior or opinions.. You have terms to your "platform", so do Facebook and such. Break the terms of service then you're gone.
The ToS are a contract and also have rules that apply to the platform which they're supposed to uphold. Very often they don't.
My man that’s what I believe. I don’t need any platform telling me what to watch, especially if IPAYING for it If I don’t like something or someone I should have the right to censor it myself. There are 8billion potential different minds that all have different points of views, with different experiences which I strongly believe can benefit from one another.
my simple answer is they can do whatever they want. It is literally their property and if they don't want it then they have every right to remove said content from their site. I think people take social media sites for granted and that they're entitled to them, but forget that they are businesses, we have no entitlement to their service, we are effectively in their ballcourt. So yeah, they're justified because they can do what they want with their services and we don't have to use said services nor are we entitled to. If shareholders are upset with the decision then that's a different matter. For example Asmon can ban whoever he wants for whatever he wants because it's his stream, people choose to partake in said streams and are not entitled to them. We enter asmon's domain and must abide by his rules as much as he must abide by Twitch's TOS as he is in their domain using their service. People seem to forget we aren't entitled to the use of social media, and that companies can take things down because it's their business, not ours. I mean if someone walked into your house and started raving on about something you didn't like, you'd want them out and rightfully so, because it's your house, your rules, and the person who put himself in your house has not right to say what he wants in your house if you don't like it and don't want him there.
The issue with Trafficker Tate is that he can be about as wrong as you can get on any given topic, but because functionally nobody else is talking about mens issues, he will get views.
Eh wouldn't say that. F.D. Signifier made a lot of good video essays on masculinity but doesn't trash it. He talks compassionately about men's issues and even made a video about how men (particularly black men) are objectified (pssh, it's just like with women that something's gotten so normalized that nobody sees it for what it is).
Check him out.
Asmon please upload in 144p i live rural Australia and it nukes my internet to listen to your longer videos. i beg you please honestly this isnt a joke i get 10 gig a month
lmao just turn your wifi router upside down funny kangaroo man
Okay let's see... Australia's rural IPS: 256kpbs (w/25GB limit cap.) for $60AUD ($40USD) a month.... FUCK that hurts! It's 90's Dial-up level service. I hope Elon gives you Starlink soon my Aussie friend, lmao.
It's really simple: There's a set of rules and if you break the rules you get reprimanded, doesn't matter how unpopular someone is or what they espouse, as long as they don't break the TOS, they should be on the platform.
Cancel culture is when you follow the rules but get disbarred or reprimanded unfairly from platforms when they follow the rules, the problem is that that rule-set is ambiguous and it's interpretations can be twisted to ban whoever they wish.
agreed, he didn't break TOS so it is quite unfortunate
@@bigting6614 you must be trolling
ToS of any platform is very stretchable
Your idea of cancel culture is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read. First of all, you can be cancelled by the general public, even if you aren't banned from platforms. So not breaking TOS is no guarantee you are free from getting cancelled. Second the idea that if you break an arbitrary TOS made by a company you deserve to be deplatformed is ridiculous. Because TOS themselves can be incredibly biased and discriminatory. A black person didn't deserve to go to prison just because he rode in the white side of the train when that was illegal. It doesn't matter the rule existed, the rule was bad and stupid. Same applies to TOS today.
He broke rules by saying words? K
What makes this really hard, is that a few major comanys own basically all discourse on the internet. of course a private buisness can make rules and you have to heed them within reason. But getting banned off these platforms basically makes you persona non grata. Say for instance you get banned from a resurant for being naked. You still have 1000000 other resturants you can still go to. its a really tough issue we face.
But i also think if your just spewing super disgusting stuff companys absolutley have a right to not let you use their platform.
I think the problem comes up when you get into what social media actually is though. The companies that own the sites are NOT considered publishers of whatever someone says. Thus the companies wouldn’t get in trouble if someone on the site said something racist.
The problem occurs here when these social media sites try to have this power (of not being a publisher/speaker) while also enforcing these very strict guidelines of what you can and can’t say (like a publisher would). It’s one of the other, not both. At least in my opinion it should be.
Facebook is a public company
Should phone companies be able to cancel you for saying things over the phone they don't like? Maybe only if its speaker phone?
Nobody forces you to read the post or watch the video. People actively seek these things out just so they can be mad about it. Its on them, not the person uploading the content.
People have gotten arrested for texts & phone convos; wire-taping is a thing, ESPECIALLY when people say they're gonna do some terrorist type stuff. And what you say to one person on the phone is nothing compared to having MILLIONS of followers you talk to in public forums on social media.
@@murfeel1173 You're talking about criminal investigations here, you used TERRORISM as counterpoint, you need to take a giant step back and reexamine your position. We are talking about some guy saying Feminism has turned a generation of young boys into anti-social Neets who are afraid of women. These two examples do not exist on the same planet, and the only reason people conflate them is because its the only way they can defend their position.
Man that's the most stupid comparison I've ever seen.
Talking to someone on the phone, isn't creating some cult against hating a group of people.
The main issue with Asmon's argument that people should only be deplatformed if they break the law is, which countries laws do you use to determine that? What if the action is legal in that person's country? That's why there are terms of service. That's the "law" you abide by on that site, and that's why these platforms should and can do what they do on their platform. I get the idea behind it, but I feel it isn't as thought through as it should be.
@@enemyuav8809 I think he's only thinking about his country in his example for sure.
well, they're both american companies and under the us constitution they have the right to freedom of association.
removing people from their platform is just them exercising that right.
further more, when you agree to a platforms ToS, you're agreeing that if you break their rules, they can ban you.
Then they should lose their section 230 protections if they aren't going to behave as a platform.
@@steakdriven So true!
Except the ToS are a contract, and these companies have to uphold their end too, which they very often are not doing. They are also benefitting from section 230 protections (they can't be held accountable for things said on their platform) without even meeting the condition of not acting as a publisher that they are supposed to in order to get those protections in the first place. Also if they do any form of censorship at the behest or on behalf of government (which they are almost certainly doing; covid, election integrity etc.), they're violating the 1st amendment through the state action doctrine.
Gotta be real honest here, Tate should not have a platform to spread his crazy ramblings and if FB/IG don't want them on their platforms then that is their right to decide so.
Actually as a platform its not their right to simply remove anyone for any reason.
Platforms are for everyone you silly nitwit, you dont get to silence what you dont like, you can ignore it instead. Look into the difference between Platform and Publishers seeing as you dont know the difference.
@@Shadowh8ter They have the right, it's a private company social media is optional, you don't need them to live and they are not a charity
Same guy that brags about his philosophy of physically abusing women and saying that they need to stay submissive. Keep this neckbeard banned. Right now, in the current political atmosphere, I don’t think we need a guy rallying a bunch of 13 year old boys to rape their female classmates.
Everyone else is he hasn’t posted one thing or video everyone else has shared or posted. I just want to see if we banning guys off social media mostly these Red pill guys than start banning these wack feminist who just say whatever the fuck they can about “killing men cause the grow up violent” or when the advice women to basically grape they husband and no one says shit about them…ok
"Remind me," Jubal said to her, "to write a popular article on the compulsive reading of news. The theme will be that most neuroses and some psychoses can be traced to the unecessary and unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the toubles and sins of five billion strangers."
If they applied their TOU to EVERYONE then yes. They don't though. They seem to single out people who have opinions they don't like whilst promoting ones that they do.