Numberwang, you are making quite a lot of false equivalences in your topics.
Yesterday it was "double standard" between two entirely separate companies policies. (At least it wasn't in the topic title that time) It was fair to compare the two scenarios you brought up, but not on the subject of double standard. Disney fired James Gunn as quick as they fired Rosanne. The New York Times have completely different PR policies than Disney.
Net neutrality was not just about censorship in that sense, but mainly in order to prevent a handful of corporations from monopolizing and controlling all data traffic in the US. Because they tried multiple times in the past to essentially extort certain sites by slowing down their bandwidth unless they pay more money. Meaning it's reasonably to think they will do it again.
In this case, it's about privately owned services deciding what they want on their own platform.
If they don't want Alex Jones telling their users things like Hillary Clinton running a child sex slavery ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant, when that results in a nutjob who believed him actually going there with a shotgun, they don't have to host it. That doesn't go against freedom of speech laws.
Just recently he said something similar about Muller, and made gunslinging gestures while saying that someone needs to stop him, or something to that extent.
If they don't want that on their platform, or feel it violates their hate speech rules (which was the case here), it's their prerogative to not have that kind of thing on their platforms.
If anyone wants to listen to Alex Jones, they can still do that on his website.
For comparison, with Net Neutrality gone, the top 3 internet service providers could essentially prevent access to Infowars from anyone, anywhere in the country. That's a big difference compared to a privately owned site deciding what they want and don't want on their site.
Anyway, in this case it's of course up to them if they want to hand the microphone over to someone on their platform. Though their reasoning here was that Infowars violated their terms of service for hate speech.
The issue I have with this is the lack of transparency for exactly how these rules have been broken. It would be nice if they told us "It were these specific things in these specific videos." Because otherwise we won't know what they consider hate speech.
Last edited by Hiku - on 06 August 2018
I see your topic title was now changed by a moderator. And it's not the first time that happened in recent days.