***********. (Dis vlogger support) supposed to be about free speech. I got banned after 1 post. LOL

[sam_gordon]

I'm not against pornography or vulgarity and I did not say that. I said I am not for it personally. There is a huge consumer market for porn and If you like it have at it. I am a libertarian. Vulgarity is also fine. Curse up a storm if that is how you like to express yourself. I am for all speech. I guess I was not clear. I am essentially a libertarian. I want each individual to be able to be as free as possible.

Actually, here's your exact post...

I am not for pornography or vulgarity or for telling people or businesses what they can or can't do on their own property.

You are full of contradictions... you agree a business should be allowed to determine what speech is allowed, but then get upset for a business determining what speech is allowed.

The bottom line is a business or a person CAN limit what is said in property they control and it's not a "free speech" violation. "Free Speech" is not being attacked or limited in violation of the 1st amendment. So a website says "we allow all speech!" and then disallow some? Not a violation.

 

[BrianL]

"Free speech" forums are a myth, as you learned. It's simply not possible to have an online forum that's not moderated (call it "censored" if you want) to some degree. It will quickly descend into nothing but the most vile trash, or be overrun with spam, or both. It's up to them to decide what is spam.

That being said, it's far more likely your post got flagged by some automated anti-spam algorithm, than the site owners persecuting you for your views on some Disney vlogger. Your indignation is probably misplaced

Well, it is possible to have them - there are some out there. They are in fact full of vile trash though, so they're only usable by people who like seeing that kind of stuff. It's not for me that's for sure!

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I get what they mean by spamming. It's possible you would have been fried like an egg for your viewpoint but I think that's a separate issue. Another term might have been troll, an intent to stir up for no other reason than to do so and then leave. I don't think you're a troll just looking at what the act of creating an account, saying what you want to say and then either leaving that forum or deleting your account would look like.

It's probably why the DIS has restrictions on PM and other such things where you have to get to 10 posts (easy to do though) but just 1 little way of preventing people from joining, ranting or just giving their opinion and then leaving when that's their expressed intent to do so or just full on spamming.

In this case you weren't in it for the community of a free speech site but rather a "say what I want and skedaddle" so from their perspective you were either spamming or a troll either way not conducive to their site. Now as for what you were reading and feeling like it was hypocrisy I think that's fine for you to feel that way but I don't think the act alone of your account being banned means that. It's much more likely they (which can mean a site-monitoring bot) saw a first time, brand new account, etc. than a personal disagreement in what you actually said especially these days where there's a lot of automation and/or large amount of online talk that needs more rule making on a basic level than before when online talk was more underground.

 

[yensid's offspring]

You said:



I think a fair reading of that is you were not there in good faith to be a member of the community--you wanted to dump and run. Seems like you're upset they beat you to the punch.

I certainly was there to say my peace and be done with it. I was not there to be a member of the community. I still feel I was not there to spam or to dump on or be demeaning to the existing members. I just simply stated my opinion and my support for the vlogger. I understood this would obviously then be responded to and I was interested in seeing what the responses would be. I was in no way negative and like I am here. I am always positive in my posting and am always willing to listen to those who do not agree with me. I am not upset they beat me to any punch. I am upset they did not allow me to express my opinion because it was not in line with theirs. I think I have made that clear.

 

[yensid's offspring]

Actually, here's your exact post...



You are full of contradictions... you agree a business should be allowed to determine what speech is allowed, but then get upset for a business determining what speech is allowed.

The bottom line is a business or a person CAN limit what is said in property they control and it's not a "free speech" violation. "Free Speech" is not being attacked or limited in violation of the 1st amendment. So a website says "we allow all speech!" and then disallow some? Not a violation.

You are correct! It is not a violation of law or in opposition to rights under the 1st amendment. It is also up to the private business to decide. I just was calling out the hypocrisy of a site touting a virtuous position on freedom of speech, then censoring an opinion opposite of theirs. I personally feel like my freedom of speech was stifled but I get that it is not in violation of the 1st amendment for a private entity to censor their content.

Lesson learned. I will keep my opinions to myself. Silly me for thinking that I would be allowed to express my opinion as long as I was non confrontational and respectful of others.

 

[BamaGuy44]

Point well taken and I am sure you are correct.

The internet has done many great things for the advancement of the human race, but it has fundamentally destroyed the concept of free speech. I think freedom of speech should be absolute, like the founders intended. The concept of just changing the channel, walking away, ignoring speech that you don't agree with has been lost. Everybody gets offended so easily these days. I wish we could all just be of the opinion that everybody has an opinion and or something to say and just because I don't agree with it doesn't give me the right to silence it. I long for the days when the ACLU protected the KKK's right to speech as much as they protected MLK's right to speech. I'm not a white supremacist or a bigot, but I support their right to speech. This Country has succeeded as it has for so long because of the bill of rights. If those fundamental rights are taken away or even changed in any significant way, that will be the Countries undoing. The founders were smarter than many give them credit for.

This is a common misconception about constitutional freedom of speech, it only applies to the government restricting speech. "Freedom of Speech" in the context of internet forums and social media refers to a site not unfairly restricting certain thoughts and viewpoints over others. But that's not a legal or constitutional issue.

And it's not the internet that doesn't allow unmoderated "free" forums to exist without being cess pools, it's people. Give a large group of people free reign to say whatever they want and the result will not be a place most of us would want to hang out in. Granted the internet allows for anonymity, which definitely adds fuel to the flame of people being idiots.

A forum where anyone can say anything they want is a beautiful thought in theory, but simply doesn't work, sadly.

 

[BamaGuy44]

Well, it is possible to have them - there are some out there. They are in fact full of vile trash though, so they're only usable by people who like seeing that kind of stuff. It's not for me that's for sure!

True they can technically exist. I should have said they can't exist as a place a normal intelligent human would want to converse

 

[BrianL]

True they can technically exist. I should have said they can't exist as a place a normal intelligent human would want to converse

Oh, that's for sure! I've had some friends go down those rabbit holes, generally as a joke, but wow, some of the stuff on those places! I don't really find it funny at all.

 

[sam_gordon]

You are correct! It is not a violation of law or in opposition to rights under the 1st amendment. It is also up to the private business to decide. I just was calling out the hypocrisy of a site touting a virtuous position on freedom of speech, then censoring an opinion opposite of theirs. I personally feel like my freedom of speech was stifled but I get that it is not in violation of the 1st amendment for a private entity to censor their content.

Lesson learned. I will keep my opinions to myself. Silly me for thinking that I would be allowed to express my opinion as long as I was non confrontational and respectful of others.

If that's what you choose to do, that's fine. The trick is knowing where you can express your opinion. It was your comment about First Amendment rights being eroded that caught my attention.

 

[mefordis]

Oh, yeah. I stumbled upon that Website. A bunch of catty high schoolers. I feel bad for the vloggers who are just trying to make a living and do what they love, but they are getting ripped apart by a bunch of jealous you know whats. I hope they never go there.

 

[pigletto]

Yep even vile bullies who do nothing but high five each other on being mean and contributing nothing of value get to have their place on the internet. And they do not take kindly to being challenged. It ruins their sadistic fun.
The only thing you can do is refuse to go to the sites ( and there are many ) and refuse to be someone who finds entertainment in cruelty. They have to live with each other and their eventual karma.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I got banned from Gettr, so this whole "free speech social media" thing is just not true.

 

[BamaGuy44]

You are correct! It is not a violation of law or in opposition to rights under the 1st amendment. It is also up to the private business to decide. I just was calling out the hypocrisy of a site touting a virtuous position on freedom of speech, then censoring an opinion opposite of theirs. I personally feel like my freedom of speech was stifled but I get that it is not in violation of the 1st amendment for a private entity to censor their content.

Lesson learned. I will keep my opinions to myself. Silly me for thinking that I would be allowed to express my opinion as long as I was non confrontational and respectful of others.

You're still assuming it was your opinion that got you banned. As I said it's much more likely it was an automated spam filter. And I'm sorry to tell you but the type of "hit and run" post you made, where you want to create an account, make one post with your opinion and leave with no intention to respond or be part of the community, IS a type of trolling/spam/whatever you want to call it. Most forums will try to restrict those kinds of post, regardless of their content.

 

[jrmasm]

I guess my true question here is

Is an opinion spam? I can see if I was soliciting a business, advertising, or talking about something totally off topic. I was just expressing my opinion and support for a vlogger that was being personally attacked. I was not criticizing their attacks or even telling them to stop, I was merely stating I felt differently and that I supported the vlogger and his choices.

In this circumstance, I wanted to establish an account, say my peace, in one simple post, see some of the reaction from the toxic dullards and delete my account.

You were trolling and they weren't having it .

 

[BamaGuy44]

In this circumstance, I wanted to establish an account, say my peace, in one simple post, see some of the reaction from the toxic dullards and delete my account.

You were trolling and they weren't having it .

Exactly. that's basically the textbook definition of a "hit and run" troll post. OP can't get past thinking the content/opinion was the main issue. It almost certainly wasn't.

 

[yensid's offspring]

I am understanding all of your fine points and I certainly can see that in a way I was I guess in essence trolling the people on that thread. I get all of that and will use better judgement in the future. All of that being said, my original intention was to defend a person I feel was being very unfairly and personally attacked. Again my post was respectful of others and their opinions I just respectfully indicated that I feel this particular person was a good person who was just trying to make a living and the personal attacks were unwarranted. With regards to being flagged an banned by a bot or an program. I am not sure how that occurred. I didn't use profanity, say anything inappropriate and I did not delete my account after posting. within 3 minutes of my post, it was deleted and I was sent an email saying my account was banned for SPAM.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

as you probably know, the 1st amendment means you can't get arrested for speech, it doesn't apply to a privately run website. They can delete anything they want, you can then decide whether you want to give that site your time or clicks anymore. That site is kind of like a slam book used to be in high school, why give it the time of day.

there are some people on Twitter complaining about Mr. Pratt for whatever reason and calling for him to be removed from films and shows, but I don't see him losing any jobs over it. someone decides not to hire him and he gets offered other jobs. Everyone who actually works with him apparently don't have a problem with him.

 

[mrodgers]

I guess my true question here is

Is an opinion spam? I can see if I was soliciting a business, advertising, or talking about something totally off topic. I was just expressing my opinion and support for a vlogger that was being personally attacked. I was not criticizing their attacks or even telling them to stop, I was merely stating I felt differently and that I supported the vlogger and his choices.

Sorry, spam was the content. What you did was trolling. You jumped in hoping to post something to elicit a negative response and jump out. You were not interested in having a discussion. You literally stated you wanted to "see some of the reaction from the toxic dullards and delete my account."

troll
/trōl/

noun
noun: troll; plural noun: trolls

1. 1.
   a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.
   • a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.
     
     
     

verb

1. 1.
   make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
   

 

[mrodgers]

...but I also don't waste my time on social media where people mostly like to argue with each other.

Just curious if you see the hypocrisy of posting this in the Community Board here on this forum

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

PSA: Here's a pro tip for those wishing to be credible martyrs: When you're trying to convince people on this board that some other site banned you for mere disagreement and not for spamming, don't keep spamming the same argument over and over again.