Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

greencap

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The issue is the bannings are not consistent, there is very limited appeals process, there is no potential for forgiveness, and the people in charge have an ideology and political leaning (left) which is causing them to have bias.

lol. seriously?

yes the bannings are not consistent. and they're running rampant with the modding and bias.

and thats perfectly legal. its a big internet, off you go.

ogsjw

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1124153500068405248?s=19


"Felt cute, might have my twitter deleted later."

OMM 0000 wrote: »

McInnes is not a white nationalist, so the ban doesn't make sense anyway.

"Gavin McInnes is not Gaving McInnes but someone else, in fact."

is_that_so

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It has been proven multiple times that people who break the same rules as him, or worse, don't get banned.

Look, I'm wasting my time here.

It seems many people here think the rules are transparently, fairly, and consistently applied to people. That is not true. And that's the problem.

So the solution is either fix the problem, or just allow all speech (except incitement of violence). I would like the latter.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, so checking out now.

Your real problem is confusing what goes on on social media with free speech, private networks, free to use, but with their own set of rules.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

What?

like you say they constitute 90% of the market. Thats all that the likes of jones care about. Its all about money for them. Their social media presence is a business, nothing more.

batgoat

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The issue is the bannings are not consistent, there is very limited appeals process, there is no potential for forgiveness, and the people in charge have an ideology and political leaning (left) which is causing them to have bias.

I don't think you fully understand this. Your viewpoint is way too black and white, and (sorry) naive.

Thing is, it's a fact that Facebook has given space to the likes of Jones in terms of what they can get away with stuff because of their popularity.

Sonics2k

Anyone else find it gloriously ironic that a bunch of Republicans are suddenly calling for Government intervention on private businesses?

20Cent

Sonics2k wrote: »

Anyone else find it gloriously ironic that a bunch of Republicans are suddenly calling for Government intervention on private businesses?

Yeah it's funny alright. Health care is not a right but tweets are lol. Big Gov is good when the money goes to them.

Sweetemotion

20Cent wrote: »

Yeah it's funny alright. Health care is not a right but tweets are lol. Big Gov is good when the money goes to them.

Vulture funds are also coming from private companies, do you also think its funny when the government try to interven with them?

batgoat

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Vulture funds are also coming from private companies, do you also think its funny when the government try to interven with them?

Have the Republicans suddenly legislated against them in the US?

Sweetemotion

batgoat wrote: »

Have the Republicans suddenly legislated against them in the US?

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

batgoat

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

The US constitution has never applied to private businesses in relation to freedom of speech so what law is being violated? You want laws invented to cater for a handful of conspiracy theorists. I favour net neutrality, what you're proposing is the antithesis of it. The US government or any other governments is not to suddenly start disputing terms of service and what violates it.

Alex and co are free to relocate to Gabb where they'll find plenty of like minded souls.

Sweetemotion

batgoat wrote: »

The US constitution has never applied to private businesses in relation to freedom of speech so what law is being violated? You want laws invented to cater for a handful of conspiracy theorists. I favour net neutrality, what you're proposing is the antithesis of it. The US government or any other governments is not to suddenly start disputing terms of service and what violates it.

Alex and co are free to relocate to Gabb where they'll find plenty of like minded souls.

I have no idea of where you got that little rant from the question I asked?

batgoat

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I have no idea of where you got that little rant from the question I asked?

Vulture funds and websites enforcing their terms of service is substantially different.....

ogsjw

Sonics2k wrote: »

Anyone else find it gloriously ironic that a bunch of Republicans are suddenly calling for Government intervention on private businesses?

Why would hilarious amounts of re-framing and mental gymnastics be ironic? These are human rights issues. People have been hurt and killed because of the hateful ideology these bigots spread. Also private businesses are privy to an inordinate amount of government established law, did you think of that while you were re-framing?

Also can we stop going on about yankeeland? The Irish radicalized right are obsessed with the place. Please move there if you're so into it. Or would they not want you because you have little to offer professionally and don't meet the terms for a green card?

Zorya

One good reason to avoid censorship is because it weakens intellectual capacity.

If the opponents of any point of view can't manage to be sufficiently convincing, scintillating, argumentative, ballsy and charismatic that they blow idiocy out of the water then they weaken themselves. Instead of becoming the better force the opposition resorts to the emasculated techniques of crying wolf, demanding censorship, literally whimpering and whining instead of being respectable intellectual exemplars.

ogsjw

Zorya wrote: »

One good reason to avoid censorship is because it weakens intellectual capacity.

Citation needed. Drastic amounts, China amounts of censorship? Sure. Banning a few hate mongers for spreading lies that get people hurt or killed? Not the same argument imo.

Zorya wrote: »

If the opponents of any point of view can't manage to be sufficiently convincing, scintillating, argumentative, ballsy and charismatic that they blow idiocy out of the water then they weaken themselves. Instead of becoming the better force the opposition resorts to the emasculated techniques of crying wolf, demanding censorship, literally whimpering and whining instead of being respectable intellectual exemplars.

All those factors of a good argument are irrelevant in the face of the radicalized right. They know, they just don't care, because they're hateful bigots. They re-frame, handwave, and employ intellectual dishonesty and whataboutisms and then just block you at the end of the day anyway. A convincing argument will not sway any of that.

Zorya

ogsjw wrote: »

Citation needed. Drastic amounts, China amounts of censorship? Sure. Banning a few hate mongers for spreading lies that get people hurt or killed? Not the same argument imo.



All those factors of a good argument are irrelevant in the face of the radicalized right. They know, they just don't care, because they're hateful bigots. They re-frame, handwave, and employ intellectual dishonesty and whataboutisms and then just block you at the end of the day anyway. A convincing argument will not sway any of that.

I'm not talking about winning arguments on the internet. I'm talking about making convincing intellectual arguments in academia, the media, in politics that blow opponents out of the water. The progressive left is completely anathema to me presently because of its highly visible neuroticism and histrionics. There are wonderful thinkers on both sides of the political divide. Big them up instead of giving any attention to either the hysterical progressives of the alt left or the callous clowns dog whistling the supposed right. And by attention I include censorship. Win arguments. Win minds.

MrFresh

Zorya wrote: »

One good reason to avoid censorship is because it weakens intellectual capacity.

If the opponents of any point of view can't manage to be sufficiently convincing, scintillating, argumentative, ballsy and charismatic that they blow idiocy out of the water then they weaken themselves. Instead of becoming the better force the opposition resorts to the emasculated techniques of crying wolf, demanding censorship, literally whimpering and whining instead of being respectable intellectual exemplars.

Facebook removed 3 million items of ISIS material between July and September last year. Why should it treat people like Jones differently? Like I said before, the rules have changed. There is no honesty in people like Jones. There is no intellectual debate. If you fight them on their own terms you get reduced to their level, brought into the mud.

Zorya

MrFresh wrote: »

Facebook removed 3 million items of ISIS material between July and September last year. Why should it treat people like Jones differently? Like I said before, the rules have changed. There is no honesty in people like Jones. There is no intellectual debate. If you fight them on their own terms you get reduced to their level, brought into the mud.

And yet Zahran Hashim's hate preaching videos remained online for years. He influenced the Sri Lanka bombers. Just one example from hundreds. If these videos are taken down it is done quietly so as not to ''inflame'' so-called Islamophobia. But this could be otherwise known as justifiable critique. People are allowed to vent their spleen on an idiot like Jones and feel (ignorantly)that something is being done to save the world from ''hate''. But they are not allowed to question ''Terf killer'' videos, or lesbian bashing on Twitter or Islamist hate-preaching, online or elsewhere, as this is politically incorrect. The whole arena is manipulated for ideological reasons. I don't buy it.

MrFresh

Zorya wrote: »

And yet Zahran Hashim's hate preaching videos remained online for years. He influenced the Sri Lanka bombers. Just one example from hundreds. If these videos are taken down it is done quietly so as not to ''inflame'' so-called Islamophobia. But this could be otherwise known as justifiable critique. People are allowed to vent their spleen on an idiot like Jones and feel (ignorantly)that something is being done to save the world from ''hate''. But they are not allowed to question ''Terf killer'' videos, or lesbian bashing on Twitter or Islamist hate-preaching, online or elsewhere, as this is politically incorrect. The whole arena is manipulated for ideological reasons. I don't buy it.

It's not done quietly. They made a press release on it.

ogsjw

Zorya wrote: »

I'm talking about making convincing intellectual arguments in academia, the media, in politics that blow opponents out of the water. The progressive left is completely anathema to me presently because of its highly visible neuroticism and histrionics.

You want one thing, then blast the people who are succesfully doing it, and claim they're doing it 'unpleasantly'?



The radicalized right does not have 'wonderful minds'. Ranting on Twitter because you're late for a hate speech conference because you've spent 30 minutes getting and refusing Middle Eastern immigrant Uber drivers does not constitute a 'wonderful mind'. Or claiming pizza places are secret child molestation meeting spots. That is actual 'histrionics'. That is the calibre people can expect from the radicalized right. That's why they keep losing. That's why they will always lose.

Zorya

ogsjw wrote: »

You want one thing, then blast the people who are succesfully doing it, and claim they're doing it 'unpleasantly'?



The radicalized right does not have 'wonderful minds'. Ranting on Twitter because you're late for a hate speech conference because you've spent 30 minutes getting and refusing Middle Eastern immigrant Uber drivers does not constitute a 'wonderful mind'. Or claiming pizza places are secret child molestation meeting spots. That is actual 'histrionics'. That is the calibre people can expect from the radicalized right. That's why they keep losing. That's why they will always lose.

Stop making silly misinterpretations of what I am writing. For every Cornel West on the left there is a Thomas Sowell on the right. And so on multiplied many times. There are indeed worthy minds on either side, I am not talking about the mad ones on either extreme. I don't give a single feck about Jones, but I don't like censorship as it is infantilising.

MrFresh

Zorya wrote: »

Stop making silly misinterpretations of what I am writing. For every Cornel West on the left there is a Thomas Sowell on the right. And so on multiplied many times. There are indeed worthy minds on either side, I am not talking about the mad ones on either extreme. I don't give a single feck about Jones, but I don't like censorship as it is infantilising.

The problem is that the support does not go to the Thomas Sowell's of the right, it goes to the Alex Jones and infoWars types.

ogsjw

Zorya wrote: »

Stop making silly misinterpretations of what I am writing.

In order to stop, I would first need to start.

Zorya

MrFresh wrote: »

The problem is that the support does not go to the Thomas Sowell's of the right, it goes to the Alex Jones and infoWars types.

No it doesn't. Not unless you divide the world into the Chan right and the Tumblr left which are just the places where the very silly people hang out. And as far as I'm concerned they should be allowed to be wretched there but under the public gaze, so that everyone can understand both extremes of the idiocy. We have brainz, ya know. We are allowed to hear all the mad stuff. :pac:

Note : elsewhere I have specifically limited the definition of free speech to exclude direct incitement to violence. From anyone. And that exists on all sides.

ogsjw

Zorya wrote: »

Not unless you divide the world into the Chan right

This thread is about Alex Jones and his buddies, and their methods, so it is about the 'Chan Right''s frame of mind. Not slightly more conservative individuals who manage to not be hateful chodes in the process. Stop obfuscating. If you have a list of people you think people should be reading as an alternative, by all means post that separate thread. I don't think you'd get anything resembling a negative reaction. If you want to actually educate people, do so. But be clear with your thoughts, and separate things that are not related.

MrFresh

Zorya wrote: »

No it doesn't. Not unless you divide the world into the Chan right and the Tumblr left which are just the places where the very silly people hang out. And as far as I'm concerned they should be allowed to be wretched there but under the public gaze, so that everyone can understand both extremes of the idiocy. We have brainz, ya know. We are allowed to hear all the mad stuff. :pac:

Alex Jones had over 2 million subscribers on Youtube and over two hundred thousand followers on Twitter. You can't but the blame on 4Chan for his popularity. Even Trump is a long time supporter.

Zorya

ogsjw wrote: »

This thread is about Alex Jones and his buddies, and their methods, so it is about the 'Chan Right''s frame of mind. Not slightly more conservative individuals who manage to not be hateful chodes in the process. Stop obfuscating. If you have a list of people you think people should be reading as an alternative, by all means post that separate thread. I don't think you'd get anything resembling a negative reaction. If you want to actually educate people, do so. But be clear with your thoughts, and separate things that are not related.

Don't you think discussions evolve to things that are tangential but still related to the opening argument? Don't you think that putting limits on the parameters of a debate is a form of censorship? Or would you prefer discussions to always remain in some righteous circular spleen-venting mode where in-groups back slap and thank each other for saying the same things over and over, rather than seek solutions.
My proffered solution is to become better debaters than the haters, rather than to cowardly shut down what one doesn't like, to get past sound bites and click bait and extremism on either side and move towards deeper consideration of issues and perspectives.
But I knew I should not have waded back into this kind of thread - silly me - so I'll leave you to the echoes echoes echoes.....

Robert ninja

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So its about money then not freedom of speech?

One and the same. Payment processors are pressured to blacklist too. Even if they get off a social media or content delivery platform and create their own site/app, every middle-ware and service between them will be cut or limited - there's no defense against that. Nobody can create their own hosting service, payment processor, domain, DDoS protection service etc. Except the rich ofc.

China limits their dissenters' funds and means of spending/acquiring wealth too now if their social score gets too low.

Sonics2k

Zorya wrote: »

Don't you think discussions evolve to things that are tangential but still related to the opening argument? Don't you think that putting limits on the parameters of a debate is a form of censorship? Or would you prefer discussions to always remain in some righteous circular spleen-venting mode where in-groups back slap and thank each other for saying the same things over and over, rather than seek solutions.
My proffered solution is to become better debaters than the haters, rather than to cowardly shut down what one doesn't like, to get past sound bites and click bait and extremism on either side and move towards deeper consideration of issues and perspectives.
But I knew I should not have waded back into this kind of thread - silly me - so I'll leave you to the echoes echoes echoes.....

Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate.

This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count.

The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media.

Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention.

Zorya

Sonics2k wrote: »

Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate.

This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count.

The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media.

Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention.

Yes this has been said ad nauseam. So you and others want him banned, censored. But it won't work and can't work because he hasn't been negated by effective methods but simply by an alternative form of bullying and weasel tactics. Far better to be the victor in the war for minds and hearts than to be the censors foot servant.

Sweetemotion

Sonics2k wrote: »

Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate.

This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count.

The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media.

Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention.

So what?

Racheal Maddow has made millions the last few years spreading the lie of collusion and exploiting the fears of people.

Looks like she has gotten away scot free.

Sonics2k

Zorya wrote: »

Yes this has been said ad nauseam. So you and others want him banned, censored. But it won't work and can't work because he hasn't been negated by effective methods but simply by an alternative form of bullying and weasel tactics. Far better to be the victor in the war for minds and hearts than to be the censors foot servant.

Yes, it has been said ad nauseam because it's the reason he was banned. Not censorship, not proclaiming the Government is out to get him (Trump loves him by the way). We'll keep saying it until you understand it.

The man openly and clearly -lied- about Sandyhook, then further proclaimed it over and over again.

He's not being censored. A private company has removed him from their platform. And you can be damn, damn sure that if you were to go onto a right wing based website and start proclaiming the joys of gay marriage, interracial marriage and a whole lot more, they'd kick you off their platform too.

Go on, go on over to huge site like Voat and start talking badly about Alex Jones and let me know how long you last.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

So what?

Racheal Maddow has made millions the last few years spreading the lie of collusion and exploiting the fears of people.

Looks like she has gotten away scot free.

Oranges, meet apples. I'm sure you two have little in common.

Firstly, I never actually believed Trump was directly involved in collusion with Russia, he's too stupid and arrogant and Putin is too smart.

Secondly. Maddow reported on various findings, with sources, and claims made by people involved with the investigation. That is what journalists do. Alex Jones does not do this. He simply makes it up on the spot and then sticks to it if it's making him money.

Alex Jones is, and always has been, far more interested in making money than taking on "the man" and deep state.

Robert ninja

Sonics2k wrote: »

claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors.

Are you by chance referring to videos like this? (different incident)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6b6qPxAvY4

Sweetemotion

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yes, it has been said ad nauseam because it's the reason he was banned. Not censorship, not proclaiming the Government is out to get him (Trump loves him by the way). We'll keep saying it until you understand it.

The man openly and clearly -lied- about Sandyhook, then further proclaimed it over and over again.

He's not being censored. A private company has removed him from their platform. And you can be damn, damn sure that if you were to go onto a right wing based website and start proclaiming the joys of gay marriage, interracial marriage and a whole lot more, they'd kick you off their platform too.

Go on, go on over to huge site like Voat and start talking badly about Alex Jones and let me know how long you last.




Oranges, meet apples. I'm sure you two have little in common.

Firstly, I never actually believed Trump was directly involved in collusion with Russia, he's too stupid and arrogant and Putin is too smart.

Secondly. Maddow reported on various findings, with sources, and claims made by people involved with the investigation. That is what journalists do. Alex Jones does not do this. He simply makes it up on the spot and then sticks to it if it's making him money.

Alex Jones is, and always has been, far more interested in making money than taking on "the man" and deep state.

I don't see any difference at all, both were spreading lies and making money from gullible people who believed them.

Billy86

Zorya wrote: »

Sonics2k wrote: »

Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate.

This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count.

The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media.

Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention.

Yes this has been said ad nauseam. So you and others want him banned, censored. But it won't work and can't work because he hasn't been negated by effective methods but simply by an alternative form of bullying and weasel tactics. Far better to be the victor in the war for minds and hearts than to be the censors foot servant.

By this logic, shouldn't Saoradh, ISIS, etc have been allowed stay on social media too?

And as has been also stated ad nauseum, these are private companies who dictate their own terms. If I accused you of being a pedophile over boards, then doxxed your real identity and had other boards posters send you death threats as well as those same allegations about pedophilia to your friends, family and employers, and continued on in this fashion for years on end (which is essentially what got Jones banned), you absolutely would not take the same attitude you do now.

Patty Hearst

LOL
Facebook moderators start believing the conspiracy theories they're charged with policing
https://www.gq.com/story/facebook-moderators-conspiracy-theories

WinnyThePoo

Sonics2k wrote: »

Zorya wrote: »

Don't you think discussions evolve to things that are tangential but still related to the opening argument? Don't you think that putting limits on the parameters of a debate is a form of censorship? Or would you prefer discussions to always remain in some righteous circular spleen-venting mode where in-groups back slap and thank each other for saying the same things over and over, rather than seek solutions.
My proffered solution is to become better debaters than the haters, rather than to cowardly shut down what one doesn't like, to get past sound bites and click bait and extremism on either side and move towards deeper consideration of issues and perspectives.
But I knew I should not have waded back into this kind of thread - silly me - so I'll leave you to the echoes echoes echoes.....

Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate.

This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count.

The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media.

Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention.

Its baffling Zoryas and others complete ignorance to Jones popularity and extremism...

Jones doesn't believe in unfettered free speech himself... Going by his website forum rule page.

orourkeda1977

P_1 wrote: »

Have to say I'm not a fan of no platforming. Irrespective of how abhorrent you may find someone's opinions its better to leave them in the open and open to public scrutiny and ridicule. As was mentioned in another thread its shït like this that will get the Orange Buffoon reelected in 2020.

Can't you just disagree with them and leave it at that?

biko

Patty Hearst wrote: »

LOL
Facebook moderators start believing the conspiracy theories they're charged with policing
https://www.gq.com/story/facebook-moderators-conspiracy-theories

I'm sure the **** these moderator have to sift through is soul-killing.
Many of them are on drugs to cope.

They are just falling for the old "make the lie big and repeat it. Eventually people will believe it"

Ipso

biko wrote: »

I'm sure the **** these moderator have to sift through is soul-killing.
Many of them are on drugs to cope.

They are just falling for the old "make the lie big and repeat it. Eventually people will believe it"

You couldn’t get paid enough to deal with the tapeworms of humanity.

Timberrrrrrrr

Ipso wrote: »

You couldn’t get paid enough to deal with the tapeworms of humanity.

Watched a programme recently on BBC 4 called the internets dirtiest secrets: the cleaners, 25,000 of them working in Manila, some of the things they describe is horrific.

ogsjw

Zorya wrote: »

Don't you think discussions evolve to things that are tangential but still related to the opening argument?

There are an insane amount of pages in this thread. Not everyone will read them all. So no. Make your own thread if you need. We're not reaching a limit on allowed threads.

splashuum

Allowing a billionaire oligarch monopolist to decide who has free speech and what opinions you can have is progressive apparently.

Wow the current far left are insane.

WinnyThePoo

This isn't a free speech issue. He broke the rules on a number of platforms and was taken off.

He is free to sell vitamins and conspiracy theories on his own site.

splashuum

What about users like PJW? (which I have already brought up on this thread). They are slowly wiping the slate clean of any right leaning personality. Nuts

Timberrrrrrrr

splashuum wrote: »

Allowing a billionaire oligarch monopolist to decide who has free speech and what opinions you can have is progressive apparently.

Wow the current far left are insane.

Where is this happening?

ohnonotgmail

splashuum wrote: »

What about users like PJW? (which I have already brought up on this thread). They are slowly wiping the slate clean of any right leaning personality. Nuts

what about him?

Ipso

splashuum wrote: »

Allowing a billionaire oligarch monopolist to decide who has free speech and what opinions you can have is progressive apparently.

Wow the current far left are insane.

Enough about Infowars terms of service!

super_furry

Patty Hearst wrote: »

LOL
Facebook moderators start believing the conspiracy theories they're charged with policing
https://www.gq.com/story/facebook-moderators-conspiracy-theories

Everytime I see a picture of Zuckerberg, he looks more and more like Data from Star Trek.