Journalist Tim Pool; "We have handed over the public square to private companies. These companies can now decide who gets to participate in political debate. This is where most people debate and share ideas and now we have no right to the public discussion."

1  2018-08-07 by AssuredlyAThrowAway

Putting aside the content of any given act of censorship (although the Alex Jones situation is certainly what drove the above quote), the insight of Tim Pool's statement reflects a nuanced understanding as to the more fundamental (and terrifying) shift currently occurring with regards the form of the public sphere.

What used to be an amorphous concept, defined by the participation of individual human beings, is slowly shifting into a privatized realm with boundaries demarcated by a select few monied factions. This, in turn, undermines the very purpose of a shared public space accessible to all. In that regard, the legitimacy of representative democracy itself is at stake, as only through the free exchange of ideas and information can the standing of the individual person be engendered in the larger social, civil and political context.

In that way, for small groups of private companies to abscond from that central principle, simply because ideas make some uncomfortable, is a bastardization of the ethos of free flowing information which brought rise to their original dominance.

That said, in no way am I advocating for complete anarchy with regards what statements should be allowed into the public discourse (it has always been the case that certain actions would be entirely unwelcome in the town square, be it running naked or shouting fire in a crowded theater). The very nature of those exclusions is rooted in a common sense prohibition on imminent physical danger caused by one's words, and rightfully serves as a buffer to protect the community at large from wanton or reckless behavior.

To those ends, when private companies are entrusted with the task of overseeing the public sphere there exists a duty to remove some content (such as terrorist recruitment videos, snuff films, child pornography, etc). Doing so, out of a respect for a common sense recognition that some behaviors have no place in the public sphere, is not only justified, it is necessary within a free and open society.

However, these same companies also (rightfully) show a strong aversion to embracing or admitting to the policing of content or viewpoints expressed on their platform (to put this in other terms; if youtube removes a terrorist recruitment video, they are not per se removing the video due to the beliefs of those who posted it, but instead due to the fact that the aim of the video is to increase acts of terrorism.)

This paradox, and the danger of allowing private companies to make decisions as to where to draw the line, is what risks destroying the public sphere itself.

Currently the framework guiding the decisions made by social media companies as to the moderation of content versus the moderation of behavior is legal more so than ideological; the platforms in question, those which control the public forum at large, are only able to operate under a legal "safe harbor" as a "shared public forum" if they fundamentally respect all viewpoints in a content neutral manner. To do otherwise would be to engage in editorialization, which would thus bring said companies under a more strict legal scrutiny as to the content posted on their platform (something that those companies want to avoid at all costs).

Walking this tight rope should not be at the discretion of these companies alone, as such self-oversight opens the door to a conflict of interest, encouraging these companies to "have their cake and eat it as well" by way of censoring content behind the veil of "moderating dangerous behavior". To that end, it is imperative that a regulatory framework be devised (beyond simply revoking the safe harbor status of social media sites) in order to safe guard the very core of representative democracy from the arbitrary, closed source, and veiled decision making processes of large technology companies.

Some may suggest that there is a danger in taking such an approach, due to the risk of government causing more harm than good even with the best of intentions. However, after situations like the one which unfolded today (wherein the flow of information was clearly targeted based on its content, yet removed on the basis of "threatening behavior"), it becomes clear that entrusting a group of private monied factions to make such a monumental decision in the context of a democratic republic is entirely abhorrent to the friend of popular government and learned statesman alike.

As Madison himself noted so eloquently in Federalist no. 10, it is very much the role of government to make just these types of interventions when the Republic itself is threatened by a conflagration of powerful monied groups;

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.

Thus it is clear that, shall the public sphere itself continue to survive (be it in the American Republic or elsewhere), there must be some semblance of structural prohibition on small groups of powerful monied factions being handed unchecked authority as to the censorship of content within the public sphere. To do otherwise would be to give up on the Enlightenment project, and thus the autonomy of man himself (along with his thoughts) would be lost.

I apologize for the long rant; this was intended to be a short reflection on Tim Pool's quote from the title, and ended up a bit longer (and perhaps less organized) than expected. In any event, thanks for reading.

69 comments

1  ShotgunzNbeer 2018-08-07

This is all just a ploy to get people to beg to have more of their freedom taken. Even in this forum people are begging to cede more power to government.

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

So you disagree with Madison that the primary task of learned statesmen in a Republic is to break and control the violence of faction?

You'd rather let those factions make the decisions and swallow whole this Union in a conflagration simply because you feel Government is otherwise ineffective?

That seems like a corporatocracy and not a democratic republic, and I see no reaosn why anyone with a mind towards conspiracies would ever suggest such a system of unchecked corporate power (in particular when so much of said power tends to be held by a given political ideology, thus resulting in mass repression of those beliefs which stand against the flow of opinion on hotly contested issues). If anything, protecting those views, by way of ensuring oversight of corporate decision making, is exactly what a properly function government should do in a vibrant Republic.

1  HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-07

This argument only works if we pretend he was banned for "political views" and not for harassing the Sandy Hook parents.

1  jcash21 2018-08-07

That would require the parents of deceased Sandy Hook children exist. (They don't).

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

Hey! My daughter's husband's daughter's aunt had a grandson who attended Sandy Hook, you take that back! lol /s just in case

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

harrassing Sandy Hook parents

lol they don't exist because the whole thing is a blatant fabrication meant to allow a gun grab.

1  Mhealthy 2018-08-07

Are these private companies holding others to the same scrutiny that they've held Alex to? Alex didn't personally harass Sandy Hook parents and I don't believe he asked others to.

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

That may be true in this instance (regarding Jones), but it dodges the core insight of the post; that being the notion that its the very line between behavior and content which should be overseen by a regulatory agency to ensure it is not abused in the pursuit of editorial control.

1  HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-07

You want the government to literally regulate speech?

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

No, I want the government to ensure speech (in the public sphere) is not regulated by moinied faction.

1  elk-87 2018-08-07

These people are getting lazier and lazier with their comebacks. At least include some context that was mentioned by OP. Wouldnt you think a better question would be “how can we ensure the government wouldnt abuse this sort of power as well?”

Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is just pathetic to see on a conspiracy sub.

1  HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-07

We can't ensure that.

1  maxp0wah 2018-08-07

Where was that cited as the reason?

1  eat_this_vitamin_d 2018-08-07

It wasn't. He was banned for hate speech, which is the politically correct way of saying "criticizing Islam" - a very political topic.

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

We should enact laws protecting freedom of speech, always.

1  ShotgunzNbeer 2018-08-07

But you shouldn't always have freedom of speech. If you start mouthing off in my house I am going to kick your ass out. If you are loud in a library, nice restaurant, or church the property owner should be able to boot you. If I am a publisher I should be able to choose what books I work on. If I bake cakes I shouldn't have to bake cakes I dont agree with.

Your freedom of speech stops on private property. Now people are begging the government to regulate social media. It's an obvious play and you are slurping it up.

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

you shouldn't have free speech

lol nah man, and also your username is odd considering this is your belief.

We're all sick and tired of the censorship and the obvious partisan bias. These places are where 99% of all public discourse goes down. They don't get to play these games, and no matter the millions thrown to shills who try to tell us that "like it's just business ok chill", people still see that wrong is wrong.

1  ShotgunzNbeer 2018-08-07

It's easy to take words out of a sentence to twist its meaning. My name and my position here would make more sense to you if you understood the foundations of freedom.

Let's say someone is at your place of business, home, or church. They start saying things that disturb whatever you were trying to do on your property. With your "always free speech" you would be denied the right to kick these people off your property.

The proper response to these tech giants is to stop giving them your money and your clicks. Quit using them. You are too spoiled to do that though so how we have people begging government to regulate speech on social media. It's all very pathetic.

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

Aren't you intentionally overlooking the fact that these private companies are now stewards of the public sphere, which renders your analogy of private property obsolete?

It would be akin to someone protesting on a public sidewalk in a private company owned town, as precedent from Marsh V. Alabama clearly lays out- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

lol oh my bad so you mean we should have free speech then. That's weird. I mean most people who believe that don't really tend to say "you shouldn't have free speech"

1  elk-87 2018-08-07

Did you even read OP’s post?

If the language is too hard let me summarize it for you, he was arguing that with so many people using these privately owned services that maybe it shouldnt be privately moderated for the sake of the community, to avoid biases we should have laws that regulates the amount of moderation done on these places.

You want to argue that having the government regulates these sites will “kill free speech” using the reasoning that free speech shouldnt exist on privately owned property anyways no matter how many people occupies and use it.

So what is it? Are you trying to say we dont need to regulate the moderators because free speech is already dead?

1  ShotgunzNbeer 2018-08-07

to avoid biases we should have laws that regulates

This is where you took a wrong turn. If you think laws are not biased you are living on another planet.

1  wordsfornerds 2018-08-07

It’s sad that in a conspiracy forum you’re getting downvotes for saying this. Lots of paid shills hanging around.

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

Yeah, it is. Oh well. They can control votes with their endless supply of corrupt money, and they might sway some of the more impressionable or unintelligent folks (read: the masses lol), but there are still a lot of people who care about truth, and from a broad view, we're winning this culture war handily. An army of free passionate autists can beat all the money and power in the world; who'd have thought lol

1  Cgraham4689 2018-08-07

Nobody is stopping alex jones from being able to broadcast. He can find his own network to use and say whatever batshit troll story he wants.

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

That's certainly true, but it somewhat dodges the core issue as to the behavior of companies which are custodians of the public sphere.

If these companies want to moderate content (rather than behavior) on their platforms, shouldn't they be classified as publishers instead of "public forums" (and with such a classification, a corresponding strict liability for the content posted therein as well)?

1  Cgraham4689 2018-08-07

So you really think if apple changed to publishers there wouldn’t be an outcry?

Also a corporation can do whatever they want , its their company. The govt or some other entity shouldn’t be put in place to moderate a company for behavior issues.

People complain about anything. Nobody is stopping AJ from spreading whatever propaganda he conjures up on a whim. He can find his own platform. Apple doesnt want to do business with him and thats their business and not for some entity to intervene and tell apple how to run their company.

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

The govt or some other entity shouldn’t be put in place to moderate a company for behavior issues.

You mean like how the SEC oversees wall street trading? Or the FDA overseas pharmaceutical companies?

Also a corporation can do whatever they want

That's the crux of the issue though; of course these platforms can do what the wish, but that does not preclude them from regulatory oversight or a more strict legal liability if they are classified as a publisher rather than a public forum.

1  Cgraham4689 2018-08-07

Really man, the sec is to prevent fraud thats something totally irrelevant. A company can do whatever they want and if they wanna fraud they still can its just the sec will most likely catch you like they did to BM.

I mean this guy is a confessed troll why would apple want to do business with him. Why would any company that has any type of morals or ethics want that.

1  olenbarus12 2018-08-07

That's how it starts.

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

Really man, the sec is to prevent fraud thats something totally irrelevant. A company can do whatever they want and if they wanna fraud they still can its just the sec will most likely catch you like they did to BM.

Right, and that's the entire point of this post; if companies choose to abandon their safe harbor as "public forums" and instead act with editorial control there should be intervention by an oversight agency.

1  Cgraham4689 2018-08-07

No a company can censor what ever they want. Aj isnt banned from speaking, he isnt being stopped from speaking. He can do whatever he wants. A company doesnt want to do business with him and thats the companies rights.

You just want to argue and bring irrelevant opinions into the matter. Jones is a certified troll anyways I hope no company in the world wants him to have a radio talk show.

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

I think you may still be missing the nuance here; if the company chooses to engage in editorial control over their content, they loose their safe harbor and are instead considered a "publisher". If such websites want to become publishers that's fine, but they, in turn, must also be subject to the more strict standard of legal liability that comes along with editorial control.

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

I think you may still be missing the nuance here; if the company chooses to engage in editorial control over their content, they loose their safe harbor and are instead considered a "publisher". If such websites want to become publishers that's fine, but they, in turn, must also be subject to the more strict standard of legal liability that comes along with editorial control.

1  Cgraham4689 2018-08-07

What legal liability is that? For publishers?

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

No section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act for publishers, only public forums.

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

Oof you're getting shilled fucking hard.

1  borotwiz 2018-08-07

The last time a company tried to claim that it was private and they could then regulate the public square, they got overruled pretty quickly in court. It was a mall as I recall.

1  MoldyPoldy 2018-08-07

The case you're thinking of was not interpreting federal law, but rather saying that California was able to grant free speech rights greater than the US Constitution, and therefore in California a private mall had to allow people to exercise free speech if it was generally open to the public.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).

1  borotwiz 2018-08-07

Precedent is precedent. It can be used to bolster an argument.

1  MoldyPoldy 2018-08-07

... for other states choosing to enact such protections.

1  BurtMaclin11 2018-08-07

What it comes down to for me is this. If YouTube by force of law doesn't get to self determine the content it hosts (which for legal reasons they may very well see as part of their "speech") then it has no further recourse aside from lobbying to change the law back. If Alex Jones is forced off of YouTube (I know its more than just YT) he at least still has other options to get his material out there even if his avenues are more limited than before. Worst case he can even create his own avenue forward instead of using existing infratructure.

Both undeniably set precedents that can be wielded as weapons which is why this debate is so contested and unsettled. That being said one option leaves one of the parties with no further recourse towards their 1st amendment right and the other leaves both with their right intact.

I'm no fan of how YouTube has chosen to police content but I think it's their right to do so. When two consenting parties enter into an agreement - one to create content/products and one to host/sell it - then the party producing the content should understand that the host can rescind their offer (assuming it's not a breach of contract) if they chose to. The whole "freedom isn't free" line doesn't just mean people had to sacrifice to obtain their rights it also applies in instances like this where individual rights conflict.

1  maxp0wah 2018-08-07

It was a coordinated effort by tech monopolies to censor "hate speech" without citing specific instances. Do these platforms not serve as public utilities to any capacity? If AT&T cut off your phone service for similar reasons, should they have that right as a private company?

1  BurtMaclin11 2018-08-07

Do you consider book publishing a public utility too? It seems to me that's a much better comparison than phone service.

Let's pretend for a second that YouTube, FB and the like were regulated like public utilities. Now let's pretend for a second that the supposed "blue wave" actually surfaces in this years mid terms and sticks around long enough to elect one of these SJW candidates to office in 2020. If hate speech is going to be core part of their platform (which is likely) and government agencies now have the power to regulate content on their public utilities (to make it publicly acceptable)...how do you think the outcome will be any different? The biggest difference is that platforms which exist right now and don't want to censor content will now have no choice but to do so as they will be considered public utilities which can be unilaterally regulated by an agency like the FCC (as I understand it).

The bottom line is Alex Jones (or anyone this could happen too) still has other alternatives that already exist and don't unreasonably censor content. Furthermore if you know anything about the world of freeware then you know there are a lot of ways to create your own avenue forward.

You may say "sure there are other alternatives but they can't compete with a platform like YouTube", to which I would say there's no reason why they couldn't. We just have to start using those platforms. Having someone with a huge following like Jones become one of the first really large entities to move to a (currently) smaller platform could be just what is needed to start that snow ball rolling.

It's not that I zero sympathy for your argument I just see a potentially greater danger in it.

1  maxp0wah 2018-08-07

Do you consider book publishing a public utility too? It seems to me that's a much better comparison than phone service.

I don't consider book publishing a public utility, no. And I see your point, but I still don't think it's a fair comparison. YouTube and Facebook have become more of a Town Square or Speakers Corner, if you will. It's where people go to communicate. So perhaps my telecom analogy doesn't fit exactly, but neither does your book publishing, IMO.

What we need is an Internet Bill of Rights, like Styxhexenhammer recommended. It wouldn't allow for government control of content, but would allow for at least some kind of 1st amendment regulation for corporate monopolies like Google -especially if you consider them the new age public Town Square -to have to host content they disagree with politically. And this take down of Jones, coordinated by all these tech giants at the same time, without specifying what "hate speech" was used exactly, creates a very compelling impression that this was all politically motivated.

If hate speech is going to be core part of their platform (which is likely) and government agencies now have the power to regulate content on their public utilities (to make it publicly acceptable)...how do you think the outcome will be any different?

It's a sticky situation and I hear what you're saying as a libertarian, myself. But it's interesting to hear what Ron Paul thinks now that Twitter has suspended his account. Could it be that YouTube and Facebook are already gov't extensions, exerting political control of "wrongthink"?

Alex Jones and the others soon to follow can certainly grab on to or start their own social media outlets, but really, how can they compete with monopolistic trusts, supported by the government? That's why I support an Internet Bill of Rights, to consider Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc not as publishers, but public forums where the 1st amendment is protected. I dunno, what do you think?

1  AutoModerator 2018-08-07

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1  BurtMaclin11 2018-08-07

It sounds interesting and I'm totally open to that idea so I will definitely learn all that I can about it. Thanks for all the links!

The more I've been thinking about it over the past day and listening/reading several arguments the more I've been thinking that leaving this completely to the private market may not suffice.

1  MizchiefKilz 2018-08-07

Should just be net neutrality on the next layer of the stack. Same deal. Let any and all content flow through your network and you are not held responsible for the content.

1  the-99th-monkey 2018-08-07

Thank god it’s companies doing censoring, now I that we’ve identified a demand I’m excited to offer a competitive product.

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

And even if you are grudgingly allowed to speak anything other than The Approved Opinions, you're faced with the JIDF, the ADL, ShareBlue, CTR, MMFA, all the shills in Jackson AFB, etc.

It's incredibly infuriating. It's like they want us to revolt.

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

lol my god look at all the shills. Shills for miles, all defending censorship. I wonder if they'd be doing so while their party's platforms were being stripped away lol oh man the hypocrisy of them is what gets me the most. It's almost like they don't even see that they're the bad guys.

Yes yes, now commence the DVs. Freedom of speech is ebil, and all that.

1  HaveNoClueWhatsoever 2018-08-07

In the ‘old days,’ free speech was limited because of its impacts; yelling “Fire!!” in a theater (think crowds in wooden structures without nearby fire hydrants) put people at risk from trampling. Saying, “I have a bomb,” on a plane has fallen under that restriction. With freedom (of speech) comes responsibility, and somewhere, someone has to undertake defining that. Was Sandy Hook a hoax? Did the pizza parlor sponsor pedophilia? It’s a shame we historically prefer to ignorantly gobble up and repeat sensationalism (think National Enquirer’s frequent UFO stories) at the expense of research or logic.

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

Yeah censoring an entire political ideology from the national stage is just like crying "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Exactly the same, for sure.

1  HaveNoClueWhatsoever 2018-08-07

Freedom of speech unfortunately DOES allow people to get up on soapboxes to tell humongous lies. It’s not social media’s DUTY to be the soapbox. I don’t think InfoWars is a political ideology as much as it is foaming at the mouth. I may or may not agree with current or past political trends, but at least let discussion be based on reality. I hope the Sandy Hook lawsuits break his bank forever.

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

it's not social media's duty

But it is. That's the whole point of all of this. You can say that censoring an entire half of the political spectrum on the most widely used platforms is oh so progressive and "like we're just protecting the children ok", but as always, honest people are going to hate you for it and do everything in their power to see it stop. So hypocritical lol

1  HaveNoClueWhatsoever 2018-08-07

We disagree. Social media has no duty. News media are supposed to be that outlet—fair and unbiased; sadly, we know what actually goes on by watching Fox or CNN. I assume you would rather have left all the Russian disinformation social media pages/sites untouched? And Alex Jones is NOT a political spectrum. He is a conspiracy theorist, motivated by profit, and he says what he says to keep the money flowing. What better way to keep that spigot open than to sow and fertilize hate among haters? Perhaps you are thinking hate is a conservative political spectrum?

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

we disagree

Yeah I mean of course. You guys all see just how handily we are trouncing you on the world stage, because we have truth on our side while you have propaganda and all the dirty money of the hidden elite. Of course you advocate for censorship. I'm just glad most people are reasonable.

1  HaveNoClueWhatsoever 2018-08-07

What/who are “buttmad gronaldo blrumplekins”?

1  GrimTiding 2018-08-07

lololol ah, intentional ignorance: the last bastion of the intellectually dishonest. Plz don't change :'D

1  ButtViper 2018-08-07

So, if I get banned from this sub for having an opinion the mods don't like, are you going to defend me?

1  AssuredlyAThrowAway 2018-08-07

So long as the view viewpoint was expressed without violating the behavior guidelines on the side bar.

1  ScreenShotContext 2018-08-07

So, if I get banned from this sub for having an opinion the mods don't like, are you going to defend me?

Like how you want to kill white people?

You might as well abandon this account homie, gonna make sure this follows you EVERYWHERE

1  ButtViper 2018-08-07

I actually changed that last line to something else but the mods on r/news banned me. That's another subreddit i'm now banned from just for practicing my free speech. So where are my defenders?

1  ScreenShotContext 2018-08-07

Ask Sarah Jeong to help you, she’s found a way to put her racist views out there without any backlash from the crybully left. Good luck!

1  ButtViper 2018-08-07

So why is Alex jones allowed to say whatever the hell he wants and when he gets banned for it, people call it a "violation of the first amendment." Then, when it happens to me nobody defends me. You're a hypocrite unless you message the r/news mods right now and ask them to rescind my ban.

1  ScreenShotContext 2018-08-07

When has Alex Jones ever said “kill all black people”?

I thought you guys were against racism? Or does that only apply to certain skin tones?

Hypocrite huh?

1  ButtViper 2018-08-07

I only said "kill all white people" as an ironic joke because I was criticizing Alex Jones for doing the same. I changed it to something more serious and less violent. Yes you're being a hypocrite if you aren't defending my right to say my piece.