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

cantdecide

mcmoustache wrote: »

Jack on twitter is not a left wing idealogue. He even intervened prior to this to keep him on the platform even after he violated the terms of service. You're full of shít.

Quiet night for taxis?

2 Scoops

mcmoustache wrote: »

Oddly enough, he has appeared in two films that I actually like - Linklater's Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly. Even stranger still, I respected him once but in my defense, I was young and an idiot.

I've seen A Scanner Darkly. The problem with Alex is that there are some people who take him literally and some of the stuff he's said in the past was totally damaging and inhumane. I think the vast majority see him as a comedian/entertainer/meme type, at least I do. Thinking he's a comedian and entertaining isn't mutually inclusive with agreeing with what he said about Sandy Hook etc nor is it with believing a single thing he says.

He's an incredibly smart person well versed on global History etc and with his talents it creates this weird aura around him, although he wasn't smart enough at the time or maybe the better word is humane enough to not say the things he did which has since gotten him got canned. He exploited tragedy for money and fame, I don't agree with that and I'll never defend it.

mcmoustache

Lia Moldy Hijacker wrote: »

Yeah the argument that he is just being punished for simply expressing an opinion or fact that people don't like doesn't hold water - what he said was plainly false as well as brutally cruel.

Exactly. But he's a Trumper so the other trumpers will tie themselves up in knots to defend him because as far as they're concerned, he's one of their own.

splashuum

Ah you really have to love the celebration of mass censorship here.

cantdecide

Lia Moldy Hijacker wrote: »

Were the conspiracy theorists who harassed Sandy Hook family members followers of Jones though? He definitely has supporters.

Of course his words should be condemned but the gun culture in the US is a tragedy even if swathes of them are happy to keep it that way. I can't see it ever changing. Anything that happens to threaten their precious gun culture will bring out the loons in droves and I think the fringes of those droves are capable of dreadful things. I don't know if Jones encouraged harassment but I don't think we've seen the end of this kind of harassment, Jones or no Jones.

Lia Moldy Hijacker wrote: »

I think this goes beyond just silencing someone who's not left-wing (which I would wholeheartedly disagree with).

If it was handled differently, they could have left him be a caricature of right wing mania. Instead, the concerted efforts to ban him made a martyr of him. I think the original Twitter response was the right one; make him reign it in rather than silence him. He was worth more to the left alive than dead, so to speak. They killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

mcmoustache

splashuum wrote: »

Ah you really have to love the celebration of mass censorship here.

If you accused the Omagh bomb victims of being crisis actors and claimed that the bomb never happened, you'd be out of here pretty quickly.

This isn't censorship. This is avoiding lawsuits.

But please continue.

splashuum

I think some people here need to do some research on this topic. Jones was not taken down from twitter for sandy hook comments. Jones apologised and retracted statements he made on SH numerous times.

cantdecide

mcmoustache wrote: »

If you accused the Omagh bomb victims of being crisis actors and claimed that the bomb never happened, you'd be out of here pretty quickly.

This isn't censorship. This is avoiding lawsuits.

But please continue.

False equivalence in the current circumstance.... and you knew that but it was a nice soundbite, I'm sure.

splashuum wrote: »

I think peopl here need to do some research

Unhelpful and passive aggressive to be broadcasting into the thread. It was a very popular tactic last year. If you have issue with falsehoods, why not address them with proof and show some courtesy to the posters you would address.

rossie1977

splashuum wrote: »

Ah you really have to love the celebration of mass censorship here.

Jones was using twitter, Facebook and YouTube to spread hate speech and most importantly incite violence. One of his last videos on youtube actually called on his viewers to take up arms against those with different political views.

Anyone be they right, left wing, Muslim, Christian, atheist whatever should have their ability to reach a mass audience via these platforms removed if they incite violence.

applehunter

mcmoustache wrote: »

Oddly enough, he has appeared in two films that I actually like - Linklater's Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly. Even stranger still, I respected him once but in my defense, I was young and an idiot.

You are still an idiot.

Captain Obvious

There's another video of Jones spending 10 minutes hurling abuse at a CNN reporter. It's truly pathetic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne_wFdA-1oU

Also, for those of you calling this censorship, pop on over to the Infowars forums or their subreddit and post some arguments against something Alex Jones reports on. See how long it takes you to get banned.

awec

What I never really understood about Alex Jones is how he has any followers. I mean, his stuff is such blatant nonsense that you'd have to be properly thick to think the guy is anything other than a crazed piece of sh!t.

I really don't know what's worse, Jones himself or those stupid enough to believe anything he says.

Wibbs

Yeah, he's like the National Enquirer made fat flesh, with added paranoia and nonsense. Still it shows there are enough slow of mind if he was able to forge what was a fairly lucrative career out of it.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

This is up there with the Nazis burning books they didn't like.

Yeah, it is exactly like that.

I love that Atlantic Dawn thanked my post. clearly not an admirer of sarcasm.

Jelle1880

splashuum wrote: »

I think some people here need to do some research on this topic. Jones was not taken down from twitter for sandy hook comments. Jones apologised and retracted statements he made on SH numerous times.

I can't find any of those apologies... ?

Care to link them ? All I found was a lame apology for the whole Pizza Gate thing.

Billy86

cantdecide wrote: »

False equivalence in the current circumstance.... and you knew that but it was a nice soundbite, I'm sure.

No it's pretty much an exact equivalence.

Alex Jones' endless tirades against the parents of murdered children, calling them crisis actors and refusing to relent as his followers sent them death threats that caused some of them to have to change their identities and move hundreds of miles away from their own children's graves, would have had him banned from these platforms a lot earlier if he did not have so many followers who get some kind of kick out of that kind of thing.

The truth that you don't want to face up to is that Alex Jones has been given more free speech than the rest of us would. That is now over.

Gimme A Pound

I'm not a bit surprised that Jones has fans. A lot of people believe what they want to believe.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I love that Atlantic Dawn thanked my post. clearly not an admirer of sarcasm.

I'm assuming they were being ironic too though? And the Nazi book burning post was satire? I'm assuming...?

Maxpfizer

2 Scoops wrote: »

I've seen A Scanner Darkly. The problem with Alex is that there are some people who take him literally and some of the stuff he's said in the past was totally damaging and inhumane.

Yet the same people calling for the banning of Alex Jones and his Youtube channels are definitely not in favor of banning religions and their religious texts.

If the logic is that he talks bull**** (which he does) and some people might believe his bull**** then were does that leave us regarding religion?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Also, for those of you calling this censorship, pop on over to the Infowars forums or their subreddit and post some arguments against something Alex Jones reports on. See how long it takes you to get banned.

That's no argument, to be fair.

mcmoustache

Billy86 wrote: »

The truth that you don't want to face up to is that Alex Jones has been given more free speech than the rest of us would. That is now over.

It's not even over. He has his website and he can say what he wants anywhere in the real world. All that's changed is that a private platform has decided not to promote him.

7aubzxk43m2sni

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's not even over. He has his website and he can say what he wants anywhere in the real world. All that's changed is that a private platform has decided not to promote him.

The issue is that Facebook/Youtube/Apple constitutes the absolute vast majority of media consumed online. If they can arbitrarily decide what content to allow, it leads to a dangerous place.

Maxpfizer

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah, he's like the National Enquirer made fat flesh, with added paranoia and nonsense. Still it shows there are enough slow of mind if he was able to forge what was a fairly lucrative career out of it.

I still think the National Enquirer and the like should still be allowed to exist.

If I personally find National Enquirer and Alex Jones entertaining and also understand that they are full of ****e then shouldn't I still be allowed to enjoy that kind of "entertainment"?

The problem I see hear is that people are expecting the likes of Twitter and Facebook to act like some kind of cyber-nanny.

If people think Jones is legitimate then that's on them. Why should I be denied access to Jones' content or the National Enquirer because other people are dumb?

It's like almost every issue we see these days is somehow related to people not being held responsible for their own actions.

Alex Jones should be banned because idiots might believe him. Sorry, but that's on the idiots.

There are PLENTY of Youtubers and mainstream media figures out there who debunk Jones' content all the time. There's LOADS of opposition out there so it's not like he is being allowed to express his views unchallenged.

Maxpfizer

awec wrote: »

What I never really understood about Alex Jones is how he has any followers. I mean, his stuff is such blatant nonsense that you'd have to be properly thick to think the guy is anything other than a crazed piece of sh!t.

I really don't know what's worse, Jones himself or those stupid enough to believe anything he says.

I dunno. People love wrestling and everyone knows it's nonsense.

Not everyone though, right?

You'll get the odd person now and then who tries to suplex their buddy off a ladder and through a table and some gets seriously hurt. So no more wrestling for the rest of us, right?

The problem I have is that because some people cannot consume Alex Jones content responsibly all of us are denied access to that content. That doesn't seem right.

I think the vast majority of his viewership saw what he did as entertainment first and foremost.

Gimme A Pound

Billy86 wrote: »

No it's pretty much an exact equivalence.

Alex Jones' endless tirades against the parents of murdered children, calling them crisis actors and refusing to relent as his followers sent them death threats that caused some of them to have to change their identities and move hundreds of miles away from their own children's graves

What a sick sick **** - this is what led to his banning (even if I don't entirely agree with outright banning him) rather than "oppression of free speech". It's not hard to see.

cfuserkildare

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I couldn't really care tbh. If a private company doesn't want to host his content that's their call and frankly it's none of my business. You have an issue with it then complain to the company or complain with your wallet and don't use their services.

But once a service is aired publicly, surely it is no longer the domain of a Private Company??

Billy86

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Yet the same people calling for the banning of Alex Jones and his Youtube channels are definitely not in favor of banning religions and their religious texts.

If the logic is that he talks bull**** (which he does) and some people might believe his bull**** then were does that leave us regarding religion?

Religions? Nah, not a fan of any of them really but to each their own. Religious extremists? Yeah, absolutely they should be banned from having such large scale platforms as Twitter, FB, etc to spread their dishonest hatred on. Just like Alex Jones has. I'm sure those religious extremists have their own little set ups though, just as Jones is likely to slither into the cave of alt-right social media platforms on the back of this (if he isn't already on them).

Likewise, should conservatives be banned from having any platform? Nah, not usually a fan of them but to each their own. Far right extremists? Yeah, absolutely they should be banned from having such large scale platforms as Twitter, FB, etc to spread their dishonest hatred on. Just like the hundreds of thousands of Islamic extremist terrorist accounts have in the last three years. I'm sure those right wing extremists have their own little set ups though, which the owners of many of those accounts are likely to slither into the cave of on the back of this.

Skylinehead

cfuserkildare wrote: »

But once a service is aired publicly, surely it is no longer the domain of a Private Company??

Content hosted by them most certainly is in their domain.

Billy86

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's not even over. He has his website and he can say what he wants anywhere in the real world. All that's changed is that a private platform has decided not to promote him.

That is true, rather I should have specified I meant his right to 'free' hate speech on those large social media platforms. Indeed he'll likely always find a host for his website - if I'm correct, several providers 'specialise' in hosting far right extremist content, just the same as others do Islamic extremism, fundamentalist Christian extremism, child pornography, arms/drug dealing, etc.

All we're seeing with relation to the Twitter, FB, Youtube, etc bannings are temper tantrums being thrown because they've been let know in no uncertain terms that the rules do actually apply to them, also.

mcmoustache

Aaron Plain Paste wrote: »

The issue is that Facebook/Youtube/Apple constitutes the absolute vast majority of media consumed online. If they can arbitrarily decide what content to allow, it leads to a dangerous place.

It has always been this way. If you want to use an online platform, you play by their rules. Jones broke those rules and got the boot.

It's really that simple.

Billy86

Lia Moldy Hijacker wrote: »

What a sick sick **** - this is what led to his banning (even if I don't entirely agree with outright banning him) rather than "oppression of free speech". It's not hard to see.

Exactly, and when one of the Sandy Hook parents managed to get one of Jones sick 'false flags' videos about the tragedy taken down from Youtube, Jones' response was to dox him by publishing his name, contact info, address, and even maps with directions to his house. That is what the current lawsuit is over as that is one of the parents who has basically had to live a transient life ever since, moving home non-stop as Jones' cultists find his address and the death threats continue.

If Alex Jones had been on of us on boards doing that to let's say, the parents of that poor Ana Kriegel girl who was murdered a few month back, and were doing it on boards, we not only would have been long, long since banned but we'd almost certainly be on trial right now.