Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

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.

dark crystal

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. 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

But that Tweet isn't anything resembling hate speech. Can't you see the difference? Besides, as already stated, Twitter hasn't banned him anyhow.


I made my stance clear on the Sarah Yeong thread that I believe the NY times made a huge error hiring her, as her tweeting history is blatantly racist. Going forward they won't have a leg to stand on whenever Trump tweets something moronic/ offensive/ inflammatory if they have someone up to the same lark writing for them.

In Jones' case, surely the fact he's being sued by parents who lost their young children in a mass shooting he stated was a hoax, would make you question this guy's basic moral decency, no? If not, it's quite clear he just makes horrible sh!t up just to inflame and ignite division, hate and paranoia. If you want to ingest that poison, you can easily go to his website and listen to it to your heart's content. This isn't like Gerry Adams voice being muted in the 1980's. His speech is free and widely available, just not on certain platforms.

Billy86

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

My guess is it has more to do with his attempting to label the guy investigating Trump pa's a pedophile, and more importantly... threatening to murder him over politics. Which is otherwise known as terrorism.

mcmoustache

Grayson wrote: »

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

Like every opinion in the world, you can be sure that it has been expressed on the Internet. South African twitter probably has a heap of it.

I'm not sure how common it is since I don't follow those types but Sarah Jeong, who was recently added to the NYT editorial board, was in the news in the last few days for a bunch of racist anti-white tweets.

mcmoustache

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

Ah look, he's doing his best. It's not easy to find someone with as large an audience as Jones who also says anything remotely as legally questionable. It's a tough job to go out there and attempt to "both-sides" every issue when reality is against you so you should give him some credit.

Ipso

dark crystal wrote: »

But that Tweet isn't anything resembling hate speech. Can't you see the difference? Besides, as already stated, Twitter hasn't banned him anyhow.


I made my stance clear on the Sarah Yeong thread that I believe the NY times made a huge error hiring her, as her tweeting history is blatantly racist. Going forward they won't have a leg to stand on whenever Trump tweets something moronic/ offensive/ inflammatory if they have someone up to the same lark writing for them.

In Jones' case, surely the fact he's being sued by parents who lost their young children in a mass shooting he stated was a hoax, would make you question this guy's basic moral decency, no? If not, it's quite clear he just makes horrible sh!t up just to inflame and ignite division, hate and paranoia. If you want to ingest that poison, you can easily go to his website and listen to it to your heart's content. This isn't like Gerry Adams voice being muted in the 1980's. His speech is free and widely available, just not on certain platforms.

Yes, but this will most likely backfire.
In a perfect world, Jones would be bouncing of a rubber wall somewhere with one o f those nice jackets that has its arms going behind its back.
But unfortunately there are a lot of complete and utter deranged morons who lap his nonsense up.
He even had a presidential candidate go on his show.

2 Scoops

dark crystal wrote: »

If you want to ingest that poison, you can easily go to his website and listen to it to your heart's content.

I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election.

Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may not qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.

https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk )

In Jones' case, surely the fact he's being sued by parents who lost their young children in a mass shooting he stated was a hoax, would make you question this guy's basic moral decency, no?

I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I think you should allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.

Grayson

mcmoustache wrote: »

Like every opinion in the world, you can be sure that it has been expressed on the Internet. South African twitter probably has a heap of it.

I'm not sure how common it is since I don't follow those types but Sarah Jeong, who was recently added to the NYT editorial board, was in the news in the last few days for a bunch of racist anti-white tweets.

You said people kill all blacks is hate speech but kill all whites isn't. So you've never seen an occasion where someone said kill all white, never mind where it was tolerated?

How can you say that kill all whites is tolerated whereas kill all blacks isn't?

As for Sarah Jeong, that's whatabouttery since she didn't call for any group of people to be killed, and she was responding to trolls mimicking their own language. She never said any racist views except when already presented with that language.

As opposed to your example which was kill all whites/blacks or even what Alex Jones did when he said burn all drag queens.

batgoat

Man who is responsible for calling parents of Sandy Hook victims "actors" gets thrown off social media. Many families can't even visit their children's graves because of this ****. By serving his content, it's enabling him to create further scenarios like that and wrecking further vulnerable people's lives. Good riddance to him.

dark crystal

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election.

Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.

https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk )



I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I believe you allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.

I do understand your concerns, however I feel divisive rhetoric and hate speech has begun to inherently damage not just American Society, but it's also begun to infect much of the Western World.


The politics of hate and division, us against them etc. is doing so much harm, I can't properly express it. I genuinely feel like I'm back in the thirties and we haven't learned a god damn thing about what speech like this can do to a whole generation of people. Spreading hate like the rage virus in 28 Days Later. That, for me, sets a far more dangerous precedent than this hateful troll being booted off Facebook to be perfectly honest.

Conservatives should look at themselves long and hard if they consider someone like Alex Jones a martyr for their cause.

2 Scoops

Grayson wrote: »

You said people kill all blacks is hate speech but kill all whites isn't. So you've never seen an occasion where someone said kill all white, never mind where it was tolerated?

The NYT's literally just hired someone to their editorial board whose shared those views repeatably.

Call Me Jimmy

What about celebrating the decline of a population of people Grayson? Literally doing a song and dance in a video titled "Hey Brown Muslims White Christians, Your Time Is Almost Up!!!". None other than the Young Turks, so they should be gone?! video removed even? anything?

This is going to get out of hand real quick, I can't believe people are so naive. See Jeong, both sides are going to go mad getting each other censored and we all suffer.

2 Scoops

Just to add, if we're specifically talking about hate speech and applying the same standards, why are sites like Salon allowed to promote these type of articles on facebook without any repercussions?

https://www.salon.com/2015/12/22/white_men_must_be_stopped_the_very_future_of_the_planet_depends_on_it_partner/

"White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it
For 500 years, they’ve exploited their fellow man and plundered the planet. It’s time they rein themselves in"

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election.

Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may not qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.

https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk )

Come on, man. Saying "Fúck Trump" is hardly hate speech. If that's the closest thing you can find on the left to Alex Jones, fine, go ahead and beat to death that site that very few have even heard of, let alone take seriously.

2 Scoops wrote: »

I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I think you should allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.

Strangely enough, there has been a systemic anti conservative bias on social media. It's somewhat indirect. At a simple level, if enough people report a tweet that contains something like "those lazy nig*ers ...", then it comes to the attention of moderators. If the user who made that post has a history of such posts, they get banned.

This unfairly targets conservatives since this kind of language tends to be used more by people who identify as conservative than say, antifa, or whatever the "both-sides" equivalent of a nazi/klan collective is. The result of all this, is that all those conservatives who like to discuss things like hanging nig*ers or gassing k*kes end up feeling unfairly targeted.

batgoat

The actual banning of him might be related to the fact he's being sued by the Sandy Hook parents.. I fully support a platform banning a conspiracy site that has literally wrecked the lives of families who had children massacred. It's completely within their rights and you can't claim to be a news site when you make claims like that. It's not exactly a one off either, it's what the site has always done..

De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner have moved seven times since their son was killed in a school shooting in an effort to avoid the continuous death threats and other harassment. They now live hundreds of miles from Noah's grave.

“I would love to go see my son’s grave and I don’t get to do that," De La Rosa told The Times.
https://www.bustle.com/p/these-sandy-hook-parents-cant-even-visit-their-sons-grave-because-of-harassment-9958926

Grayson

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election.

Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may not qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.

https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk )



I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I think you should allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.

just scrolling through the first page it's just the guy using the work fcuk in tweets. You do realise that swearing isn't hate speech or even hatred?

I don't get how someone can compare someone saying "Fcuk Trump" with what Jones does.

(Note: I'd never heard of Palmer until today but he seems like a bit of loon who touts conspiracy stories. Although his stuff seems rubbish picking on the fact that he uses the work fcuk is really strange)

mcmoustache

Grayson wrote: »

You said people kill all blacks is hate speech but kill all whites isn't. So you've never seen an occasion where someone said kill all white, never mind where it was tolerated?

How can you say that kill all whites is tolerated whereas kill all blacks isn't?

As for Sarah Jeong, that's whatabouttery since she didn't call for any group of people to be killed, and she was responding to trolls mimicking their own language. She never said any racist views except when already presented with that language.

As opposed to your example which was kill all whites/blacks or even what Alex Jones did when he said burn all drag queens.

Well, these people are still on facebook. Information taken from here

The point that I was making was about consistency.

If you're going to suggest to me that anti-black racism is treated in the same way as anti-white racism, I have a bridge to sell you. If you feel that Jeong's racism should be seen as some kind of joke or mimicry, you're a walking demonstration of anti-white and anti-black racism being treated differently.

A Gauteng government official, Velaphi Khumalo, in 2016 stated on Facebook "White people in South Africa deserve to be hacked and killed like Jews. [You] have the same venom. Look at Palestine. [You] must be [burnt] alive and skinned and your [offspring] used as garden fertiliser".[32] A complaint was lodged at the Human Rights Commission and a charge of crimen injuria was laid at the Equality Court, however, as of 2018, no conviction has occurred.[33]

In March 2018 a screenshot of a controversial Facebook post allegedly written by EFF Ekurhuleni leader Mampuru Mampuru surfaced. The post read "We need to unite as black People, there are lessthan 5 million whites in South Africa vs 45 million of us. We can kill all this white within two weeks. We have the army and the police. If those who are killing farmers can do it what are you waiting for. Shoot the boer, kill the farmer." [sic]. Mampuru denies making the statement.[34]

2 Scoops

Grayson wrote: »

just scrolling through the first page it's just the guy using the work fcuk in tweets. You do realise that swearing isn't hate speech or even hatred?

Many of his tweets are based in hate and violent rhetoric. He's no different to Jones in that regard.



I'd love someone to explain how those Salon stories which they regularly publish attacking white people aren't considered hate speech. Their facebook page has 1 million likes and there's MANY sites like Salon promoting the same viewpoints.

"The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe."

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

Many of his tweets are based in hate and violent rhetoric. He's no different to Jones in that regard.



I'd love someone to explain how those Salon stories which they regularly publish attacking white people aren't considered hate speech. Their facebook page has 1 million likes.

I'll repeat, families lives have been further ruined because of claims of families of victims being actors.... You are not comparing like with like and are ignoring what Jones has been doing for years.

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

So the likes of Salon are promoting hate speech?

I don't actually agree there was anything racist about the article you linked to, did you read beyond the title? It's actually pretty well thought out as an article and you'd really have to be searching to be offended. It's also written by a white guy.

2 Scoops

batgoat wrote: »

I'll repeat, families lives have been further ruined because of claims of families of victims being actors.... You are not comparing like with like and are ignoring what Jones has been doing for years.

I haven't said otherwise, I've used it an an example to show there's similar sites to infowars that engage in hate and fake news to make money.

I'm looking for an answer as to what's considered hate speech and what facebook should deem tolerable since they've set the precedent.