nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Kermit.de.frog

http://www.fox10tv.com/story/38822431/youtube-apple-and-facebook-remove-content-from-infowars-and-alex-jones

The lunatic has been removed from the asylum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH4WF-JUdR4

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Captain Obvious

2 Scoops wrote: »

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

Many of the people Jones attacks are victims or people who have not chosen the aspect of themselves he attacks. You don't choose to be the victim of a crime or transgender. You absolutely choose to be a Trump supporter. That's the difference.

2 Scoops wrote: »

Oh right

What about these then? The word white has been swapped out for black.

Salon is trash

2 Scoops

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Many of the people Jones attacks are victims or people who have not chosen the aspect of themselves he attacks. You don't choose to be the victim of a crime or transgender. You absolutely choose to be a Trump supporter. That's the difference.

I'm not defending Alex Jones, I'm looking for a definite answer as to what's considered hate speech and what isn't and how facebook should implement banning it.

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

Oh right :rolleyes:

What about these then? The word white has been swapped out for black.

Do you normally base the entirety of your opinion on the title of an article? Eg the one you linked to was clear and inoffensive. The effect of infowars is actually tangible though. The various people who have been accused of being 'crisis actors' by Alex Jones have had their lives ruined by Alex Jones. I can show tangible effects that have caused immense and unnecessary damage via infowars. You can't show such tangible effects besides some irritated Trump fans who apparently can't read beyond the title.

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Many of the people Jones attacks are victims or people who have not chosen the aspect of themselves he attacks. You don't choose to be the victim of a crime or transgender. You absolutely choose to be a Trump supporter. That's the difference.

Salon is trash

The science to back up the transgender claim? People can claim to be whatever they want and that is what freedom is all about. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

2 Scoops

batgoat wrote: »

Do you normally base the entirety of your opinion on the title of an article? Eg the one you linked to was clear and inoffensive. The effect of infowars is actually tangible though. The various people who have been accused of being 'crisis actors' by Alex Jones have had their lives ruined by Alex Jones. I can show tangible effects that have caused immense and unnecessary damage via infowars. You can't show such tangible effects besides some irritated Trump fans who apparently can't read beyond the title.

Those Republicans were shot up last year because a man became radicalized listening to Rachel Maddow, what's your point?

My point is that banning Infowars sets a terrible precedent and it's going open a huge can of worms and make political discourse even more hostile because you cannot properly implement a "hate speech" policy because it's definition is too broad and there will always be bias at play. The same thing goes for "fake news".

I'd said what I think, I don't agree with banning them not because I watch infowars, but because it sets a dangerous precedent. If you don't like something don't watch it, doing anything else in an open society is only going to bring problems.

Call Me Jimmy

2 Scoops wrote: »

I'm not defending Alex Jones, I'm looking for a definite answer as to what's considered hate speech and what isn't.

There is none. People on here have been claiming incitement to violence is hate speech. Facebook says 'violent speech' in the midst of page-long wordsalad. It'd be funny if it all wasn't true.

ohnonotgmail

mcmoustache wrote: »

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.

you're right, i'm being too harsh

ohnonotgmail

2 Scoops wrote: »

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.

they are in no way similar to infowars

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

And those Republicans were shot up last year because a man became radicalized listening to Rachel Maddow, what's your point?

My point is that banning Infowars sets a terrible precedent and it's going open a huge can of worms and make political discourse even more hostile.

I'm out.

Eh, he was liberal and was unwell. Just googled it, everyone denounced him including Maddow. While I'm not a fan of Maddow, she clearly held no responsibility in terms of what happened. Jones very much so, holds responsibility for the harassing and violent threats against Sandy Hook families, he claimed they were actors. Not remotely similar. He is currently being sued for it which likely influenced socially media banning Infowars.

You can say it opens a precedent as much as you want but Infowars has never been a news outlet. It's a conspiracy site which has claimed FEMA has death camps, 911 was an inside job, all the school massacres are false flags and Obama is from Kenya. Jones is a far right extremist. Not comparable to anyone mainstream on the left, he has always pushed a war mental. Everything will result in martial law was basically his daily claim. Not news, nutjob who is a bit of a scumbag who I hope is financially ruined via the lawsuit.

Franz Von Peppercorn

So Apple didn’t ban the Alex jones app?

I just checked and it’s number 7 in news downloads.

That’s insane.

Captain Obvious

Taytoland wrote: »

The science to back up the transgender claim? People can claim to be whatever they want and that is what freedom is all about. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You want me to prove being transgender is not a choice?

2 Scoops

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You want me to prove being transgender is not a choice?

Just before someone attacks me - I'm not saying this is the case for everyone or anywhere close to it, but there are examples of people legally changing sex for benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-legally-changes-sex-cheaper-car-insurance.html

"A Canadian man in his early 20s was unhappy with the high quote he got from his car insurance company, so he decided to do something about it: legally switch his gender from male to female."

Venom

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

There is none. People on here have been claiming incitement to violence is hate speech. Facebook says 'violent speech' in the midst of page-long wordsalad. It'd be funny if it all wasn't true.

When he had to testify before Congress, Mark Zuckerburg was asked to define what hate speech was and he stated he was unable to do so. How can a company then claim it's in the terms and conditions when the head of said company can't define what it is?

Venom

2 Scoops wrote: »

Just before someone attacks me - I'm not saying this is the case for everyone or anywhere close to it, but there are examples of people legally changing sex for benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-legally-changes-sex-cheaper-car-insurance.html

"A Canadian man in his early 20s was unhappy with the high quote he got from his car insurance company, so he decided to do something about it: legally switch his gender from male to female."

Some balls on that lad, oh wait.........

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

Those Republicans were shot up last year because a man became radicalized listening to Rachel Maddow, what's your point?

Did Maddow incite violence or otherwise take an action that would cause that guy to do that? Or did she report on something that wasn't correct?

I've heard you compare Maddow to Hannity before but this is still an odd one from you.

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You want me to prove being transgender is not a choice?

Yes. XX and XY chromosomes.

[Deleted User]

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

You see satire is a way of ridiculing someone, but in this case Jones would have to be making fun of who exactly? Himself? Crazy conspiracy theorists who are his biggest fans? If jones is mocking these beliefs, then is he actually a liberal himself??

mcmoustache

Alex Jones insists that it's perfectly OK to remove someone from a private platform.

https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1026904850800537600

Outlaw Pete

Yawn. Nobody has a problem with any private platform having rules ffs. They do however take issue with them being partisanly applied, especially when they suggest their ethos is not to do so.

[Deleted User]

mcmoustache wrote: »

Alex Jones insists that it's perfectly OK to remove someone from a private platform.

https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1026904850800537600

I can imagine Alex himself furiously re-regging there every few hours in order to post as the mods keep banning him :pac:

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yawn. Nobody has a problem with any private platform having rules ffs. They do however take issue with them being partisanly applied, especially when they suggest their ethos is not to do so.

I'm not seeing that. From what I can tell, Jones was being enough of a douche that some private companies no longer wanted to be associated with him.

Now, I get that he has been adopted and legitimised by Republicans in the US and I get that many self-described conservatives dislike when one of their own is being attacked but this is really just a case of private companies protecting their brand by getting rid of a douche.

He's not being picked on for being conservative; he's being picked on because he's a major asshole.

Call Me Jimmy

That is nothing to do with the point I've been making, someone mentioned boards has rules earlier as if that was a counter argument. Of course private companies can ban someone who breaks the rules, the problem is the rules are extremely vague and they have and will be applied for political purposes. It's so obvious and I would have thought impossible to deny in the light of the recent instances with Jeong and the director of the movie. It just so happens in Jeongs case that the people who define humour/satire seemingly agree with her for now. The principle or lack thereof will come back to bite you.

Right-wing activists will use the nebulous policies against the likes of the Young Turks, as I mentioned earlier "White Christians You're Time Is Almost Up!!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhoIeAnUTZA&t=3s. etc. the principle is you are willing to allow each side to shut each other down and giving the tech companies all the power they want. Whereas we could make a stand and instead of justifying it, uniting in making it clear to the those companies that we don't want this. But seemingly a lot of people do want it.

We could take the opportunity to oppose hate speech laws seeing the way they will be used but no, hate is violence. It's interesting that we couldn't name a single prominent lefty banned from twitter, facebook, youtube or spotify, I'd be interested to here one. Just statistically that should raise some red flags, but maybe some really believe hate can only manifest from the right?

Captain Obvious

2 Scoops wrote: »

Just before someone attacks me - I'm not saying this is the case for everyone or anywhere close to it, but there are examples of people legally changing sex for benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-legally-changes-sex-cheaper-car-insurance.html

"A Canadian man in his early 20s was unhappy with the high quote he got from his car insurance company, so he decided to do something about it: legally switch his gender from male to female."

That would be an example of someone who isn't transgender though.

Taytoland wrote: »

Yes. XX and XY chromosomes.

What do you mean by that?

mcmoustache

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Right-wing activists will use the nebulous policies against the likes of the Young Turks, as I mentioned earlier "White Christians You're Time Is Almost Up!!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhoIeAnUTZA&t=3s. etc. the principle is you are willing to allow each side to shut each other down and giving the tech companies all the power they want. Whereas we could make a stand and instead of justifying it, uniting in making it clear to the those companies that we don't want this. But seemingly a lot of people do want it.

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.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

We could take the opportunity to oppose hate speech laws seeing the way they will be used but no, hate is violence. It's interesting that we couldn't name a single prominent lefty banned from twitter, facebook, youtube or spotify, I'd be interested to here one. Just statistically that should raise some red flags, but maybe some really believe hate can only manifest from the right?

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.

Taytoland

You have people on US talk shows openly hoping that white people become a minority in the US and using rhetoric which if you put it in reverse would be called racism but no one is shouting for them to be silenced or thrown off air. A lot of this just comes down to what side you are on. If the comments are from your side you would be amazed at how blind people are to it. If it's from the other side they are in uproar about it.

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

You have people on US talk shows openly hoping that white people become a minority in the US and using rhetoric which if you put it in reverse would be called racism but no one is shouting for them to be silenced or thrown off air. A lot of this just comes down to what side you are on. If the comments are from your side you would be amazed at how blind people are to it. If it's from the other side they are in uproar about it.

Pretty fascinating that you guys are entirely ignoring a lawsuit over his treatment of the families of Sandy Hook. Their lives have been ruined even more. It's completely disgusting that you guys are ignoring the pretty terrible things that he is responsible for. The reason he does these thing is to rile up crazy people/conspiracy theorists as they're good for ad revenue and some even buy his bodybuilding pills.

Anthracite

Taytoland wrote: »

You have people on US talk shows openly hoping that white people become a minority in the US and using rhetoric which if you put it in reverse would be called racism

What, if you said that you hoped minorities would become minorities, that would be racism?

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Pretty fascinating that you guys are entirely ignoring a lawsuit over his treatment of the families of Sandy Hook. Their lives have been ruined even more. It's completely disgusting that you guys are ignoring the pretty terrible things that he is responsible for. The reason he does these thing is to rile up crazy people/conspiracy theorists as they're good for ad revenue and some even buy his bodybuilding pills.

I have already said that is wrong. But it's opening a can of worms. It's not just fringe elements who push conspiracy theories. I see plenty of it from US tv shows.

mcmoustache

Taytoland wrote: »

If the comments are from your side you would be amazed at how blind people are to it. If it's from the other side they are in uproar about it.

That's the problem right there. It's people viewing these things as though they're in one of two tribes which is nonsense. I try not to do that and I get into arguments with people who identify with both tribes. It's possible to believe that Jeong was making racist statements and at the same time see that Alex Jones was ditched because he was a libelous nutter that companies wouldn't want to be associated with and not as some conservative purge.

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

I have already said that is wrong. But it's opening a can of worms. It's not just fringe elements who push conspiracy theories. I see plenty of it from US tv shows.

It isn't. The average news outlet does not do what Alex Jones does, they don't encourage people to go after the families of tragedies or accuse them of being 'crisis actors', they don't claim that FEMA are running top secret death camps. They don't engage in any of the bollocks that Alex Jones does.