Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 01:22PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

an order on a blanket basis like this would quickly be found unconstitutional. It is nonsense to even suggest it.

with less hate speech in the public domain. A good thing.

" Hate speech " is a very broad subjective term, what one might consider to be " hate speech " others will consider legitimate argument or legitimate form of protest, take for example people who urge
" boycott Israel " some may consider this to be a legitimate form of protest but some might and have considered this to be " hate speech "-some people may or may be aware that in recent years some activists in France were found guilty of " hate speech " after being brought before the courts, now if people can found guilty of " hate speech " for urging a boycott, social media platforms can also clamp down on people who put posts urging " boycott Israel " under the guise of " hate speech ", to quote an old saying " Be careful what you wish for " if you support censorship.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

Call Me Jimmy · 10-08-2018 01:30PM

The Young Turks don't even agree with having these 'hate speech' policies and I can't imagine there's anyone who hates Alex Jones more than Cenk or Ana. Some people don't even want to think about. Hate speech works for them now. I haven't seen a big left-leaning channel that agrees with hate speech policies, maybe The Majority Report does I haven't seen their take on it.

Venom · 10-08-2018 01:54PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

The Young Turks don't even agree with having these 'hate speech' policies and I can't imagine there's anyone who hates Alex Jones more than Cenk or Ana. Some people don't even want to think about. Hate speech works for them now. I haven't seen a big left-leaning channel that agrees with hate speech policies, maybe The Majority Report does I haven't seen their take on it.

That's the key point, what works for them now. It's funny how the people who were so happy over Roseanne getting the boot were then upset when the same was done to James Gunn. Anyone who thinks Jones getting mass de-platformed is a one-off case is a fool.

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 02:01PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's been argued right from the start, but "oh no, big, bad censorship is coming for free speech, rabble, rabble!".
Bullsh*t.

Do I really have to keep posting this every few pages? Seems like I do.

There is no argument about this. Any argument can be dealt with be referring to one of the panels.

Please note Im not the creator of this meme, buts its worth posting in response.

The argument that censorship can only come from the government, what has to be taken into account is Congress has lobbied tech companies recently to ban certain pages, if the tech companies are bowing to political pressure then yes it is censorship when political pressure succeeds in getting stuff removed online.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/17/17581444/facebook-hearing-judiciary-committee-twitter-google

A recent poll showed over 40% thinks Trump should have the power to shut down media outlets, hypothetically speaking if he did have such power & did close down media outlets Id see that as censorship in the same way as tech companies bowing to political pressure to remove certain social media pages.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media

WinnyThePoo · 10-08-2018 02:17PM

That meme is highly stupid. Jones broke the rules of a number of platforms . He hasn't been silenced .

Christy42 · 10-08-2018 02:22PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's been argued right from the start, but "oh no, big, bad censorship is coming for free speech, rabble, rabble!".
Bullsh*t.

Do I really have to keep posting this every few pages? Seems like I do.

There is no argument about this. Any argument can be dealt with be referring to one of the panels.

Please note Im not the creator of this meme, buts its worth posting in response.

The argument that censorship can only come from the government, what has to be taken into account is Congress has lobbied tech companies recently to ban certain pages, if the tech companies are bowing to political pressure then yes it is censorship when political pressure succeeds in getting stuff removed online.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/17/17581444/facebook-hearing-judiciary-committee-twitter-google

A recent poll showed over 40% thinks Trump should have the power to shut down media outlets, hypothetically speaking if he did have such power & did close down media outlets Id see that as censorship in the same way as tech companies bowing to political pressure to remove certain social media pages.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media

It is not censorship anymore than Netflix refusing to show my home videos is censorship. Facebook do not have an obligation to show anyone who wants to talk. They have been removing IS videos and Russian Trolls (with mixed levels of success at best) for ages now. Few complained (and people did not complain for good reason).

So should Netflix be forced to host my home videos? What is the difference between them and Facebook not hosting Alex Jones?

Alex Jones has freedom of speech still. No one has shut down his website. Similarly I am free to host my own home movies on my own site. No one has kept him quiet or censored him. They have simply not given him the megaphone. The fact that he still talking is proof of that.

Finally Trump shutting down the press for disagreeing with him would be a complete violation of freedom of speech in the xkcd sense. It would literally be the government shutting down dissenting opinion and not the same as Facebook not providing a platform for Alex Jones. That is a false equivalence.

The quotes are also nonsensical in this scenario. Jones has not lost the ability to offend. He has that still. He has his website. The fact that not everyone is helping him broadcast his insults is not censorship.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-08-2018 02:27PM

If people think Alex Jones can say whatever the phuk he wants, Maxine Waters should be free to call for the harassment of Trump admin staff in public.
Free speech, right?

Call Me Jimmy · 10-08-2018 02:33PM

Christy42 wrote: »

It is not censorship anymore than Netflix refusing to show my home videos is censorship. Facebook do not have an obligation to show anyone who wants to talk. They have been removing IS videos and Russian Trolls (with mixed levels of success at best) for ages now. Few complained (and people did not complain for good reason).

So should Netflix be forced to host my home videos? What is the difference between them and Facebook not hosting Alex Jones?

Alex Jones has freedom of speech still. No one has shut down his website. Similarly I am free to host my own home movies on my own site. No one has kept him quiet or censored him. They have simply not given him the megaphone. The fact that he still talking is proof of that.

Finally Trump shutting down the press for disagreeing with him would be a complete violation of freedom of speech in the xkcd sense. It would literally be the government shutting down dissenting opinion and not the same as Facebook not providing a platform for Alex Jones.

We've already seen middleware providers starting to get involved for example with gab (an alternative to Twitter) receiving notices from Microsoft Azure, so the software that runs the servers for the website. Using the principles of people on this thread, companies at any part of the chain hosting Alex Jones website or content should stop providing services to him because they're private companies, just a bit of public pressure and they should fold too.

There is no moral or principled position, simply that they are right. No foresight. I haven't seen a single response to the idea of hatespeech other than that it's incitement to violence which it is not.

Evena US Senetor has already called for other channels to be shut down, 'democracy depends on it'. Why do you think creators who are basically enemies of alex jones don't like this idea? It really matters what you define as hate speech, hateful speech, dehumanising language, 'disrespect' to quote Apple. Because everyone is now looking for it and whoever is next, their time will be up.

If it wasn't for the law prohibiting it I imagine philosophically people wouldn't mind the telecom companies refusing to do business with him.

Venom · 10-08-2018 03:10PM

Christy42 wrote: »

So should Netflix be forced to host my home videos? What is the difference between them and Facebook not hosting Alex Jones?

If Netflix were in the same business of hosting user-uploaded content like Youtube, Facebook and other social media sites, then yes they should have to host your home videos. The difference is that Netflix is a publisher of content and not a distributor of content the way the social media platforms are.

ohnonotgmail · 10-08-2018 03:12PM

Venom wrote: »

If Netflix were in the same business of hosting user-uploaded content like Youtube, Facebook and other social media sites, then yes they should have to host your home videos. The difference is that Netflix is a publisher of content and not a distributor of content the way the social media platforms are.

so you are saying that FB and YT are OBLIGED to show anybodies home video?

batgoat · 10-08-2018 03:20PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

" Hate speech " is a very broad subjective term, what one might consider to be " hate speech " others will consider legitimate argument or legitimate form of protest, take for example people who urge
" boycott Israel " some may consider this to be a legitimate form of protest but some might and have considered this to be " hate speech "-some people may or may be aware that in recent years some activists in France were found guilty of " hate speech " after being brought before the courts, now if people can found guilty of " hate speech " for urging a boycott, social media platforms can also clamp down on people who put posts urging " boycott Israel " under the guise of " hate speech ", to quote an old saying " Be careful what you wish for " if you support censorship.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

Hate speech is pretty much unrecognised in the US. However websites are private companies and can recognise it and remove it. Depending on which country they are accessed from, they may be required to not display certain content. Eg Nazi accounts on twitter don't show in Germany and France.

In general most countries don't have absolute freedom of speech. This is reasonable. Eg I don't think there is a benefit to allowing unfettered racism or homophobia. Particularly when it's targeted.

In terms of private websites regulating it. The reality is, we know Facebook and Co are poor at moderation. The key reason it took years for them to remove him is because he's high profile and such accounts are viewed as profitable to Facebook. Eg Britain First were constantly being racist and only recently were removed. So frankly, I think hateful accounts are given a lot of freedom before they face any bans. Not a death knell for freedom of speech when it finally comes about and it very much so is deserved.

Christy42 · 10-08-2018 03:38PM

Venom wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

So should Netflix be forced to host my home videos? What is the difference between them and Facebook not hosting Alex Jones?

If Netflix were in the same business of hosting user-uploaded content like Youtube, Facebook and other social media sites, then yes they should have to host your home videos. The difference is that Netflix is a publisher of content and not a distributor of content the way the social media platforms are.

Netflix is both a publisher and a distributor. They have just been more up front than the social media giants from the start about being picky. Don't doubt which shows they go after is politically motivated on the basis of their user base. However their main reason is they don't want to waste space hosting shows that won't make them subscribers. Facebook generally just wants page hits for add revenue and so just wants that. Hence the more open business model. If Netflix thought more people would sign (enough to counter hosting costs) on if they allowed uploads they would add that button in a heartbeat.

We are getting to the point of what should be done about it? Should they be forced to host videos if they subscribe to a particular business model?

What about boards or reddit? Should it be unable to decide how it is moderated. I mean Jones didn't use those platforms but you could absolutely see them being used for a similar purpose by simply posting transcriptions from the show. Or image sharing websites.

Venom · 10-08-2018 03:46PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are saying that FB and YT are OBLIGED to show anybodies home video?

Pretty much yes. The rules they operate under that prevent them from being liable in lawsuits means they are not allowed to decide what can or can't be hosted within reason. The issue is these companies have such vague terms and conditions, its hard to know what goes against the rules in some cases.

Christy42 · 10-08-2018 03:55PM

Venom wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are saying that FB and YT are OBLIGED to show anybodies home video?

Pretty much yes. The rules they operate under that prevent them from being liable in lawsuits means they are not allowed to decide what can or can't be hosted within reason. The issue is these companies have such vague terms and conditions, its hard to know what goes against the rules in some cases.

Given they decided the rules in the first place that means they do get to decide.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-08-2018 04:09PM

Venom wrote: »

Pretty much yes. The rules they operate under that prevent them from being liable in lawsuits means they are not allowed to decide what can or can't be hosted within reason. The issue is these companies have such vague terms and conditions, its hard to know what goes against the rules in some cases.

So, YT and FB MUST show every SINGLE video ANYONE uploads and can NEVER remove it?
Funny, didn't know that. You learn something every day. I will upload a beheading video to YT and see how that goes.
Or maybe you are presenting us, ahem, alternate facts?

end of the road · 10-08-2018 04:18PM

Venom wrote: »

Pretty much yes. The rules they operate under that prevent them from being liable in lawsuits means they are not allowed to decide what can or can't be hosted within reason. The issue is these companies have such vague terms and conditions, its hard to know what goes against the rules in some cases.

they are also very inconsistent in terms of what they will remove or not and what they consider to be a breach of their terms and conditions.

Venom · 10-08-2018 04:40PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So, YT and FB MUST show every SINGLE video ANYONE uploads and can NEVER remove it?
Funny, didn't know that. You learn something every day. I will upload a beheading video to YT and see how that goes.
Or maybe you are presenting us, ahem, alternate facts?

Guess you missed the "within reason" part of my comment :rolleyes:

Maybe you need to learn how to read.

ohnonotgmail · 10-08-2018 04:41PM

Venom wrote: »

Pretty much yes. The rules they operate under that prevent them from being liable in lawsuits means they are not allowed to decide what can or can't be hosted within reason. The issue is these companies have such vague terms and conditions, its hard to know what goes against the rules in some cases.

you will have to tell me what you think these rules are that prevent them from deciding what they host.

Venom · 10-08-2018 04:45PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you will have to tell me what you think these rules are that prevent them from deciding what they host.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House of Representatives, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor.[1] Unlike the more controversial anti-indecency provisions which were later ruled unconstitutional,[2] this portion of the Act remains in force and allows ISPs and other service providers to restrict customers' actions without fear of being found legally liable for the actions that are allowed. The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision.[4] Under that court's holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher.I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted § 230's broad immunity "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material."I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I In addition, Zeran notes "the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is . . . staggering. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect."

Call Me Jimmy · 10-08-2018 04:51PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you will have to tell me what you think these rules are that prevent them from deciding what they host.

In this instance you can argue they were just enforcing their terms of service. As I've pointed out there are blatant breaches of the same terms by giant channels like the Young Turks that are 'overlooked'. Their own horribly written policies means there is an endless supply of justification to shutdown a large swathe of channels. I think as more channels are pressured to be shut down they are going to be in a very awkward position.

ohnonotgmail · 10-08-2018 05:22PM

Venom wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House of Representatives, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor.[1] Unlike the more controversial anti-indecency provisions which were later ruled unconstitutional,[2] this portion of the Act remains in force and allows ISPs and other service providers to restrict customers' actions without fear of being found legally liable for the actions that are allowed. The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision.[4] Under that court's holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher.I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted § 230's broad immunity "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material."I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I In addition, Zeran notes "the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is . . . staggering. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect."

how does that create an obligation for FB or YT to host any content? that is about what they are allowed to delete. It does not create an obligation to host anything.

ohnonotgmail · 10-08-2018 05:24PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

In this instance you can argue they were just enforcing their terms of service. As I've pointed out there are blatant breaches of the same terms by giant channels like the Young Turks that are 'overlooked'. Their own horribly written policies means there is an endless supply of justification to shutdown a large swathe of channels. I think as more channels are pressured to be shut down they are going to be in a very awkward position.

I'm sure there are. FB and YT should enforce their rules consistently. That doesnt mean they were wrong to ban Jones.

Call Me Jimmy · 10-08-2018 05:40PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure there are. FB and YT should enforce their rules consistently. That doesnt mean they were wrong to ban Jones.

If they enforce their rules consistently it will be a neverending mess. The problem is their rules and the attitudes and atmosphere of political activism that is in the business of pressuring their enforcement. This is why I am banging on about hate speech and 'hateful speech' and 'disrespect', they will all be used dependent on how much momentum and uproar can be generated by lobbying groups.

Christy42 · 10-08-2018 06:19PM

Venom's "within reason" suffers the same issue. In fact it is even more loosely defined than "hateful speech". You still need some manner of defining what Facebook will be forced to host. And remember this will end up going for all social media.

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 06:32PM

Christy42 wrote: »

It is not censorship anymore than Netflix refusing to show my home videos is censorship. Facebook do not have an obligation to show anyone who wants to talk. They have been removing IS videos and Russian Trolls (with mixed levels of success at best) for ages now. Few complained (and people did not complain for good reason).

So should Netflix be forced to host my home videos? What is the difference between them and Facebook not hosting Alex Jones?

Alex Jones has freedom of speech still. No one has shut down his website. Similarly I am free to host my own home movies on my own site. No one has kept him quiet or censored him. They have simply not given him the megaphone. The fact that he still talking is proof of that.

Finally Trump shutting down the press for disagreeing with him would be a complete violation of freedom of speech in the xkcd sense. It would literally be the government shutting down dissenting opinion and not the same as Facebook not providing a platform for Alex Jones. That is a false equivalence.

The quotes are also nonsensical in this scenario. Jones has not lost the ability to offend. He has that still. He has his website. The fact that not everyone is helping him broadcast his insults is not censorship.

One cannot upload their own video content onto Netflix, whereas there is an upload option on youtube.

With facebook & youtube people use both for various different reasons some use youtube for vlogging or posting alternative news type videos, similar with facebook use it for various different reasons, some use it for keeping in touch with friends etc, some use it to promote their photography/ photography/ pages & some political/activist groups - regardless of how much some may disagree with someone,s political views someone shouldn,t be stopped from expressing their political views online; social media sites in my view should have a neutral stance regarding politics.

Venom · 10-08-2018 06:35PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Venom's "within reason" suffers the same issue. In fact it is even more loosely defined than "hateful speech". You still need some manner of defining what Facebook will be forced to host. And remember this will end up going for all social media.

I only used the term "within reason" in my response to you as a general turn of phrase. I really didn't think it needed to be stated to anyone that beheading videos or other illegal content shouldn't be hosted.

Venom · 10-08-2018 06:39PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

One cannot upload their own video content onto Netflix, whereas there is an upload option on youtube.

With facebook & youtube people use both for various different reasons some use youtube for vlogging or posting alternative news type videos, similar with facebook use it for various different reasons, some use it for keeping in touch with friends etc, some use it to promote their photography/ photography/ pages & some political/activist groups - regardless of how much some may disagree with someone,s political views someone shouldn,t be stopped from expressing their political views online; social media sites in my view should have a neutral stance regarding politics.

Agreed, I think were long past the stage that the likes of Facebook and Twitter need to be considered full on utility companies and not just a place to post memes and pictures of your holidays.

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 06:40PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

We've already seen middleware providers starting to get involved for example with gab (an alternative to Twitter) receiving notices from Microsoft Azure, so the software that runs the servers for the website. Using the principles of people on this thread, companies at any part of the chain hosting Alex Jones website or content should stop providing services to him because they're private companies, just a bit of public pressure and they should fold too.

There is no moral or principled position, simply that they are right. No foresight. I haven't seen a single response to the idea of hatespeech other than that it's incitement to violence which it is not.

Evena US Senetor has already called for other channels to be shut down, 'democracy depends on it'. Why do you think creators who are basically enemies of alex jones don't like this idea? It really matters what you define as hate speech, hateful speech, dehumanising language, 'disrespect' to quote Apple. Because everyone is now looking for it and whoever is next, their time will be up.

If it wasn't for the law prohibiting it I imagine philosophically people wouldn't mind the telecom companies refusing to do business with him.

I wasn,t aware Gab was being pressured like that, you raise a good point about telecom companies I seen someone else raise a similar point, the argument its a private company etc, lets take that argument with telecom companies.

Being hypothetical "We do not like the content of your phone calls, your internet history violates our company standards so we are terminating your contract" .

Imagine if someone was told this? Imagine if a major telecommunications network like Three or Vodafone or Eircom decided they do not like what you are saying when you use their phone network? They have the means to monitor what is said on their network and they are private corporations so they can do what they like right? Even if you violate their terms and conditions by using your phone in ways they do not agree with? Terms and conditions (community guidelines) that THEY get to unilaterally decide and thus force you to comply to in order to use their service?

How would you feel? Keep using the "they are a private company so they can decide who gets to be on their network" when they decide you aren't allowed to use your phone...

In my view This is NO different to what Facebook, Google and Apple are doing right now .

batgoat · 10-08-2018 06:41PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

One cannot upload their own video content onto Netflix, whereas there is an upload option on youtube.

With facebook & youtube people use both for various different reasons some use youtube for vlogging or posting alternative news type videos, similar with facebook use it for various different reasons, some use it for keeping in touch with friends etc, some use it to promote their photography/ photography/ pages & some political/activist groups - regardless of how much some may disagree with someone,s political views someone shouldn,t be stopped from expressing their political views online; social media sites in my view should have a neutral stance regarding politics.

Coveniently ignore that he has actively ruined lives via such mediums. The ban is very much so deserved and Infowars is not a news site, horrible man loses access to platform that is owned by a private business. They are entitled to remove him from the platforms. You've endlessly made this into a free speech issue. No violation is occurring though...

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 06:50PM

Christy42 wrote: »

It is not censorship anymore than Netflix refusing to show my home videos is censorship. Facebook do not have an obligation to show anyone who wants to talk. They have been removing IS videos and Russian Trolls (with mixed levels of success at best) for ages now. Few complained (and people did not complain for good reason).

So should Netflix be forced to host my home videos? What is the difference between them and Facebook not hosting Alex Jones?

Alex Jones has freedom of speech still. No one has shut down his website. Similarly I am free to host my own home movies on my own site. No one has kept him quiet or censored him. They have simply not given him the megaphone. The fact that he still talking is proof of that.

Finally Trump shutting down the press for disagreeing with him would be a complete violation of freedom of speech in the xkcd sense. It would literally be the government shutting down dissenting opinion and not the same as Facebook not providing a platform for Alex Jones. That is a false equivalence.

The quotes are also nonsensical in this scenario. Jones has not lost the ability to offend. He has that still. He has his website. The fact that not everyone is helping him broadcast his insults is not censorship.

Finally Trump shutting down the press for disagreeing with him would be a complete violation of freedom of speech in the xkcd sense. It would literally be the government shutting down dissenting opinion and not the same as Facebook not providing a platform for Alex Jones. That is a false equivalence.

If facebook are taking down pages at the request or pressure from political parties or Government leaders, in my view it would be a similar equivalence to Trump shutting down media outlets.

For the second time in less than a week, Facebook is facing uncomfortable questions about why it continues to allow InfoWars and other conspiracy theory-slinging groups to have a presence on its platform.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Facebook's policy chief Monika Bickert fielded questions from Democrats who demanded to know why InfoWars has not been banned by Facebook.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/front-congress-facebook-defends-decision-002206231.html

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over incendiary posts on the social network, Bloomberg reported on Sunday, amid complaints from her government about anti-immigrant posts in the midst of Europe's refugee crisis.

On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html

Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Comments