Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Jelle1880

For what it's worth, I'm loving his meltdown.

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1026508918934171648

Not sure what idea of God he is thinking of though.

dr.fuzzenstein

manual_man wrote: »

I pray you wake up. Sincerely. The totalitarian nightmares of the 20th century were explicitly enabled by the indifference of the masses. Good day.

They were enabled by unbridled hate speech that got Hitler elected.
You will not understand this though...

Jelle1880

Deleted User wrote: »

But banning him on some of the largest platforms in the world is trying to suppress free speech.

Tune in Radio now has him banned as well, he's on another youtube alternative and he's on Shortwave which can be clearly heard here on 4840 Khz on Shortwave after about 10PM and sometimes 6115 Khz. And of course on his own app and site until that's shut down......

Only it's not.

Why do these private platforms HAVE to allow him on them ?

Christy42

Didn't he admit that it is all an act in a court of law? If so would it not be like the Simpsons not being on Netflix or some such (say they thought that the Simpsons was too offensive). Or more accurately Batman since his own lawyer compared his act to that of judging an actor for playing the Joker. Banning entertainment programs can hardly be considered the same as a news item and he can't have it both ways in my book.

I can absolutely see issues with the power Facebook, twitter etc. have in private hands. We saw these issues during the election and still see them. For me, banning an offensive entertainment program that tortured parents who lost children in horrific circumstances is not going to be a big issue.

Jelle1880

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Only it's not.

Why do these private platforms HAVE to allow him on them ?

The fact that they're so big and used for many people to communicate to the public.

Why create such a large platform ? for control perhaps ?

manual_man

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I think you misunderstand me.

If the US government would have banned him and/or locked him up I'd be totally with you. But this isn't what happened. Platforms have decided they do not want his content on it, just like a book store can decide not to sell a certain book or a record company not to sell someone's albums.

That doesn't mean these people can not get their message out, there are multiple platforms that would be more than happy to take him on.

Sorry but i find it very hard to believe that you are not aware of the combined power that the platforms (that have censored him) have between them. The digital space is in many ways monopolized and a brief investigation on how difficult it is for alternate platforms to compete on a level playing field will tell you all you need to know. But that requires that you are ACTUALLY interested in knowing about this. I pray that you are. Because the easiest thing in the world is to believe that those (in essence) in charge of the distribution of information are inherently virtuous in their intentions. Which would be DRASTICALLY foolish. Since the one universal in the history of mankind, is that those in positions of power and influence have REPEATEDLY abused it at the expense of the masses. Ignore this at your peril.

Jelle1880

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that they're so big and used for many people to communicate to the public.

Why create such a large platform ? for control perhaps ?

That doesn't answer my question though.

Of course these platforms are insanely powerful in swaying public opinion etc. but nobody has a divine right to be hosted on any of them.
Surely a proponent of the capitalist free market like Alex Jones can understand that

super_furry

It really sounds like people here are looking for the US government to interfere in the runnings and decisions of private companies. The ‘state shall seize the means of communication’ would be a play right out of the Karl Marx handbook.

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The fact that they're so big and used for many people to communicate to the public.

Why create such a large platform ? for control perhaps ?

Who created them? The state?
These are companies. They are not controlled by the state. They don't HAVE to host every piece of bullsh*t, you can't MAKE them.
Unless you want to change the law so it states that private companies must broadcast everything.
And that isn't the case.

batgoat

super_furry wrote: »

I disagree with you right off the bat. Alex Jones is not only trying to but is succeeding in radicalising people. All his rhetoric about taking to the streets in ‘rebellion’ about how people on the left are paedophiles looking to prey on their children, the very, very thinly veiled death threats to Thomas Mueller, et all.

To view this entire thing through a prism of right v left as you seem to be doing is worrying as you automatically appear to be ascribing a role of spokesman for the right to Alex Jones. In reality he’s every bit as guilty as trying to dehumanise his enemies and of attempting to radicalise his audience as Abu Hamza.

Yep, it's rubbish to say he doesn't radicalise. His key demographic are people who view their to be a war between the government and people. He's encouraged stockpiling of weapons and has claimed the government is planning genocides. He's also encouraged his audience to terrorise families of massacres. Seems like a pretty clear intent to radicalise and appeal to Ruby Ridge types.

dr.fuzzenstein

OK, time to use the old right wing defence.
Ahem:
"Those companies have done nothing illegal"
Get out of that one.

dr.fuzzenstein

And all this talk about "THERE WILL BE CIVIL WAR!"
Bull! sh*t!
There may be, at a push, a few deranged, inbred hillbillies with guns.
I wonder how they will fare against the combined might of police, civil defense and army?
Ooh, could be close!

tedpan

I can't believe he's only 44 years old. Truly shocking

Jelle1880

batgoat wrote: »

Yep, it's rubbish to say he doesn't radicalise. His key demographic are people who view their to be a war between the government and people. He's encouraged stockpiling of weapons and has claimed the government is planning genocides. He's also encouraged his audience to terrorise families of massacres. Seems like a pretty clear intent to radicalise and appeal to Ruby Ridge types.

And he was a prominent voice in the whole Pizzagate ****storm, indirectly leading to the shooting up of a Comet Ping Pong place in Washington DC. It took a potential lawsuit to have him apologise to the owner of the place.

manual_man

The real truth here is that the explicit content deemed to be hateful and abusive could be very easily removed from any of the platforms (as per their terms of use). It's the BLANKET banning of all content of any person (in this case Jones) which is totalitarian and anti freedom of speech which has so many people worried that it is simply censoring someone that certain people view as a (probably political?) threat. It's pathetic. I hope these platforms backtrack and re-commit to freedom of speech, while deleting PARTICULAR instances that clearly contravene their terms of service. Otherwise, hey, i guess it will be their death knell as more people are fighting against this nonsense. So long as alternate platforms can compete fairly(gaining exposure) to fill the gap, then everything can be fine. The deep worry is the monopoly on information that is held by certain tech companies gets to decide what and who gets exposure. I really hope you're right and i'm over-reacting, but honestly i can't see the precedent of BLANKET banning (by powerful tech companies which dominate the distribution of information) as leading to ANYTHING good, UNLESS of course we fight against it.

dr.fuzzenstein

Jelle1880 wrote: »

And he was a prominent voice in the whole Pizzagate ****storm, indirectly leading to the shooting up of a Comet Ping Pong place in Washington DC. It took a potential lawsuit to have him apologise to the owner of the place.

Judging by pizzagate, gamergate, Q anon and Alex Jones about 20% of people in the US are mentally ill to the point where they should nearly be locked up.
We're seeing an entire country go batsh*t insane here.

Wibbs

batgoat wrote: »

Yep, it's rubbish to say he doesn't radicalise. His key demographic are people who view their to be a war between the government and people. He's encouraged stockpiling of weapons and has claimed the government is planning genocides. He's also encouraged his audience to terrorise families of massacres. Seems like a pretty clear intent to radicalise and appeal to Ruby Ridge types.

+1000. And the guy was lining his own pockets with this dangerous shite. I'm dubious about censorship and a blanket ban, but of the pantheon of media trolls he is well up in the ranking.

Will I Am Not

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Judging by pizzagate, gamergate, Q anon and Alex Jones about 20% of people in the US are mentally ill to the point where they should nearly be locked up.
We're seeing an entire country go batsh*t insane here.

A guy I know bet me €5000 that both Obama and Hilary would be locked up by Christmas :pac:

dr.fuzzenstein

Will I Am Not wrote: »

A guy I know bet me €5000 that both Obama and Hilary would be locked up by Christmas :pac:

What will you do with the money?

MeTheMan

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Judging by pizzagate, gamergate, Q anon and Alex Jones about 20% of people in the US are mentally ill to the point where they should nearly be locked up.
We're seeing an entire country go batsh*t insane here.

Have a look at 'Who is America' on Channel 4 on Mondays. I'd be upping the 20% a bit.

Dohnjoe

Will I Am Not wrote: »

A guy I know bet me €5000 that both Obama and Hilary would be locked up by Christmas :pac:

Tell me you took it

and a side-bet on the current president being locked up by xmas

Will I Am Not

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

What will you do with the money?

Probably pay for a sky writer to fly over his house with personalised chemtrail messages.

Will I Am Not

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Tell me you took it

and a side-bet on the current president being locked up by xmas

Of course I did

Grayson

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Judging by pizzagate, gamergate, Q anon and Alex Jones about 20% of people in the US are mentally ill to the point where they should nearly be locked up.
We're seeing an entire country go batsh*t insane here.

When you consider how many don't believe in global warming or evolution it's a bit nuts. There seems to be an alternative counter culture there which is anti fact and anti reality. You see major right wing figures refer to things like gay marriage as a organised campaign to destroy families.
And people buy into this ****. Not everyone but enough people believe there's a campaign to stop them practicing their religion and to destroy their lives.

Captain Obvious

Jelle1880 wrote: »

For what it's worth, I'm loving his meltdown.

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1026508918934171648

Not sure what idea of God he is thinking of though.

Remember, this is a guy who has influence over the President of the USA.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

When you consider how many don't believe in global warming or evolution it's a bit nuts.

I believe in climate change , it's been changing since the dawn of time and will always change, the majority of the worlds climatologists may agree with each other but they represent a fraction of all other scientists out there.

Fact is when you depend on computer models you must accept a huge margin of error, junk data in, junk data out. It's easy to make wild headline grabbing claims that in 100 years the earth will be on fire etc when no one will be around to see it.

Some people have been killed in the heatwave this year but the media won't highlight the hundreds or more killed in the winter in Europe !

If people accept that climate change is caused by man then don't drive, burn coal, heat your home and disconnect your electricity and or embrace Nuclear power and when you're finished all that plant forest, Ireland is one of the most deforested lands in the European continent if not the most. We should plant real hardwood forest trees love co2 and so do plants and animals.

Ulysses Gaze

Taytoland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It goes against to essence of free speech. If you love him, that's your argument. If you hate him, you say it's a private platform.

Personally, I dislike him and think he's a wanker, but I don't think he should be taken off services which are pretty much public utilities at this point.


If Putin bought YouTube and promoted this stuff, people who supported the removal of Jones would implode and their argument would quickly change.

This I agree with. More I think about it more I think he shouldn't be banned.

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Remember, this is a guy who has influence over the President of the USA.

No one has influence over Trump. He wings it everyday because he's not a politician and can't believe he is President. The fact he is President says more about US and its people and system than anything else.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe in climate change , it's been changing since the dawn of time and will always change, the majority of the worlds climatologists may agree with each other but they represent a fraction of all other scientists out there.

jesus christ

off-topic, we gouged a fairly sizeable hole in the the Ozone, thankfully the internet didn't really exist back then so loons and denialists couldn't group together to deny it

We are currently ****ing up the environment, polluting the air, clogging the oceans with plastic - all of which is avoidable. Regardless of people's mental beliefs we shouldn't be doing it anyway. Heaven forbid we build a better world with renewable energy, cleaner air and less crap going into the atmosphere

Back to Jones - he feeds off people with low critical thinking skills and whilst we may dismiss him as "whacky", he has millions of easily persuaded and manipulated followers

Call Me Jimmy

mcmoustache wrote: »

If the young turks is threatening people and slandering the parents of shooting victims, give them the boot. The rules should be blind to politics.






There's plenty of hate on the left, it just seems to be more on the fringes. I pointed out some anti-white racism earlier in the thread so it's definitely out there. There's also leftist anti-semitism, not to be confused with anti-zionism.



There's a small problem with your desire to use statistics, though. If a social media company decides to get nazis and Klan members off their networks, the purge will overwhelmingly affect conservatives in the US. If they want to get rid of antisemitism, it'll be the same although it will also affect Muslims to a very high degree over here in europe. Some assholish behaviour is definitely carried out more by US conservatives than the crusties on the other end of the spectrum.

Fair enough, and I pointed out the young turks are in violation of hate speech policies after a 2 second google - they have a video celebrating the decline in population of white christians with a title 'Hey White Christians Your Time Is Almost Up!!!'. My point is not that I want them to be banned, but Alex was banned for hate speech if someone wanted the young turks banned either the company itself (say they're democratic socialist candidate was shaping up well for an election) or from outside pressure after conservative activism there would be justification to ban them.

The policies are bull****, have a read and you should be able to see that. Not to mention the weird scenario where all these companies happened to ban him in unison and none of them mentioning Sandy Hook, which most people cite as their justification. Even Ana and Cenk realise that Hate Speech policies for these platforms are more trouble than they're worth and see that it will come back round to them, so they cite things for which he wasn't banned for. Kyle from Secular talk has come out pretty strongly against it too.

Regarding statistics, they can be skewed but you've got some pretty blatant cases recently where the benefit of the doubt is giving to people on the left and people on the right are immediately banned, or Candace Owens, twitter made a 'mistake' by suspending her channel for posting the same as Jeong. I'm surprised the hundred original tweets by Jeong over a number of years never once were 'mistaken' for an offence or breach.

Just all too fishy for me. EDIT: Like what did he do to LinkedIn? Post hateful CVs?

Taytoland

If someone made a video title called "Hey brown Muslims, your time is almost up" people would say it is hate speech and would be outraged by it. So yes, if that Young Turks title is correct then following the logical conclusion of Alex Jones being banned then so should the Young Turks.

ancapailldorcha

Has anyone actually watched the video?

Call Me Jimmy

Taytoland wrote: »

If someone made a video title called "Hey brown Muslims, your time is almost up" people would say it is hate speech and would be outraged by it. So yes, if that Young Turks title is correct then following the logical conclusion of Alex Jones being banned then so should the Young Turks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhoIeAnUTZA&t=3s

includes Cenk doing a song and dance.

Venom

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000. And the guy was lining his own pockets with this dangerous shite. I'm dubious about censorship and a blanket ban, but of the pantheon of media trolls he is well up in the ranking.

Agreed but how far is too far when it comes to banning voices from the internet and at what point does it become a witchhunt?


The Sandyhook garbage he spouted was vile but also a couple of years ago, so why did so many platforms all acting within 12 hours of each other decide to pull the plug on him now and not back then? Why not just remove the content that breaks the super vague terms and conditions these platforms have instead of a total ban?



Why has Linkedin removed his account? The other platforms have some credibility for individually killing his account but Linkedin? Jones must have had one seriously outrageous CV to justify that.

Dohnjoe

Venom wrote: »

Agreed but how far is too far when it comes to banning voices from the internet and at what point does it become a witchhunt?

The platforms took their own decisions to ban or limit him, Boards bans people every day. There are common sense rules to using every platform, e.g. Twitter have decided he hasn't broken any of their rules yet so haven't kicked him off. His website is still available to view.

Call Me Jimmy

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The platforms took their own decisions to ban or limit him, Boards bans people every day. There are common sense rules to using every platform, e.g. Twitter have decided he hasn't broken any of their rules yet so haven't kicked him off. His website is still available to view.

So what rules did he break on LinkedIn? None? So it was in 'solidarity'? So people with a criminal record should be banned from LinkedIn, lose their ability to get a job? The point is the principles, and you can talk about the morality / intelligence of actions without having to say 'it's their right, therefore it's right'. You seem to think it's just Alex, but we will see. If you've watched how mob culture has evolved on the internet I don't know how you could think this boogey man is the end of it and it's always going to be something you agree with.

riffmongous

It does look a bit like a globalist conspiracy ironically.. but the solution? Wake up, get yourself angry, and.. go buy some super male vitality pills?

http://www.infowarsshop.com/Super-Male-Vitality-_p_1227.html

I'm not sure which is crazier, that he actually believes what he comes out with, or that he peddles his nonsense so he can sell dick pills to nutjobs

Call Me Jimmy

riffmongous wrote: »

It does look a bit like a globalist conspiracy ironically.. but the solution? Wake up, get yourself angry, and.. go buy some super male vitality pills?

http://www.infowarsshop.com/Super-Male-Vitality-_p_1227.html

I'm not sure which is crazier, that he actually believes what he comes out with, or that he peddles his nonsense so he can sell dick pills to nutjobs

Aye, but funnily enough the dick pills are the only way to guarantee he can still stay in business. Maybe paypal will have a moral duty to cancel his account.

Agent Smith

super_furry wrote: »

The gas thing about Alex Jones is that it's all a performance. He knows that the horrible things he's saying are lies, he knows that it's all nonsense but his audience eats it all up, he sells snake-oil food supplements that claim they'll improve your IQ and he's become a multi-millionaire off the back of it all.

Comrade.....

Venom

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The platforms took their own decisions to ban or limit him, Boards bans people every day. There are common sense rules to using every platform, e.g. Twitter have decided he hasn't broken any of their rules yet so haven't kicked him off. His website is still available to view.

Twitter is under investigation at the moment by the FCC and the administration. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it tho

riffmongous

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Aye, but funnily enough the dick pills are the only way to guarantee he can still stay in business. Maybe paypal will have a moral duty to cancel his account.

Not just staying in business though, but it seems he's gotten pretty damn rich off it. That John Oliver guy (who is of course biased but still) showed a clip of him explaining why he needed to wear a 6000 dollar watch, something to do with him needing to wear the skin of the globalist demons or something

Venom

riffmongous wrote: »

Not just staying in business though, but it seems he's gotten pretty damn rich off it. That John Oliver guy (who is of course biased but still) showed a clip of him explaining why he needed to wear a 6000 dollar watch, something to do with him needing to wear the skin of the globalist demons or something

People can make serious money from Youtube alone, add in selling crap or pateron and its money printing time.

dr.fuzzenstein

I think it's funny. The way some of his supporters bitch and moan, if it was the other way round, there would be several million posts about butthurt libtards crying for their safe spaces.
Seems like the other side has some very tender rectums indeed.

Call Me Jimmy

riffmongous wrote: »

Not just staying in business though, but it seems he's gotten pretty damn rich off it. That John Oliver guy (who is of course biased but still) showed a clip of him explaining why he needed to wear a 6000 dollar watch, something to do with him needing to wear the skin of the globalist demons or something

Yea just not sure of your point. I think people are being manipulated into thinking they should play the lottery 'it could be you' but I'd prefer people can do what they want then start protecting the great unwashed. I'm sure his supplements are pretty much the same as any others in their market. If he's doing stuff that breaks the law it'll have no problem catching up with him.

Ok maybe he's breaking policies of the sites that banned him, should he have the ability to earn a living or get rich by legal means? If one site bans you should all others? What about normal businesses?

It's going to be interesting to see how starkly opinions change when this flips on someone who decent people agree with, or who the other side have mobbed out of town.

Dohnjoe

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

So what rules did he break on LinkedIn?

Violated terms of service apparently. Their statement below.

"We have removed the InfoWars company page for violating our terms of service. We value the professional community on LinkedIn and strive to create a platform where the exchange of ideas by professionals can happen without harmful misinformation, bullying, harassment or hate.

We encourage our members to report any inappropriate content or behavior. We investigate and if it is in violation take action, which could include removing the content or suspending the account."

Call Me Jimmy

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Violated terms of service apparently. Their statement below.

"We have removed the InfoWars company page for violating our terms of service. We value the professional community on LinkedIn and strive to create a platform where the exchange of ideas by professionals can happen without harmful misinformation, bullying, harassment or hate.

We encourage our members to report any inappropriate content or behavior. We investigate and if it is in violation take action, which could include removing the content or suspending the account."

Of course but I'd be interested to see what he did there.

PlaneSpeeking

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Of course but I'd be interested to see what he did there.

I don't know that you can compare FB to Linkedin etc but after Martin McGuinness passed away I called John Major a "f***ing hypocritical ***" and was reported and banned for 24 hours.

A few weeks ago I was called a "stupid white English (sic) bi*tch who should f***ing die".

Apparently that did not violate FBs community standards. :rolleyes:

The Legend Of Kira

Brendan O'Neill from spiked online spoke very well about the banning of Alex Jones only makes his ideas go underground where they can,t be challenged as much.

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1026871825630945280

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Brendan O'Neill from spiked online spoke very well about the banning of Alex Jones only makes his ideas go underground where they can,t be challenged as much.

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1026871825630945280

I didnt realise there was anybody actually challenging his ideas, except in a court of law. There is nothing to challenge. You cant challenge bat**** crazy and Jones has no interest in a dialogue. And he still has his website so hardly underground. Leave him to his crazy supporters.