Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Hector Bellend

dark crystal wrote: »

Ok, insidious, delusional, divisive and hateful ramblings apart, then you must understand that platforms like Youtube, Facebook, iTunes etc. cannot continue to give a platform to someone who is being sued for defamation in two separate cases.


If his followers think him a martyr for Free Speech, they can still support him by subscribing to his insidious, delusional, divisive and hateful webshow, which is freely available to anyone inclined to listen to him. They can then vote for Trump again, which they would have done anyway, regardless of his platforms.

Of course I'm aware that these websites have certain terms of use. Most websites do.

suicide_circus

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

Grayson

L.Jenkins wrote: »

I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, but many are absolute dheads about it. Lauren Southern I see is one of these right wing antagonists who has her opinions and rightfully so, but she spends as much time if not more poking and prodding people for a reaction than anything else. Milo Yiannopoulos is just as bad if not worse, but he openly admits he gets a kick out of rubbing people up the wrong way.

There's an element within the right wing who are effectively trolls.

Hector Bellend

Grayson wrote: »

There's an element within the right wing who are effectively trolls.

That applies equally to the left wing.

DickSwiveller Returns

Sonics2k wrote: »

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

You speak of Orwellian as a bad thing, but you've also said that the Government should dictate the policies of private companies? Pick a side man.

Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech is a very simple really.

Freedom of Speech. That Trump bloke is a bit of a bell-end, isn't he.

Hate Speech. Let's literally kill Trump and his family.

Freedom of Speech. I'm not really comfortable with the concept of gay marriage.

Hate Speech. All the gays are pedos and should be burned alive.

The examples you gave are examples of incitement to violence, which is illegal

Grayson

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Yes. Very clearly. Isnt that the point of libel law?

You are however allowed say if you think it is or isn't. Just because a court will decide doesn't mean that you can't make up your own mind.

Do you think it's libellous when he says that the sandy hook families are actors? In other words, do you think he's making a false statement about them?

I realise there are details in the law that we might not be aware of but this is essentially what we are talking about and it's a pretty easy question.

Sonics2k

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Sonics2k wrote: »

The examples you gave are examples of incitement to violence, which is illegal

Which can also be viewed as hate speech.

Any response to Orwellian laws?

dark crystal

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

Aaah, the Hitchens defence. Free speech does not equate to no consequences. We have all faced consequences for things we have said and done throughout our lives - the internet is no different.


You can still freely listen to him on his webshow, just as you always could. I assume people that can access youtube, iTunes and Spotify can also access his webshow?

Call Me Jimmy

Sonics2k wrote: »

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

You speak of Orwellian as a bad thing, but you've also said that the Government should dictate the policies of private companies? Pick a side man.

Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech is a very simple really.

Freedom of Speech. That Trump bloke is a bit of a bell-end, isn't he.

Hate Speech. Let's literally kill Trump and his family.

Freedom of Speech. I'm not really comfortable with the concept of gay marriage.

Hate Speech. All the gays are pedos and should be burned alive.

Oh so simple. Anyone - whether they agree or disagree with the idea of hate speech laws - who describes them as simple is being intellectually dishonest. You know in Scotland you could easily be prosecuted for a hate crime with that post because 'context and intention' are irrelevant.

What is the difference between a hate crime and incitement to violence in your world then?

biko

Like the crazed dictator Idi Amin said

There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.

DickSwiveller Returns

Sonics2k wrote: »

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Which can also be viewed as hate speech.

No it can't. It's a specific category.

Any response to Orwellian laws?

I think when companies like google, facebook etc. have such a huge platform there is an argument for free speech laws being applied. Otherwise these companies will ban anyone who disagrees with whatever the current fashionable opinion is. The people who tend to get banned generally lie on one side of the political divide.

suicide_circus

dark crystal wrote: »

Aaah, the Hitchens defence. Free speech does not equate to no consequences. We have all faced consequences for things we have said and done throughout our lives - the internet is no different.



You can still freely listen to him on his webshow, just as you always could. I assume people that can access youtube, iTunes and Spotify can also access his webshow?

I've no idea, I'm not a fan of Jones. I just find this kind of coordinated action by the big platform monopolies sets my Orwellian spider senses tingling.

nullzero

This kind of blanket banning legitimizes the opinions Alex Jones and his followers have about how put upon they are and how important it is to re elect trump because cares so much about conspiracy theorist mid western types so much.
His content was what is was, banning any speech is troubling, I think we're better off knowing what fringe groups think and how they feel.

Hector Bellend

Grayson wrote: »

Don't push. Anyone who's unwilling to state that sandy hook was not staged obviously has problems with facts. They're never going to admit it.

Or they're just trolling and trying to score points.

Either way, they're not someone you can debate with.

I have not contradicted any facts or suggested that Sandy Hook was staged.

Neither have I condoned what Alex Jones has said or made any apologies for what he said.

I dont even listen to his show.

Hector Bellend

Grayson wrote: »

You are however allowed say if you think it is or isn't. Just because a court will decide doesn't mean that you can't make up your own mind.

Do you think it's libellous when he says that the sandy hook families are actors? In other words, do you think he's making a false statement about them?

I realise there are details in the law that we might not be aware of but this is essentially what we are talking about and it's a pretty easy question.

I've never suggested that it wasnt libelous at any point.

I've made no apologies for anything Alex Jones has said in the past or condoned him.

dark crystal

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I dont even listen to his show.

But you can. It's pretty easy to find and is open to anyone who wants to listen. Free too.

super_furry

nullzero wrote: »

This kind of blanket banning legitimizes the opinions Alex Jones and his followers have about how put upon they are and how important it is to re elect trump because cares so much about conspiracy theorist mid western types so much.
His content was what is was, banning any speech is troubling, I think we're better off knowing what fringe groups think and how they feel.

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.

Venom

Alex Jones has always been a water filter salesman who used conspiracy theories ranging from nonsense about frogs being turned gay to the vile Sandyhook remarks about the victims, to flog his crap to idiots.



It's not so much the fact he was dropped but the way he was dropped by almost every social media platform in the space of one day, that causes me concern for the future.

DickSwiveller Returns

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.

Do you have faith in these companies; that they're completely fair minded in who they ban and who they don't. Do you think it is possible that ideological bias can play a part in such bans. For example, Sarah Jeong, the journalist recently hired by the NY Times has spent years on twitter engaged in what some would consider 'hate speech' against white people, yet she is still there.

Dohnjoe

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I never suggested it was staged.

The question raised was whether "calling" it a hoax was libelous.

I stated that this will be decided in court as it is the subject of court proceedings.

There are several cases, I think its more to do with the victims and victim's relatives being falsely labeled or defamed by Jones than the event itself

I know that the famous case against Holocaust denier Irving ran into trouble because the judge made a comment along the lines of "how can he be accused of spreading false information, when he believes the information he is spreading" - or something along those lines

However in Jones' case, he immediately disowned his previous beliefs - they might be able to nail him on that, knowingly spreading false information in order to defame and libel victims of an attack

Ulysses Gaze

Venom wrote: »

Alex Jones has always been a water filter salesman who used conspiracy theories ranging from nonsense about frogs being turned gay to the vile Sandyhook remarks about the victims, to flog his crap to idiots.



It's not so much the fact he was dropped but the way he was dropped by almost every social media platform in the space of one day, that causes me concern for the future.

Wait a minute....what?

ArchXStanton

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Wait a minute....what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ePLkAm8i2s

Mike Hoch

briany wrote: »

I first heard of Jones when Danny Wallace was doing a series on SKY about conspiracies. Jones was one of the people Wallace talked to. Seemed a little less crazy, then. At the time, he was mainly known around Austin, Texas, where he was based.

I distinctly remember watching a programme featuring him pre 9/11, so I'm guessing 1999 to 2001. I could have sworn it was on Channel 4.

I then all but forgot about him until that Piers Morgan interview.

I'd love to find the old show. Who'd have thought 16 years later a loud fat lunatic ranting in his shed might just have swung a US election. Ironically I think it was that interview that made him a household name and, in turn, made people listen to him during the Trump campaign.

ohnonotgmail

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Do you have faith in these companies; that they're completely fair minded in who they ban and who they don't. Do you think it is possible that ideological bias can play a part in such bans. For example, Sarah Jeong, the journalist recently hired by the NY Times has spent years on twitter engaged in what some would consider 'hate speech' against white people, yet she is still there.

They haven't banned jones from Twitter. Twitter needs to up its game.

splashuum

Wether you like Alex or not is besides the point. Can people not see the monopoly these platforms now have ? This sort of draconian action has opened a seriously dangerous door.
All these companies got rid of Alex within hours of each other and not one of them were able to give or pinpoint a specific reason for the removal of his channels. They are now almost entirely controlling what we see and hear. The death of independent media looms!

Ulysses Gaze

ArchXStanton wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ePLkAm8i2s

Venom

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Do you have faith in these companies; that they're completely fair minded in who they ban and who they don't. Do you think it is possible that ideological bias can play a part in such bans. For example, Sarah Jeong, the journalist recently hired by the NY Times has spent years on twitter engaged in what some would consider 'hate speech' against white people, yet she is still there.

Candice Owens got a temporary ban from Twitter for breaking the terms of service when she retweeted some of Jeong's tweets just replacing white with black, yet all of Jeong's tweets are still on the platform.

ohnonotgmail

splashuum wrote: »

Wether you like Alex or not is besides the point. Can people not see the monopoly these platforms now have ? This sort of draconian action has opened a seriously dangerous door.
All these companies got rid of Alex within hours of each other and not one of them were able to give or pinpoint a specific reason for the removal of his channels. They are now almost entirely controlling what we see and hear. The death of independent media looms!

Eh... 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

Call Me Jimmy

splashuum wrote: »

Wether you like Alex or not is besides the point. Can people not see the monopoly these platforms now have ? This sort of draconian action has opened a seriously dangerous door.
All these companies got rid of Alex within hours of each other and not one of them were able to give or pinpoint a specific reason for the removal of his channels. They are now almost entirely controlling what we see and hear. The death of independent media looms!

I've seen Kyle (Secular Talk) and the Young Turks at least see the problem with this and they are two of the biggest left-leaning Youtube channels. Young Turks are anti hate-speech law but think the defamation and harassment of the Sandy Hook ordeal justifies it, even though that's not what he was banned for. And like oh above delighting in big tech companies banning regardless of the specifics they'll see that this will come back around to them.

Grayson

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Do you have faith in these companies; that they're completely fair minded in who they ban and who they don't. Do you think it is possible that ideological bias can play a part in such bans. For example, Sarah Jeong, the journalist recently hired by the NY Times has spent years on twitter engaged in what some would consider 'hate speech' against white people, yet she is still there.

She trolled some trolls. When someone trolled her with racist/offensive language she replied with the same language. She never initiated these contacts. Her current employer and her previous employer have both vouched for her. And she's apologised for any offence she may have caused.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets-backlash-racism

The irony is that you're complaining about freedom of speech whilst the alt right are trying to get people like her fired for a bad joke.

And to mention her in a thread about alex jones is just bad whatabouttery. She never trolled sandyhook survivors.