Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

kowloon

Tom Mann Centuria

Fun thread, would read again.

Auntie Semite

kowloon wrote: »

Nothing strange about that, the left and corporates are on the same team these days.

kowloon

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Nothing strange about that, the left and corporates are on the same team these days.

Good Trump is there to stick it to them by reducing regulations and corporate tax.
Check-mate Capitalist neo-marxist communist leftie corporations!

mcmoustache

super_furry wrote: »

Exhibit A - Milo Yiannopoulos

Literally a supplement salesperson now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBlCcl2XcYg

mcmoustache

super_furry wrote: »

Rubbish. Banning Alex Jones from Twitter didn't lead to Brexit, it lead to Alex Jones losing half his audience.

There's also the causality violation that was just proposed. The idea that banning milo or jones affected the Trump election or Brexit would mean that the bannings affected events in the past. Einstein would be rolling in his grave.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is it though? <nonsense snipped>

Yes.

They were there to explain why Jones was removed and what I posted was the guts of their reasoning. Listen to the complete podcast if you like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ

I see the usual types on here accusing many of whinging about Jones, but that's missing the point by a country mile. As far as I'm concerned, and most people from what I can see, Jones is a nut, however it is quite clear that those with conservative views, or who disagree with regressive leftist rhetoric (and call it out regularly) are being targeted by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (especially if they have a large following).

If these companies want to have rules, cool, but they should hold everyone to the same standards, not just those who don't share their political ideals.

kowloon

mcmoustache wrote: »

Literally a supplement salesperson now.

You should throw this into the debate thread where he is being touted as a public intellectual.

circadian

Huge corporations "regressive left"? (dafuq does that even mean anyway?)

What the **** are people huffing on?

greencap

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If these companies want to have rules, cool, but they should hold everyone to the same standards, not just those who don't share their political ideals.

Why?

Is it because thats what would suit you best?

Or is there some reason other than (the assumed) personal preference?

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I see the usual types on here accusing many of whinging about Jones, but that's missing the point by a country mile. As far as I'm concerned, and most people from what I can see, Jones is a nut, however it is quite clear that those with conservative views, or who disagree with regressive leftist rhetoric (and call it out regularly) are being targeted by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (especially if they have a large following).

If these companies want to have rules, cool, but they should hold everyone to the same standards, not just those who don't share their political ideals.

As I'm sure you're aware, twitter has banned quite a lot of prominent feminists for expressing the opinion that a bearded man in a dress isn't really a woman so the idea that people on the left don't get banned doesn't fly.


And as to the idea that conservatives are being targeted, can you name one who didn't threaten or harass people? Might it be that they were removed from the platform for being dicks and not for their views on the role of government?

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEbYGSeJR0Q

KikiLaRue

nullzero wrote: »

Just dipping back in here to put one thing straight, I believe in free speech, not Alex Jones, not once have I defended him.
You need to get your facts straight.

You should do some research on the concept of free speech. At its core, it means that the government *does not* interfere with journalism or the media, and that you can’t be locked up for having different beliefs.

It doesn’t mean you have the right to say whatever you want on whatever platform you want. That’s just plain wrong.

nullzero

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You should do some research on the concept of free speech. At its core, it means that the government *does not* interfere with journalism or the media, and that you can’t be locked up for having different beliefs.

It doesn’t mean you have the right to say whatever you want on whatever platform you want. That’s just plain wrong.

That isn't accurate. Freedom of expression is part of the universal declaration of human rights.
If you want to talk about restrictions to free speech it varies from place to place, nonsense like blasphemy is a limitation in some places.

I love how people ride in on their high horses talking in absolutes when they're really just expressing their own opinions or understanding. I might not like what you're saying but you have every right to say it, more power to you.

mcmoustache

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It doesn’t mean you have the right to say whatever you want on whatever platform you want. That’s just plain wrong.

Most platforms don't allow threats, doxing or harassment. That's just how social media works.


This "controversy" is little more than people whining about someone who they identify with being banned for being dicks. Let's also not forget that Jones was at this nonsense for a long time and they still kept him on their platform for financial reasons. He was treated far better than he should have been simply because he was a cash cow.

KikiLaRue

nullzero wrote: »

That isn't accurate. Freedom of expression is part of the universal declaration of human rights.
If you want to talk about restrictions to free speech it varies from place to place, nonsense like blasphemy is a limitation in some places.

I love how people ride in on their high horses talking in absolutes when they're really just expressing their own opinions or understanding. I might not like what you're saying but you have every right to say it, more power to you.

Nope, my point is factual and I’m basing it off US law since it’s a US company and a US citizen.

Getting yourself banned from a website for repeatedly breaking their rules (which you agreed to when you signed up) in no way infringes on your human rights.

Billy86

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I do. That's why I've mentioned the words social media in practically every post on this thread.

Someone has already directed you to Alex Jones' very own social media website (where free speech is explicitly not allowed, which doesn't seem to bother you much at all) and has plenty of access to other social media platforms like the voat, who also advertise Jones' own social media outlet at the very top of their pages, in turn.

Alex Jones is not banned from all social media by any means.

Billy86

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

*Godwin Argument*

nullzero

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Nope, my point is factual and I’m basing it off US law since it’s a US company and a US citizen.

Getting yourself banned from a website for repeatedly breaking their rules (which you agreed to when you signed up) in no way infringes on your human rights.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

To begin with the American constitution lays out in its first ammendment the right to freedom of speech and expression, subsequent to that there are a number of exceptions to that which it may be difficult to say Alex Jones has been directly guilty of contravening to an extent that would impinge on his right to freedom of speech and expression.

I mentioned the universal declaration of human rights as it directly references the right to freedom of speech and expression, not because I equate being banned from a website as a human rights violation (thanks for making that assumption without asking for clarification btw), I was merely stating that private companies the size of alphabet or twitter who hold monopolies perhaps should be held to a higher standard in regard to issues like freedom of speech, a simple disclaimer "this members views do not reflect the beliefs of alphabet, twitter etc" would suffice.

The clamour of some people here to throw basic rights on the scrap heap in the name of corporate operational norms is strange at best.

You don't have to like Alex Jones or his ideas to defend his right to express them.

Gimme A Pound

Yeah what could be more patriotic than telling fellow Americans grieving their murdered children that they're all part of a stunt, and orchestrating a hate campaign against them.

greencap

nullzero wrote: »

I was merely stating that private companies the size of alphabet or twitter who hold monopolies

https://socialmedialist.org/social-media-apps.html a list of ~240 alternatives.
many with users in the millions or tens of millions.

perhaps should be held to a higher standard in regard to issues like freedom of speech, a simple disclaimer "this members views do not reflect the beliefs of alphabet, twitter etc" would suffice.

The eternal question. WHY.

You don't have to like Alex Jones or his ideas to defend his right to express them.

yes we get it. we know. free speech matters.
just some of us know that there is a grey area when it comes to free speech.

DS86DS

The response from Alex Jones, like most other conservatives who have been banned from social platforms has been most dignified. He was angry and rightfully so, but that was that.

Do the same to a major Leftist platform and Twitter HQ can expect a visit from the San Francisco Fire Brigade.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Billy86 wrote: »

Someone has already directed you to Alex Jones' very own social media website (where free speech is explicitly not allowed, which doesn't seem to bother you much at all) and has plenty of access to other social media platforms like the voat, who also advertise Jones' own social media outlet at the very top of their pages, in turn.

Alex Jones is not banned from all social media by any means.

Infowars isn't really a social media website though.

When all actual social media websites are working together to get someone deplatformed for life I think it is a much more different thing than free speech.

Billy86 wrote: »

In this context, it was lazy. Jones has only really been accused of being a shill for Jews and not an anti semetic.

greencap

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Infowars isn't really a social media website though.

When all actual social media websites are working together to get someone deplatformed for life I think it is a much more different thing than free speech.



In this context, it was lazy. Jones has only really been accused of being a shill for Jews and not an anti semetic.

im banned from as many sites as jones.

never once has it crossed my mind that my rights were being trampled on.

act the dick get banned.

your issue is that you think twitter etc are/should be a special exception under the law because they're your favorites.

other sites that you dont really care about: act the dick get banned. thats fine.

sites that you find useful and like: act the dick. get banned. thats outrageous.

DS86DS

greencap wrote: »

im banned from as many sites as jones.

never once has it crossed my mind that my rights were being trampled on.

act the dick get banned.

your issue is that you think twitter etc are/should be a special exception under the law because they're your favorites.

other sites that you dont really care about: act the dick get banned. thats fine.

sites that you find useful and like: act the dick. get banned. thats outrageous.

Wait until "acting the dick" translates into been banned and deplatformed from a Social Media website for having a political opinion.

It won't feel like such a casual affair then.

greencap

DS86DS wrote: »

Wait until "acting the dick" translates into been banned and deplatformed from a Social Media website for having a political opinion.

It won't feel like such a casual affair then.

why not?

theres hundreds of social media sites. and millions of forums.

and i could always just re-reg under a pseudonym anyway, if my message was really that important.



edit; just looking now at the registration page of a chosen social media site (twoo) from the list i provided earlier.
a site jones is free to join at any time.

theres a little counter in the bottom left. heres what it says.

Number of conversations on twoo right now: 1 BILLION.....835 MILLION

Seems theres alternatives out there.
So at worst Jones has been inconvenienced.

Not exactly a good reason for outrage.

DS86DS

Even arch-leftist Jimmy Dore has been defending Alex Jones against all of these bans bordering on political censorship.

I may not agree with Jimmy Dore, but his words are true to the point here. I disdain many of his opinions, but I do not want him censored. To quote Voltaire

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it

greencap

DS86DS wrote: »

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it

I find this quote both novel and relevant to the banning of a buffoon from several internet sites out of the millions available to him.

Arguing about ideas > Arguing about events > Arguing about people


I hold complete and utter distain for people who defend the removal of the universal idea of free speech. I know the actual law and way it works around the world, so that's why I said "idea".

Twitter etc. are beyond a private company at this stage. They are a global public utility and should be held to standards as if run by a government. To argue that they can do what they want, specifically because of a person like Alex Jones, is really just a sign of a small and insignificant mind. Tunes would certainly change if rich right-wingers took over the main sites.


Why do I feel this way? Because it's obvious, and because I live in a country where free speech doesn't exist and people are put in prison for what they write online. Demonitising people, or completely removing them, disincentives others from creating similar content. It's not prison, but the effect is the same.

DS86DS

greencap wrote: »

I find this quote both novel and relevant to the banning of a buffoon from several internet sites out of the millions available to him.

"Buffoon" is a matter of political opinion with no grounding in absolute reality. Political opinion is not scientific certainty.

greencap

DS86DS wrote: »

"Burffoon" is a matter of political opinion with no grounding in reality.

As is the applying of great sounding quotes to random situations.

greencap

Deleted User wrote: »

Twitter etc. are beyond a private company at this stage.

No they're not.

They are a global public utility

what is a global public utility?

and should be held to standards as if run by a government.

why?

Tunes would certainly change if rich right-wingers took over the main sites.

Tunes wouldn't change on this particular matter if twitter and youtube were owned by hitler himself.

It is what it is.

Why do I feel this way?

feels over reals.

It's not prison, but the effect is the same.

twoo has over 1.8 billion conversations happening right now.
anybody banned from twitter can go there.

for youtube theres dailymotion or vimeo, and others

the only walls of this prison are personal preference, and the laziness that prevents registration.

DS86DS

greencap wrote: »

As is the applying of great sounding quotes to situations.

I could apply your definition of "great sounding quotes" all day long and worth it's weight of all the tea in China and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference

A nice sentence is not going to disestablish this fact......that Conservative voices are under increasing attack and facing censorship from all angles.

The Age of Enlightenment gave us documents like the American Constitution and the Rights of Man in France. Companies like Twitter are not above this tried and tested method

But thanks to Leftists, we are heading back to the Dark Ages.

greencap

DS86DS wrote: »

A nice sentence is not going to disestablish this fact......that Conservative voices are under increasing attack and. facing censorship from all angles.

ok.

The Age of Enlightenment gave us documents like the American Constitution and the Rights of Man in France.

right.

Companies like Twitter are not above this tried and tested method

But, if theres something in your constitution about the right to private property then I think they just might be.

Or is the state going to tell people to allow content on their privately owned servers?

Bit of a conundrum you have there.

DS86DS

greencap wrote: »

ok.



right.



But, if theres something in your constitution about the right to private property then I think they just might be.

Or is the state going to tell people to allow content on their privately owned servers?

Bit of a conundrum you have there.

Oh...you're such an Edgelord. Look at how you dismiss half of a post with one word put-downs...then with surgical precision, obliterate anything else that had to be said while making everything else seem like the ramblings of a mad man.

You're such an edgy Edgelord... you should be on QI with Stephen Fry.....you're so witty and intelligent, you'll fit right in.

What an idiot I was thinking I could debate you.

The idea isn't to debate someone like that who puts the bare minimum of effort into their posts.

Just let themselves look like inane fools and be an embarrassment to their side. The arguments become a lot more enjoyable when you realise that the people who fully agree with them would rather they shut up, and people who disagree want them to keep posting drivel.

nullzero

DS86DS wrote: »

Oh...you're such an Edgelord. Look at how you dismiss half of a post with one word put-downs...then with surgical precision, obliterate anything else that had to be said while making everything else seem like the ramblings of a mad man.

You're such an edgy Edgelord... you should be on QI with Stephen Fry.....you're so witty and intelligent, you'll fit right in.

What an idiot I was thinking I could debate you.

Next Greencap will say "you can prove anything with facts".

Kermit.de.frog

This is more than a little disturbing, let's be honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVL59_I-z88

Christy42

Didn't he admit it was all an act under oath in a court of law?

It is hardly censorship of his political opinion if it is just a character not to be taken seriously.

Unless you think he simply lied under oath (to be fair he did). However Facebook and the rest can hardly be held responsible for that and can ban an entertainment show without restricting someone's political viewpoints.

Finally banning Alex Jones is not banning conservatives. There are still many conservatives on each platform and the vast majority of conservatives would rightly get offended if you equated their views with Alex Jones. He did not get banned for his conservative views, he got banned because of his nuttier ones.

I get freedom of speech can be a slippery slope but forcing a private company to air shows that encourage the mental torture of the families of dead kids seems all types of messed up.

pauldla

DS86DS wrote: »

Even arch-leftist Jimmy Dore has been defending Alex Jones against all of these bans bordering on political censorship.

I may not agree with Jimmy Dore, but his words are true to the point here. I disdain many of his opinions, but I do not want him censored. To quote Voltaire

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it'

'I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for you to have access to any platform you want to promote your views'.

Does't quite roll off the tongue in the same way, does it...

Wheeliebin30

Load of nonsense.

No one owns the land, humans are merely caretakers for this brief moment in history.

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Arguing about ideas > Arguing about events > Arguing about people


I hold complete and utter distain for people who defend the removal of the universal idea of free speech. I know the actual law and way it works around the world, so that's why I said "idea".

Twitter etc. are beyond a private company at this stage. They are a global public utility and should be held to standards as if run by a government. To argue that they can do what they want, specifically because of a person like Alex Jones, is really just a sign of a small and insignificant mind. Tunes would certainly change if rich right-wingers took over the main sites.


Why do I feel this way? Because it's obvious, and because I live in a country where free speech doesn't exist and people are put in prison for what they write online. Demonitising people, or completely removing them, disincentives others from creating similar content. It's not prison, but the effect is the same.

That’s the point. People should be disincentivised from writing the kind of content he got banned for. Hate speech is not protected.

Example: Do you think it is okay to target the parents of the Sandy Hook children? If not, what should a platform do when a high profile user repeatedly breaks the rules?

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

That’s the point. People should be disincentivised from writing the kind of content he got banned for. Hate speech is not protected.

Example: Do you think it is okay to target the parents of the Sandy Hook children? If not, what should a platform do when a high profile user repeatedly breaks the rules?

Arguing about ideas > Arguing about events > Arguing about people

I've bolded your level of argument, and don't throw strawmen at me like I'm a stupid teenager.

suicide_circus

Ipso wrote: »

As far as Infowars, see rule 19 in their terms of service.

Infowars is a service monopoly?

batgoat wrote: »

Pretty sure I'll never be doing anything equivalent to calling victims of a spree killer 'crisis actors'. First they came for the anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, then they came for the Nazis then they came for the racists... Such losses for public discourse.

by what mechanism can AJ be forgiven his sins?

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Arguing about ideas > Arguing about events > Arguing about people

I've bolded your level of argument, and don't throw strawmen at me like I'm a stupid teenager.

How is that a straw man?

I’m asking you a very sincere question. What do you think the appropriate consequences are for someone who repeatedly targets the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre?

It’s a total cop out to say you’re not going to respond to my point because you think your arguments are at a loftier level than mine.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

How is that a straw man?

I’m asking you a very sincere question. What do you think the appropriate consequences are for someone who repeatedly targets the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre?

It’s a total cop out to say you’re not going to respond to my point because you think your arguments are at a loftier level than mine.

A cop out? I think it's despicable what he did. It's a stupid question that shouldn't even need to be answered.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

A cop out? I think it's despicable what he did. It's a stupid question that shouldn't even need to be answered.

so what do you think should be the appropriate consequences for what he did?

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A cop out? I think it's despicable what he did. It's a stupid question that shouldn't even need to be answered.

You still didn’t answer it.

If you’re against him being deplatformed, what consequences do you think he should have faced? What other options were open to Twitter after they had exhausted warnings and temporary bans?

suicide_circus

why is Hamas allowed on twitter and Alex Jones is not? to my knowledge AJ has not literally killed hundreds if not thousands of people? strange.

KikiLaRue

suicide_circus wrote: »

why is Hamas allowed on twitter and Alex Jones is not? to my knowledge AJ has not literally killed hundreds if not thousands of people? strange.

Presumably because they haven’t broken the terms of service.

Side point: Republicans and Democrats in the US as well as the ruling parties in the UK and France are also responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people.