Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

nullzero

super_furry wrote: »

We can still do that. Alex Jones isn't going to go away. He still has his voice, still has free speech and will still have his core audience.

The only thing changing is that, like others who seek to radicalise, he won't have access to certain privately owned platforms.

I think this only serves to galvanize the people who absorb this stuff and ultimately could lead to another term for Trump.
Freedom of speech isn't something we get to pick and choose regardless of who owns a platform.
This is a negative move, the road to hell has always been paved with good intentions.

4068ac1elhodqr

Grayson wrote: »

Don't know about you but I always fancy a cockmeat sandwich after a bottle of Evian. That might be because it's french though.

Not for me, but sure best to stick to what you're used to.

Evian should be fine, naturally filtered through the alps and collected at multiple sources from south shore of Lake Geneva.

Faugheen

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.

Have to say I’m not a fan of giving someone who thinks Sandy Hook was all one big conspiracy a platform, so f*ck him as far as I’m concerned.

Billy86

Pac1Man wrote: »

I'm sure someone has mentioned this quote already but Noam Chomsky said it best.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

He is still free to express himself. As is youtube or facebook, or indeed boards.



If I threw insult after insult after insult your way, inspired people to send you death threats on the back of your child dying by calling you a fake crisis actor who onstage the whole thing, refused to stop after the death threats kept coming in, labelled you a pedophile, continuously stated you were running a pedophile ring from your workplace and so on and so on... I would be banned.

And this is exactly what happened here with YouTube and FB.

ancapailldorcha

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I think he is potentially dangerous but so are a lot of things. Really would like to hear what you mean by 'actively harmful', I mean really specifically. He didn't get banned for anything he said about sandy hook.

Was heartened to see youtuber Kyle Kulinksy seeing the wood for the trees on this issue and as he said nobody debunked/attacked Jones more vehemently than him.

I was talking about the parents of the Sandy Hook kids getting harassed online. I'm not advocating banning the likes of Ben Shapiro or anything like that. Jones is a completely different beast.

mcmoustache

Whatever about Alex Jones's treatment, I just wish the social media companies would enforce their own rules more consistently.

Most of them have rules about the usual stuff like hate-speech, incitement etc but there's no consistent approach to it. For some social media companies, users are allowed to continue breaking those rules if they have enough followers (aka advertising revenue). Then there are other cases where "kill all blacks" is classified as hate-speech but "kill all whites" is not.

I get that these are private companies and they can run their business in whatever way they want within the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate but some consistency would be nice.

On Alex Jones, the man's a scumbag. He knows that he's just making stuff up and he knows that enough of his followers are dumb enough to take him seriously enough to harass innocent people. He would have been banned long ago if he wasn't so popular among the low-information types.

Cienciano

Malayalam wrote: »

Given that youtube hosts beheading videos and videos from extremist Imams inciting hatred I'd say Jones is fairly low down the pecking order of depravity and being disgusting on corporate bandwidth. Not to mention the mind numbing inanity of what constitutes the bulk of content on all these platforms.

I don't think youtube host these videos you're talking about like beheading videos. Any chance you could link some?

mcmoustache

nullzero wrote: »

I think this only serves to galvanize the people who absorb this stuff and ultimately could lead to another term for Trump.

That could be the case but it could go the other way too. If the right in the US treat this as something they're willing to fight about, Jones's nonsense will be under more scrutiny in the press and it could create an association in the minds of independents between Republicans and Alex Jones. It's one thing to be associated with Trump but Alex Jones is a whole other level of crazy.

Malayalam

Cienciano wrote: »

I don't think youtube host these videos you're talking about like beheading videos. Any chance you could link some?

I can't really, I've never seen any, thank goodness. But my young adult children have told me they have seen them on there. Perhaps they only last for a while or are edited into clip collections or something. As for the radical Imams again I have heard from Arab-speaking friends that one can access them on Youtube. I am going on what I've been told but maybe the info is incorrect.

mcmoustache

Malayalam wrote: »

I can't really, I've never seen any, thank goodness. But my young adult children have told me they have seen them on there. Perhaps they only last for a while or are edited into clip collections or something. As for the radical Imams again I have heard from Arab-speaking friends that one can access them on Youtube. I am going on what I've been told but maybe the info is incorrect.

It's certainly the case a few years back that Youtube was rather slow to remove these videos. They've gotten better at removing them now but a part of me thinks that this was done for the benefit of authoritarian regimes seeking to avoid more Arab Springs.

riffmongous

mcmoustache wrote: »

That could be the case but it could go the other way too. If the right in the US treat this as something they're willing to fight about, Jones's nonsense will be under more scrutiny in the press and it could create an association in the minds of independents between Republicans and Alex Jones. It's one thing to be associated with Trump but Alex Jones is a whole other level of crazy.

"Everything is awesome when you're part of a slave team
Take your vaccines and die, it's for the children
Gmo kills the rats but it's good for you
You like your iq dropping, you like to die
The government loves you, drink your fluoride

Aaarg aargh get out of my way I want to drink diet coke"

I don't think most people have a clue about some of the stuff he comes out with. The below is a remix not an impersonation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phb-jdM4WyQ

Taytoland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Can you link to this being said?

Well i cant because it was taken down.  But here is a link to a report on it


https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/08/06/facebook-deletes-infowars-alex-jones-hate-speech-lgbt-racist-hate-speech/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=FB_IA&utm_campaign=PN

Thank you for that. Then he deserves it if this is true.

Outlaw Pete

dark crystal wrote: »

What is this strange thing on After Hours where almost any subject being discussed eventually descends into....but feminists.

It's really fukcing tiresome at this stage. There's plenty of threads opining feminists, go ask someone who cares on one of those.

Wait a second here, you're telling a user to go and speak about something on another thread which is very much relevant to this one

I mean I'm sorry you find it tiresome that feminists are being called out more and more these days but there was nothing at all wrong with that user's comment. On the contrary, it was a perfectly apt one given the topic: hate speech and whether or not YouTube/Facebook/iTunes were right to remove who they've just removed.

After all, one of the most infamous cases of someone being arrested for allegedly posting hate speech on social media was a feminist: Bahar Mustafa. And much of her FB activity could absolutely also be considered hate speech, or at least should be, which is what that user's point was.

Not that Facebook (and Twitter at times) haven't been censoring and deleting content posted by feminists when they consider it to be hate speech, they have, and are doing so more and more of late for sure, which maybe the user wasn't aware of (which is understandable as it wasn't widely reported).

tl;dr

Nothing at all wrong with that user's post and so no he doesn't need to go to other threads and "ask someone who cares on one of those" as his comment is very much on topic and relevant here.

splashuum

Taytoland wrote: »

Thank you for that. Then he deserves it if this is true.

He never said such things. I have since watched those particular segments. Jones showed a video of semi-naked drag queens dancing in front todddlers and children and then went on to criticize that behavior.

dark crystal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Wait a second here, you're telling a user to go and speak about something on another thread which is very much relevant to this one

I mean I'm sorry you find it tiresome that feminists are being called out more and more these days but there was nothing at all wrong with that user's comment. On the contrary, it was a perfectly apt one given the topic: hate speech and whether or not YouTube/Facebook/iTunes were right to remove who they've just removed.

After all, one of the most infamous cases of someone being arrested for allegedly posting hate speech on social media was a feminist: Bahar Mustafa. And much of her FB activity could absolutely also be considered hate speech, or at least should be, which is what that user's point was.

Not that Facebook (and Twitter at times) haven't been censoring and deleting content posted by feminists when they consider it to be hate speech, they have, and are doing so more and more of late for sure, which maybe the user wasn't aware of (which is understandable as it wasn't widely reported).

tl;dr

Nothing at all wrong with that user's post and so no he doesn't need to go to other threads and "ask someone who cares on one of those" as his comment is very much on topic and relevant here.

Like I said, there are numerous threads in AH on the evils of feminism - this is a thread about Alex Jones, not feminists. Isn't there enough to discuss on those other threads without having to drag it into this one as well?


We get it, feminism is bad mmkay. Every thread doesn't have to descend into a pissing contest on who has it worse. AGAIN.


What I find tiresome and I make no excuses for it, is this forum in particular feels the need to bash feminists at every given opportunity and here we are at it again. Does Alex Jones not generate enough divisive politics for people's liking without having to bring feminism into it as well?

Taytoland

splashuum wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Thank you for that. Then he deserves it if this is true.

He never said such things. I have since watched those particular segments. Jones showed a video of semi-naked drag queens dancing in front todddlers and children and then went on to criticize that behavior.

Ok. I was lied to then.

Will I Am Not

He was always a Weekly World News or Sunday Sport type of character to me until The Sandy Hook thing, that was just wrong.
If he was to be denied a platform it should have been then. What’s he done in the following years that these companies have simultaneously decided that they don’t want to allow him deliver his content on their platform?

suicide_circus

oh lord, keep me safe from satire. Amen.

mcmoustache

dark crystal wrote: »

Like I said, there are numerous threads in AH on the evils of feminism - this is a thread about Alex Jones, not feminists. Isn't there enough to discuss on those other threads without having to drag it into this one as well?


We get it, feminism is bad mmkay. Every thread doesn't have to descend into a pissing contest on who has it worse. AGAIN.


What I find tiresome and I make no excuses for it, is this forum in particular feels the need to bash feminists at every given opportunity and here we are at it again. Does Alex Jones not generate enough divisive politics for people's liking without having to bring feminism into it as well?

I see what you're saying but what about the bankers and the politicians? They're the real criminals here.

dark crystal

mcmoustache wrote: »

I see what you're saying but what about the bankers and the politicians? They're the real criminals here.

I thought it was garlic importer guy? Scum of the earth.

The Legend Of Kira

I first heard of Alex Jones in 2004 a show on sky one about conspiracies he was on the episode about 9/11 conspiracies,, if he believes in most of what he says or whether its all an act is debatable if it is an act he,s a damn good actor.

But lets say for the sake of argument that he does believe in most of what he say,s 9/11/the 2005 London bombings/ in his words were inside jobs or false flag operations- I don,t think one should be censored nor silenced if they want to believe conspiracy stuff.

Before anyone might ask me about his comments on the Sandy Hook, Im well aware of stuff he,s said on the public record about it- I don,t buy into nor believe the narrative he,s put forward over the years since 2012, some people will be aware that some of families from Sandy Hook are suing Alex Jones for defamation as is their right.

The question of whether his posts about Sandy Hook should of remained on his previous social media page or not, since there is a current defamation case over his comments , maybe if his posts about Sandy Hook wee taken down with a notice explaining why. " This post has been removed as its the matter of court defamation proceedings. " take down those posts in question but don,t remove his pages altogether.

Bottom line I strongly disagree with removing all of his social media pages its the equivalent of digital book burning, I think most people are smart enough not to buy into the various conspiracy rumours he,s put forward.

Social media & censorship once it starts where does it end & who is next to be targeted ? Besides Alex Jones some other people who have being targeted for censorship on social media recently.

Avi Yemini a right wing activist in Australia had his facebook page unpublished last week without a reason being given.

Candace Owens a right wing commentator had her twitter page temporally suspended because she mimicked tweets by Sarah Jeong swapping words to put a point across.

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201808061066991879-twitter-bans-activist-anti-black/

Cyprian Nyakundi a Kenyan blogger had his twitter page suspended recently without a direct reason being given.

https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/31938-twitter-rejects-blogger-cyprian-nyakundi-demands-suspended-account

riffmongous

suicide_circus wrote: »

oh lord, keep me safe from satire. Amen.

I don't think you get how satire works

2 Scoops

Double standards again, left wing fake news sites like the Palmer report are still operating as normal on facebook. Ban them all or ban none.

There is institutional bias against conservatives on social media platforms, that has nothing to do with Alex Jones, it's existed for ages.

dark crystal

2 Scoops wrote: »

Double standards again, left wing fake news sites like the Palmer report are still operating as normal on facebook. Ban them all or ban none.

There is institutional bias against conservatives on social media platforms, that has nothing to do with Alex Jones, it's existed for ages.

How many Facebook violations has the Palmer Report racked up then?

DickSwiveller Returns

dark crystal wrote: »

How many Facebook violations has the Palmer Report racked up then?

I think you would have to be very naive to believe there isn't an entrenched bias within these companies.

Grayson

mcmoustache wrote: »

Whatever about Alex Jones's treatment, I just wish the social media companies would enforce their own rules more consistently.

Most of them have rules about the usual stuff like hate-speech, incitement etc but there's no consistent approach to it. For some social media companies, users are allowed to continue breaking those rules if they have enough followers (aka advertising revenue). Then there are other cases where "kill all blacks" is classified as hate-speech but "kill all whites" is not.

I get that these are private companies and they can run their business in whatever way they want within the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate but some consistency would be nice.

On Alex Jones, the man's a scumbag. He knows that he's just making stuff up and he knows that enough of his followers are dumb enough to take him seriously enough to harass innocent people. He would have been banned long ago if he wasn't so popular among the low-information types.

Are there a lot of people saying kill all whites? I don't think I've ever heard of it.

ohnonotgmail

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I think you would have to be very naive to believe there isn't an entrenched bias within these companies.

Their only bias is towards users that make them money. It explains why it took them so long to ban him.

nullzero

mcmoustache wrote: »

That could be the case but it could go the other way too. If the right in the US treat this as something they're willing to fight about, Jones's nonsense will be under more scrutiny in the press and it could create an association in the minds of independents between Republicans and Alex Jones. It's one thing to be associated with Trump but Alex Jones is a whole other level of crazy.

Trump was clever enough to appear on Infowars early in his campaign, independent media as its known is extremely popular in the places that would be viewed as Trump supporting strongholds. People who feel disenfranchised and are willing to look for scapegoats and bogeymen to explain their daily struggles.
Most conspiracy theorists have long since moved away from Alex Jones, mostly down to his support of Trump. What infowars has collected in the interim is a huge groundswell of support from Trump voters who want to view the world through the prism of the world vs American values and by extension Trump.

My feeling is that he should have been left alone where he was, now he's a martyr and saying he told everyone so.
He's off these platforms as a result of concerted efforts by left wing groups who employ tactics every bit as unsavory as those employed by right wing groups. We live in a world of extreme views that really don't represent the masses at all but in the case of Alex Jones he has enough supporters who are now motivated to fight their corner and actually make a difference and keep Trump where he is.

Grayson

2 Scoops wrote: »

Double standards again, left wing fake news sites like the Palmer report are still operating as normal on facebook. Ban them all or ban none.

There is institutional bias against conservatives on social media platforms, that has nothing to do with Alex Jones, it's existed for ages.

Did the palmer report call for all drag queens to be burned?

I'd agree that there's problems with fake news, but they are more prominent on the right. And Alex Jones wasn't banned for fake news. He was banned because he called for drag queens to be burned.

2 Scoops

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Their only bias is towards users that make them money. It explains why it took them so long to ban him.

Recently in the space of a few weeks there's been what I consider a coordinated effort pushing for them to be banned. That's probably why it's happened now.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/facebook-pledge-to-eliminate-false-information-is-itself-fake-news

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07/14/facebook-wants-to-cut-down-on-misinformation-so-why-isnt-it-doing-anything-about-infowars/?utm_term=.3c58102924aa

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/media/facebook-infowars/index.html

suicide_circus

riffmongous wrote: »

I don't think you get how satire works

oh good, teach me, teach me how I should understand things.

Outlaw Pete

dark crystal wrote: »

Like I said, there are numerous threads in AH on the evils of feminism - this is a thread about Alex Jones, not feminists. Isn't there enough to discuss on those other threads without having to drag it into this one as well?

We get it, feminism is bad mmkay. Every thread doesn't have to descend into a pissing contest on who has it worse. AGAIN.

What I find tiresome and I make no excuses for it, is this forum in particular feels the need to bash feminists at every given opportunity and here we are at it again. Does Alex Jones not generate enough divisive politics for people's liking without having to bring feminism into it as well?

You're missing the point.........

This thread is about what has happened to Alex Jones, not just about him as a person (who I see as insincere moron just for the record).

Any example of hate speech posted on social media is relevant to the topic. From ANTIFA to white supremacists. No individual or group should get immunity. Again, just because you're sick of feminists being criticized doesn't mean users shouldn't be allowed to mention them.

Imagine if a user had cited an example of an MRA group posting sickening hate speech against women on Facebook, asking why they haven't been removed for it, and then someone came on and told them to go post on other threads as they were sick of MRAs being spoken about in a negative way. It would ridiculous, right? Well so is what you're suggesting.

suicide_circus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're missing the point.

This thread is about what has happened to Alex Jones, not just about him as a person.

Any example of hate speech is relevant to the topic. From ANTIFA to white supremacists. No individual or group should get immunity. Again, just because you're sick of feminists being criticized doesn't mean users shouldn't be allowed to mention them.

Imagine if a user had cited an example of an MRA group posting sickening hate speech against women on Facebook, asking why they haven't been removed for it, and then someone came on and told them to go post on other threads as they were sick of MRAs being spoken about in a negative way. It would ridiculous, right? Well so is what you're suggesting.

ah come off it, you can't bring up similar examples when having a discussion.

ohnonotgmail

2 Scoops wrote: »

Recently in the space of a few weeks there's been what I consider a coordinated effort pushing for them to be banned. That's probably why it's happened now.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/facebook-pledge-to-eliminate-false-information-is-itself-fake-news

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07/14/facebook-wants-to-cut-down-on-misinformation-so-why-isnt-it-doing-anything-about-infowars/?utm_term=.3c58102924aa

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/media/facebook-infowars/index.html

and it is about time.

dark crystal

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I think you would have to be very naive to believe there isn't an entrenched bias within these companies.

If someone cries double standards, they should at least be able to show an equitable standard in the first place.


Has the Palmer report accused any mass shooting victims of lying?
Has the Palmer report called for drag queens to burn in hell?
Has the Palmer report been ever been sued for defamation?

Has the Palmer report used dehumanizing language to describe people such as transgenders, Muslims and immigrants that directly violates Facebook's hate speech policies?


If so, please link and then we can discuss double standards.

2 Scoops

dark crystal wrote: »

Has the Palmer report used dehumanizing language to describe people such as transgenders, Muslims and immigrants that directly violates Facebook's hate speech policies?

They do it to Trump supporters all the time, they're definitely not a beacon of good will


https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946176919174868998

dark crystal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Imagine if a user had cited an example of an MRA group posting sickening hate speech against women on Facebook, asking why they haven't been removed for it, and then someone came on and told them to go post on other threads as they were sick of MRAs being spoken about in a negative way. It would ridiculous, right? Well so is what you're suggesting.

Wouldn't happen, as there aren't numerous threads about MRAs on AH, only feminists. THAT'S my point.



Tell you what, discuss feminism again to your heart's content. I'm sure there's loads of terrible feminist stuff that hasn't been covered ad nauseum yet. I wouldn't want to be accused of censorship on this of all threads. Knock yerself out!

ohnonotgmail

2 Scoops wrote: »

They do it to Trump supporters all the time, they're definitely not a beacon of good will


https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946176919174868998

How does that violate a hate speech policy?

dark crystal

2 Scoops wrote: »

They do it to Trump supporters all the time, they're definitely not a beacon of good will


https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946176919174868998

I never said they were. However, sticking to the point, are you aware of any similarities between the Palmer Report and Alex Jones on Facebook which displays the double standards previously mentioned?

DickSwiveller Returns

dark crystal wrote: »

If someone cries double standards, they should at least be able to show an equitable standard in the first place.


Has the Palmer report accused any mass shooting victims of lying?
Has the Palmer report called for drag queens to burn in hell?
Has the Palmer report been ever been sued for defamation?

Has the Palmer report used dehumanizing language to describe people such as transgenders, Muslims and immigrants that directly violates Facebook's hate speech policies?


If so, please link and then we can discuss double standards.

I don't know anything about the Palmer Report. Never heard of t.

Here's a few:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-flip-flops-in-ben-shapiros-double-standard-experiment-over-obscene-rosie-odonnell-tweets

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/insincere-outrage/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-chairman-twitter-net-neutrality_us_5a1dc1c6e4b04abdc6146d48

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/389858-conservatives-sees-double-standard-on-roseanne-cite-olbermann-joy-reid

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-twitter-which-highlights-double-standards-of-the-platform/news-story/5245dd1c1cf06671f254d0fd9472ed11

ohnonotgmail

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I don't know anything about the Palmer Report. Never heard of t.

Here's a few:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-flip-flops-in-ben-shapiros-double-standard-experiment-over-obscene-rosie-odonnell-tweets

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/insincere-outrage/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-chairman-twitter-net-neutrality_us_5a1dc1c6e4b04abdc6146d48

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/389858-conservatives-sees-double-standard-on-roseanne-cite-olbermann-joy-reid

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-twitter-which-highlights-double-standards-of-the-platform/news-story/5245dd1c1cf06671f254d0fd9472ed11

they all relate to twitter which has not banned jones. How is it relevant to the banning of jones from FB, youtube, et al?

white devil

First they came for the conspiracy theorists, but I ....

2 Scoops

dark crystal wrote: »

I never said they were. However, sticking to the point, are you aware of any similarities between the Palmer Report and Alex Jones on Facebook which displays the double standards previously mentioned?

I don't know, when someone is routinely posting tweets like the one below and has a platform built on fake news and hatred , I don't see much of a difference. I don't trust small groups of people with enormous power making decisions on what qualifies as hate speech and what qualifies as fake news and I don't believe Jones was pulled off 5 platforms in 12 hours due to "hate speech", in my view it was a coordinated effort. This is a day and age where the NYT's can openly hire a racist and make excuses for her so you can probably understand where I'm coming from. When you start banning individuals you open up a scary precedent.

https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1010658220950487040

ohnonotgmail

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't know, when someone is routinely posting tweets like the one below and has a platform built on fake news and hatred , I don't see much of a difference. I don't trust small groups of people with enormous power making decisions on what qualifies as hate speech and what qualifies as fake news and I don't believe Jones was pulled off 5 platforms in 12 hours due to "hate speech", in my view it was a coordinated effort. The NYT's openly hired a racist and made excuses for her so you can probably understand where I'm coming from. When you start banning individuals you open up a scary precedent.

https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1010658220950487040

yeah cos that really stacks up to the stuff that Jones puts online. And, again, that is twitter. this banning has nothing to do with twitter. twitter has not banned jones.

dark crystal

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I don't know anything about the Palmer Report. Never heard of t.

Here's a few:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-flip-flops-in-ben-shapiros-double-standard-experiment-over-obscene-rosie-odonnell-tweets

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/insincere-outrage/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-chairman-twitter-net-neutrality_us_5a1dc1c6e4b04abdc6146d48

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/389858-conservatives-sees-double-standard-on-roseanne-cite-olbermann-joy-reid

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-twitter-which-highlights-double-standards-of-the-platform/news-story/5245dd1c1cf06671f254d0fd9472ed11

These are all Twitter stories. Alex Jones is still on Twitter.

white devil

Elections coming up in the US this November.

No dissenting voices allowed. Remember, only vote for who the mainstream say you are allowed to vote for.

ohnonotgmail

white devil wrote: »

Elections coming up in the US this November.

No dissenting voices allowed. Remember, only vote for who the mainstream say you are allowed to vote for.

you mean Fox news?

white devil

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean Fox news?

Are Fox News running for election?

Ipso

white devil wrote: »

First they came for the conspiracy theorists, but I ....

But I couldn't give a sh1t because they're loosely tethered to reality.

Ipso

white devil wrote: »

Elections coming up in the US this November.

No dissenting voices allowed. Remember, only vote for who the mainstream say you are allowed to vote for.

Ooh, you said mainstream media. Let me guess you're not one of the sheeple.