Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

I blame the ultra liberal media and RTE for making people here blind as to what's really happening, whether you like Jones or Watson it really marks the end of free speech on the internet.

Perhaps this was the plan all along ? get as many people as possible on the internet with Complete control of media content ?

Free speech means expressing your views and others may not like that , so what, it's life, grow up !

North Korean style "INTRAnet" it's coming .........

manual_man

manual_man wrote: »

We ALL need to fight against this. This 100% AFFECTS US ALL. I can't stand Alex Jones myself, but i 100% stand by his ability to make a fool of himself. The co-ordinated nature of his removal from various platforms should SEND A CHILL DOWN ALL OUR SPINES. And if we care in the SLIGHTEST for the freedoms that we enjoy (that were HARD fought for by our predecessors) then we ABSOLUTELY need to fight back against this CENSORSHIP and infringement on free speech that can ONLY lead down a slippery slope and be used to censor those who hold (ANY)opposing opinions going forward. FIGHT BACK against this evil. Fight back against Totalitarianism. America, nor anywhere else, is not immune from this EVIL. Subduing speech has been the principal tool of evil in the past, is the principal tool of evil in the present, and will be the principal tool of evil in the fiture, UNLESS we fight back in unity against it.

Peace out, motherfúckers.

You can see it and I can see it but many people here can not and that worries me a lot, more than anything.

manual_man

Deleted User wrote: »

You can see it and I can see it but many people here can not and that worries me a lot, more than anything.

Well we can only pray that eyes are opened. For, if not, and i am absolutely not exaggerating here, then the possibility exists that the next totalitarian nightmare, accompanied by the loss of millions of lives, is just around the corner.

Jelle1880

manual_man wrote: »

Well we can only pray that eyes are opened. For, if not, and i am absolutely not exaggerating here, then the possibility exists that the next totalitarian nightmare, accompanied by the loss of millions of lives, is just around the corner.

That's not dramatic at all.

I get that your previous post could have been straight out of The Sun with all those capitalised words, but removing one crackpot conspiracy theorist from some platforms (who really is only in it to peddle his scam products) doesn't equate mass murder of millions.

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You can see it and I can see it but many people here can not and that worries me a lot, more than anything.

For all the people shouting about free speech:

I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

It's very simple. You may have a right to say stuff, but you can still be moved on, thrown out or get your head split open.
It doesn't mean I HAVE to listen to it or facilitate it.
Of course some agenda driven people don't WANT to get this.
So for your counter arguments, I refer you back to this post.
"But! But! Free speech!"
Please read the above.

edit:
It's the same on Boards ferchrissake, you'd have to be a special kinda thick to not get this.
YOU DON'T GET TO SAY WHATEVER THE FCUK YOU WANT!

Be an asshole = your ass thrown out.
Do I need to explain this with a book with big pictures and dogs and balls?
Are you over 5?
Is your IQ?
Then it should be crystal.

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

You can see it and I can see it but many people here can not and that worries me a lot, more than anything.

Do you feel the same way about the likes of Abu Hamza, Muslim radicalsists and those seeking to use YouTube and Facebook to radicalise younger people?

P_1

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

For all the people shouting about free speech:





It's very simple. You may have a right to say stuff, but you can still be moved on, thrown out or get your head split open.
It doesn't mean I HAVE to listen to it or facilitate it.
Of course some agenda driven people don't WANT to get this.
So for your counter arguments, I refer you back to this post.
"But! But! Free speech!"
Please read the above.

I'd generally agree with that but in this case it seems to be companies rather than people showing him the door. Atm were in a rather liberal phase particularly where these companies are concerned but it does set a rather chilling precedent. Imagine if the world were to take a swing to the right.

manual_man

Jelle1880 wrote: »

That's not dramatic at all.

I get that your previous post could have been straight out of The Sun with all those capitalised words, but removing one crackpot conspiracy theorist from some platforms (who really is only in it to peddle his scam products) doesn't equate mass murder of millions.

Perhaps you don't get it. Perhaps you are willingly blind to the possibility of what this could lead to (and which i, and others, have explicitly laid out).

You may gleefully think that 'ooh this content that i don't like has now been demoted', but that is to entirely to miss the point. This is akin to digital book burning. Those with aspirations of power see that they can justify ANYTHING they see as inappropriate worthy of censorship or elimination from certain platforms. Opposition voices (regardless of how absurd any one voice may be) are vital to a functioning democracy. If you wish for totalitarianism and the erosion of personal freedoms, then you should support this co-ordinated move by these powerful digital platforms. On the other hand, if you believe the freedom you presently enjoy (i repeat PRESENTLY) to express your opposition to any given idea is something WORTHY of fighting for, then by god you should fight for it.

cursai

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

For all the people shouting about free speech:





It's very simple. You may have a right to say stuff, but you can still be moved on, thrown out or get your head split open.
It doesn't mean I HAVE to listen to it or facilitate it.
Of course some agenda driven people don't WANT to get this.
So for your counter arguments, I refer you back to this post.
"But! But! Free speech!"
Please read the above.

edit:
It's the same on Boards ferchrissake, you'd have to be a special kinda thick to not get this.
YOU DON'T GET TO SAY WHATEVER THE FCUK YOU WANT!

Be an asshole = your ass thrown out.
Do I need to explain this with a book with big pictures and dogs and balls?
Are you over 5?
Is your IQ?
Then it should be crystal.

What's the first amendment?

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

Do you feel the same way about the likes of Abu Hamza, Muslim radicalsists and those seeking to use YouTube and Facebook to radicalise younger people?

I don't think Alex Jones is trying to radicalise anyone .

Parents should be held accountable for what some of these younger kids get up to on the internet, there's a responsibility we all have as parents to teach our Children right from Wrong and limit and/or remove smart phones and tablets and the internet if it's necessary for their health and Children under 17 , in my opinion of course should not be allowed smart phones and tables with access to the internet.

I've said it before that Children should not be allowed access to facebook and certainly not the internet without supervision.

This is about the Left against the Right and the Right against the Left.

The Right is trying to express an opinion the left does not want to hear, so the left shuts off more communication to try shut up the right. I see that as a problem in fairness.

Social media is bad for young peoples mental health at the end of the day, I'm not saying that but the experts are.

P_1

P_1 wrote: »

I'd generally agree with that but in this case it seems to be companies rather than people showing him the door. Atm were in a rather liberal phase particularly where these companies are concerned but it does set a rather chilling precedent. Imagine if the world were to take a swing to the right.

What we need is a balance, we need both sides to listen to each other rather than trying to shut the other up because they might hear what they don't want to hear.

And we certainly don't want a liberal agenda forced upon us.

dr.fuzzenstein

cursai wrote: »

What's the first amendment?

2nd panel me old buddy me lad.

Jelle1880

manual_man wrote: »

Perhaps you don't get it. Perhaps you are willingly blind to the possibility of what this could lead to (and which i, and others, have explicitly laid out).

You may gleefully think that 'ooh this content that i don't like has now been demoted', but that is to entirely to miss the point. This is akin to digital book burning. Those with aspirations of power see that they can justify ANYTHING they see as inappropriate worthy of censorship or elimination from certain platforms. Opposition voices (regardless of how absurd any one voice may be) are vital to a functioning democracy. If you wish for totalitarianism and the erosion of personal freedoms, then you should support this co-ordinated move by these powerful digital platforms. On the other hand, if you believe the freedom you presently enjoy (i repeat PRESENTLY) to express your opposition to any given idea is something WORTHY of fighting for, then by god you should fight for it.

Mate, you're getting upset over something that's not gonna happen.

Sure, you can moan all you want about free speech (although as shown this doesn't infringe on it at all) but to then immediately jump to oppressive regimes and the murder of millions is just a bit crazy. You make it seem like he's locked up for his opinion.

He's still perfectly able to spout his bull**** on his own website and other platforms.

P_1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What we need is a balance, we need both sides to listen to each other rather than trying to shut the other up because they might hear what they don't want to hear.

And we certainly don't want a forced liberal agenda forced upon us.

Indeed. The lack of hearing out the other side of an argument, which is largely led by the extremes in both sides is bloody annoying and starting to get dangerous.

What do you mean by a forced liberal agenda though? If that means people treating other people with kindness then I'm all for that

manual_man

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Mate, you're getting upset over something that very likely won't happen.

Sure, you can moan all you want about free speech (although as shown this doesn't infringe on it at all) but to then immediately jump to oppressive regimes and the murder of millions is just a bit crazy.

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

Jelle1880

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Mate, you're getting upset over something that's not gonna happen.

Sure, you can moan all you want about free speech (although as shown this doesn't infringe on it at all) but to then immediately jump to oppressive regimes and the murder of millions is just a bit crazy. You make it seem like he's locked up for his opinion.

He's still perfectly able to spout his bull**** on his own website and other platforms.

I'm not really sure about that, you take the largest 3 companies in the World with major audiences and then suppress opinions that you do not want expressed , I'd say that comes pretty close, it's still censorship no matter how you look at it.

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think Alex Jones is trying to radicalise anyone .

Parents should be held accountable for what some of these younger kids get up to on the internet, there's a responsibility we all have as parents to teach our Children right from Wrong and limit and/or remove smart phones and tablets and the internet if it's necessary for their health and Children under 17 , in my opinion of course should not be allowed smart phones and tables with access to the internet.

I've said it before that Children should not be allowed access to facebook and certainly not the internet without supervision.

This is about the Left against the Right and the Right against the Left.

The Right is trying to express an opinion the left does not want to hear, so the left shuts off more communication to try shut up the right. I see that as a problem in fairness.

Social media is bad for young peoples mental health at the end of the day, I'm not saying that but the experts are.

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.

Jelle1880

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.

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.

dav3

For people concerned about poor Alexander, just continue buying his snake oil health supplements, that way the multi-millionaire will be able to continue living the lifestyle he is accustomed to.

Who knows, you may even develop a body as amazing as his. Remember though, you're not the crazy one, it's everyone else who's crazy. This is all a conspiracy from the liberal, commie, nazi, leftist, MSM to silence the truth.

Jelle1880

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.

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......

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.