[Defeat]

Probably shouldn't be here but feel free to move it - @jiggly @oni @mothered

I personally don't care for the guy, I've seen him talk shit on IG before but that's pretty much it. He said something about girls' kill counts needing to be on their foreheads if I recall. He seems to be a troll with a teenage fanbase so it's probably good he's off so they can get some serious role models.

I have Twitter for 1 reason and somehow random shit like this pops up, I don't even follow the guy who posted this tweet about Andrew Tate.

https://twitter.com/mattxiv/status/15606...r0x6grAAAA

But I do really like what they tweeted afterwards:

“but what about freedom of speech?” andrew tate has freedom of speech. he can say whatever he wants. but freedom of speech is not freedom of instagram. instagram is a company, not a constitutional right.

Some article regarding it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022...ok-removed

The one in the tweet: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62602913

The video about what he said, not even making this shit up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62602913

[Jidxja]

If you remove the 10% of exagerations he does, he actually does give some decent takes on things and has a great mentality, he just does it for the clout, because the more exagerrated you are, the more attention you attract, sad to see freedom of speech slowly dying.

[Andrea Bags]

isn't he suppose to fight Paul bros?

[Drako]

While Tate is a complete idiot, I don't think he should be censored. But, he doesn't have a right to stay on Twitter or Instagram either. They're both private companies, and they can ban whoever they want.

If he wants to speak his mind, he can always do it somewhere else.

[mothered]

Probably shouldn't be here but feel free to move it

It's made headlines, so It's fine here.

[Shionari]

It's really weird to me how Tate's popularity grew so fast these last few weeks. And it's even weirder how a lot of people seem to take his opinions very seriously even though it's pretty obvious, just by how extreme they are and the way that he phrases them, that the primary goal behind these opinions is to get attention and make people talk about him.
I do think it's sad, however, that Meta thought that the right thing to do was to censor him. They have every right to do that, of course, but it does say a lot about what social media companies think about freedom of speech, and how biased they really are.

[Defeat]

It's really weird to me how Tate's popularity grew so fast these last few weeks. And it's even weirder how a lot of people seem to take his opinions very seriously even though it's pretty obvious, just by how extreme they are and the way that he phrases them, that the primary goal behind these opinions is to get attention and make people talk about him.
I do think it's sad, however, that Meta thought that the right thing to do was to censor him. They have every right to do that, of course, but it does say a lot about what social media companies think about freedom of speech, and how biased they really are.

What's even more weird is his audience I thought was teens, but I've seen a lot of tweets relating to it from parents talking about how their 11 and 12 year old sons are watching him. Yeah no, I think this asshole should in fact be censored. I wouldn't want my kid at 11 watching that shit. Remember how gullible you were at 11? or how little you knew? Yeah no, I'm actually in support of their decision if he's attracting pre-teens and younger.

---

People still use FB and Insta?
Both platforms are pretentious one way or another, but that doesn't exclude the fact that Tate wrongfully exaggerates delicate matters just to be famous.

I imagine once IG turns more like TikTok they'll lose a large percentage of people. Even me I got back on IG because of my ex and I'm ready to get rid of it again. And yeah FB's been trash since like 2015, but it's a good communication tool for some.

---

If you remove the 10% of exagerations he does, he actually does give some decent takes on things and has a great mentality, he just does it for the clout, because the more exagerrated you are, the more attention you attract, sad to see freedom of speech slowly dying.

10%? Ah you're being generous here. Anything for views I guess.

---

Probably shouldn't be here but feel free to move it

It's made headlines, so It's fine here.

Yeah, surprised by how it's still relevant today, lots of tweets and engagement.

---

isn't he suppose to fight Paul bros?

Both?

---

While Tate is a complete idiot, I don't think he should be censored. But, he doesn't have a right to stay on Twitter or Instagram either. They're both private companies, and they can ban whoever they want.

If he wants to speak his mind, he can always do it somewhere else.

Tbh I haven't seen enough of him to see if he should be censored. He's still on TikTok where there's probably a lot more kids than on FB+IG so I'm surprised about that one.

[Shionari]

It's really weird to me how Tate's popularity grew so fast these last few weeks. And it's even weirder how a lot of people seem to take his opinions very seriously even though it's pretty obvious, just by how extreme they are and the way that he phrases them, that the primary goal behind these opinions is to get attention and make people talk about him.
I do think it's sad, however, that Meta thought that the right thing to do was to censor him. They have every right to do that, of course, but it does say a lot about what social media companies think about freedom of speech, and how biased they really are.

What's even more weird is his audience I thought was teens, but I've seen a lot of tweets relating to it from parents talking about how their 11 and 12 year old sons are watching him. Yeah no, I think this asshole should in fact be censored. I wouldn't want my kid at 11 watching that shit. Remember how gullible you were at 11? or how little you knew? Yeah no, I'm actually in support of their decision if he's attracting pre-teens and younger.

I mean fair enough. I certainly see your point. If I had an 11 year old kid, I wouldn't want him watching Tate either.
But personally, I would say protecting a child from inappropriate views/opinions on the internet is a responsibility for the parents, rather than social media platforms. I understand it's not an easy thing to monitor kids and always be aware of what they're doing online, but I think, all things considered, it's better this way. Just my opinion, though

[Dismas]

This is the most important part:

“but what about freedom of speech?” andrew tate has freedom of speech. he can say whatever he wants. but freedom of speech is not freedom of instagram. instagram is a company, not a constitutional right.

I've heard some say that social media giants should be subject to government intervention, but the issue is that these sites are businesses and businesses have constitutional rights too. Society needs to acknowledge that by giving companies the power to monopolize social media, they're also sacrificing what they might consider "rights".

If you agree to Instagram (or any other company's) terms of service, you're accepting that they will do stuff exactly like this. Support companies that give you freedom of speech and privacy. Don't support shitty companies and they won't be able to leverage their platform against you.

[Defeat]

Tik Tok has now banned accounts ran by Tate.