Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 06:57PM

I don,t think this has being posted about on here yet, a Venezuelan News Site has being taken off facebook for the moment, social media censorship if accepted, leads to other things that will get taken down from social media pages like this news site about Venezuela.

https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13989

batgoat · 10-08-2018 06:58PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

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.

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

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

There's absolutely no indication that a government told him to remove Infowars... You've cited articles from 2015, since then it's become apparent that Facebook has likely flouted privacy laws for years. I've not seen any actual indication that Facebook take any criticism from the EU seriously with the exception of when it causes bad pr. Businesses don't like bad pr. Eg a channel 4 documentary a month ago revealed that Facebook actively protect accounts of prominent racists and give far more leeway to them. So the picture your painting does not match up with the reality.

Call Me Jimmy · 10-08-2018 07:15PM

batgoat wrote: »

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...

They didn't remove him for Sandy Hook. That's the problem. If they were truthful and said they were covering themselves legally against libel and defamation I'd have no problem. They instead decide to use hate speech while citing no examples and many are satisfied with that in this instance. They won't be so satisfied in future instances when it's someone they themselves support.

Hate speech was also used to criminalise a joke in Scotland. If you know the details of that case where the judge ruled 'intent and context are irrelevant' surely anyone can see why we have a major problem on our hands.

Venom · 10-08-2018 07:27PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

They didn't remove him for Sandy Hook. That's the problem. If they were truthful and said they were covering themselves legally against libel and defamation I'd have no problem. They instead decide to use hate speech while citing no examples and many are satisfied with that in this instance. They won't be so satisfied in future instances when it's someone they themselves support.

Hate speech was also used to criminalise a joke in Scotland. If you know the details of that case where the judge ruled 'intent and context are irrelevant' surely anyone can see why we have a major problem on our hands.

Hate speech was also used to convict a teenager in Scotland for posting the lyrics of a rap song on her Twitter feed in memory of a friend who passed away.

But yeah these super vague definitions of the term hate speech, move along, move along, no slippery slope to see here.

Christy42 · 10-08-2018 09:09PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

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.htmlbeheadingYou can't see the difference between CNN's site being taken down by Trump and effectively put out of business vs someone losing their Facebook page (but being allowed keep their main website)???

One would be shut down completely by the government the other is having less people host them (but still not shut down as they have their own site).

Venom: if you keep complaining about vague definitions you need a stronger one yourself. I get no beheading. We can agree with no (real) deaths. What about bomb making lessons or ISIS recruitment. The line will be drawn somewhere by everyone. They disagree on the where buy I doubt too many want complete freedom of speech.

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 11:39PM

batgoat wrote: »

There's absolutely no indication that a government told him to remove Infowars... You've cited articles from 2015, since then it's become apparent that Facebook has likely flouted privacy laws for years. I've not seen any actual indication that Facebook take any criticism from the EU seriously with the exception of when it causes bad pr. Businesses don't like bad pr. Eg a channel 4 documentary a month ago revealed that Facebook actively protect accounts of prominent racists and give far more leeway to them. So the picture your painting does not match up with the reality.

During the congress hearings recently last month tech companies were lobbied & asked why infowars wasn,t banned, following Jones being banned from various sites, one democrat tweeted .

These companies must do more than take down one website.

This is indirect lobbying for online censorship by some politicians.

Since that 2015 article a lot of facebook personal accounts have being taken down for being critical of Merkel,s Immigration policy including this noted post reported.

https://www.theissue.com/politics/facebook-censorship-reaches-orwellian-levels

Since facebook have deleted posts & accounts since being lobbied by Merkel to so, that is indirect censorship .

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 11:47PM

Christy42 wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

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.

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

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.htmlbeheadingYou can't see the difference between CNN's site being taken down by Trump and effectively put out of business vs someone losing their Facebook page (but being allowed keep their main website)???

One would be shut down completely by the government the other is having less people host them (but still not shut down as they have their own site).

Venom: if you keep complaining about vague definitions you need a stronger one yourself. I get no beheading. We can agree with no (real) deaths. What about bomb making lessons or ISIS recruitment. The line will be drawn somewhere by everyone. They disagree on the where buy I doubt too many want complete freedom of speech.

You can't see the difference between CNN's site being taken down by Trump and effectively put out of business vs someone losing their Facebook page (but being allowed keep their main website)???

One would be shut down completely by the government the other is having less people host them (but still not shut down as they have their own site).

The only difference is if Trump were to shut down media outlets that would be direct censorship vs tech companies removing pages after being politically lobbied to do so would indirect censorship.

These companies must do more than take down one website.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1026580187784404994

batgoat · 11-08-2018 01:15AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

During the congress hearings recently last month tech companies were lobbied & asked why infowars wasn,t banned, following Jones being banned from various sites, one democrat tweeted .

This is indirect lobbying for online censorship by some politicians.

Since that 2015 article a lot of facebook personal accounts have being taken down for being critical of Merkel,s Immigration policy including this noted post reported.

https://www.theissue.com/politics/facebook-censorship-reaches-orwellian-levels

Since facebook have deleted posts & accounts since being lobbied by Merkel to so, that is indirect censorship .

To use that Chris Murphy tweet as an example, he is perfectly entitled to publicly state his view. That is not lobbying. He is free to express that view on what is a public interest story. In terms of your evil Angela plot, strongly suspect there's more to these accounts that were removed than you're actually describing. It's your word and I don't view you as a reliable source. You tend to get extremely irate when things backfire for the far right.

Venom · 11-08-2018 01:28AM

Youtube nuked the H3H3 livestream for discussing the Alex Jones banning.

https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/1028047008144080896

Outlaw Pete · 11-08-2018 02:21AM

https://twitter.com/MikeTokes/status/1028065777713213440

Cheerful Spring · 11-08-2018 08:33AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

The only difference is if Trump were to shut down media outlets that would be direct censorship vs tech companies removing pages after being politically lobbied to do so would indirect censorship.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1026580187784404994

Banning sites should be done case by case. Alex Jones was inciting violence on his podcast and I understood why he was taken down. If Chris Murphy is proposing taking down sites where they just discuss an alternative view on political, economic and foreign issues then that's very different, they are looking to censor opposing voices.

Cheerful Spring · 11-08-2018 08:56AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I don,t think this has being posted about on here yet, a Venezuelan News Site has being taken off facebook for the moment, social media censorship if accepted, leads to other things that will get taken down from social media pages like this news site about Venezuela.

https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13989

Weird that suggests their more going on here. Is Facebook talking to the CIA or people in government and were told to remove this site?

super_furry · 11-08-2018 09:23AM

Venom wrote: »

Youtube nuked the H3H3 livestream for discussing the Alex Jones banning.

https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/1028047008144080896

Looks like they messed up there.....

https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1028074212311760897

Venom · 11-08-2018 11:58AM

super_furry wrote: »

Looks like they messed up there.....

https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1028074212311760897

Read the comments in the tweet by H3H3, they 100% predicted the Youtube response as it's the excuse given every time Youtube pull **** like this. Funny how the Google AI only seems to ban or demonetize certain political viewpoints.

scamalert · 11-08-2018 12:25PM

well alex is in the money he can launch his ****ty site and spread his tin foil head theories all he wants 24/7, my guess is thou he would be in the drain, so well done for every company who took his $hit down, as his views belongs in the category with likes of 4chan at best, for mentally impaired.

batgoat · 11-08-2018 12:27PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MikeTokes/status/1028065777713213440

The Proud Boys were at the Charlottesville March which was a white supremacist gathering. Remember the tiki torches, swastikas etc? Once again, seems to be more why it took so long to ban them...

Call Me Jimmy · 11-08-2018 12:48PM

Putting on the tinniest of tinfoil hats for a moment...

If they are really going for it they'll squigee one side of the overton window, leave some time for it to dry, then move onto the other side and repeat. All the while making enough wiping *mistakes* to create such a nuisance that people working at their desk aren't inclined to talk about the sudden clarity of the view outside.

martingriff · 11-08-2018 02:34PM

What I feel will happen in a few month Jones and these platforms will come to an arrangement. He will abide to play by the rules he sign up to. For a while (a couple of weeks) he will play nice then start to push on the line a bit. May get things banned for a bit but in the end it will be business as usually until the next bit s_%t storm he starts

briany · 11-08-2018 04:07PM

Mike Hoch wrote: »

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.

The show you're probably thinking of is Secret Rulers of the World with Jon Ronson.

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

The Legend Of Kira · 14-08-2018 07:36PM

Some people were saying last week he,s free to host his own website etc, reports are in that his website has being taken down via cyber attack, even though the guy is a conspiracy nut its censorship to take down someones website like that.

ohnonotgmail · 14-08-2018 08:04PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Some people were saying last week he,s free to host his own website etc, reports are in that his website has being taken down via cyber attack, even though the guy is a conspiracy nut its censorship to take down someones website like that.

I have put the important part in bold

batgoat · 14-08-2018 08:07PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have put the important part in bold

Even if his hosters were to drop him, wouldn't be a freedom of speech issue. But in this instance, it's like Kira is being outraged for the sake of it. :pac: Particularly given that pretty much every major website is subject to cyber attacks on a daily basis.

splashuum · 15-08-2018 01:39PM

It’s extremely frightening seeing the number of people who are celebrating the idea off mass censorship. Twitter employees were recently recorded undercover admitting they censor huge amounts of users using algorithmic measures i.e shadow banning.
I think it’s time people realize these sort of actions will come with devastating effects if censorship continues at this pace.

Malayalam · 15-08-2018 01:56PM

TeleSUR who are left wing independent media have had their Facebook page removed. Abby Martin's show the Empire Files generally is shown there. I don't agree with all her stuff but she has the right to express it. People who say these platforms are private should consider that phone companies are now also generally private. Most travel companies too. Should people who make content that is irritating, nasty, etc be deprived of the right to use phones or planes because perhaps they are using the device to relay or travel to promote their opinions? If Donald Trump (meh) cannot block people on Twitter because it is now the public square then these companies cannot exercise censorship of free speech in what they admit is the new public square at all. It is impossible for them to monitor all content, therefore they cannot equitably censor only some content. I can understand moderation of specific items that contravene hate speech, but this is not what is happening. ''Raising flags'' which these platforms encourage people to do is really a new form of citizens spying on each other. Digital Stasi.

Dohnjoe · 15-08-2018 01:59PM

splashuum wrote: »

I think it’s time people realize these sort of actions will come with devastating effects if censorship continues at this pace.

Alarmism and hysteria over nothing. Common sense controls and rules for private platforms should not be conflated with censorship

Again, Boards.ie bans people every other day, it's not censorship

Dohnjoe · 15-08-2018 02:06PM

Malayalam wrote: »

TeleSUR who are left wing independent media have had their Facebook page removed. Abby Martin's show the Empire Files generally is shown there. I don't agree with all her stuff but she has the right to express it. People who say these platforms are private should consider that phone companies are now also generally private. Most travel companies too. Should people who make content that is irritating, nasty, etc be deprived of the right to use phones or planes because perhaps they are using the device to relay or travel to promote their opinions? If Donald Trump (meh) cannot block people on Twitter because it is now the public square then these companies cannot exercise censorship of free speech in what they admit is the new public square at all. It is impossible for them to monitor all content, therefore they cannot equibly censor only some content. I can understand moderation of specific items that contravene hate speech, but this is not what is happening. ''Raising flags'' which these platforms encourage people to do is really a new form of citizens spying on each other. Digital Stasi.

It's a propaganda site that regularly pushes disinformation and false reporting. Facebook was heavily criticised last year for allowing sites that spread disinformation to use it's platform (especially in the run up to the 2016 election) They've probably decided to take action.

Malayalam · 15-08-2018 02:18PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a propaganda site that regularly pushes disinformation and false reporting. Facebook was heavily criticised last year for allowing sites that spread disinformation to use it's platform (especially in the run up to the 2016 election) They've probably decided to take action.

Any site can push disinformation. Mainstream media often falsely reports or spins news items with an active bias. Political bodies employ people whose sole job is to spin situations via media. Who is going to decide what is true and what is not? To have anonymous people do that is the very essence of propaganda and censorship.

Call Me Jimmy · 15-08-2018 02:28PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a propaganda site that regularly pushes disinformation and false reporting. Facebook was heavily criticised last year for allowing sites that spread disinformation to use it's platform (especially in the run up to the 2016 election) They've probably decided to take action.

Look forward to you justifying your own banning some day. You seem to have no problem with this worrying trend. This was hateful. That was disinformation. What happens when there are two opposing narratives in your view? One has got to go! Was watching an ex intelligence official on Jimmy Dore today saying that the deep state is responsible for Meuller indictments which use the fraudulent Goosifer files as a large part of the case. Mainstream media says something very different. Who do we ban?

In Facebook we trust.

ohnonotgmail · 15-08-2018 02:32PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Look forward to you justifying your own banning some day. You seem to have no problem with this worrying trend. This was hateful. That was disinformation. What happens when there are two opposing narratives in your view? One has got to go! Was watching an ex intelligence official on Jimmy Dore today saying that the deep state is responsible for Meuller indictments which use the fraudulent Goosifer files as a large part of the case. Mainstream media says something very different. Who do we ban?

In Facebook we trust.

I think you need to read better media.

Call Me Jimmy · 15-08-2018 02:34PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think you need to read better media.

Sorry I wasn't paying attention when listening, was trying to think of a different narrative and just meant to give an example. Realised when writing I was fuzzy on the details :P

Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Comments