Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Ipso wrote: »

And they rely on attracting other customers, who may not want to be linked to someone who is insane/a con man.
So instead if it being censorship it could just be a business decision.

So if a couple of people from boards got onto your electrical provider and claimed they didn't want to use the same service as you, you would be fine getting the boot as it's only business decision?

Venom wrote: »

So if a couple of people from boards got onto your electrical provider and claimed they didn't want to use the same service as you, you would be fine getting the boot as it's only business decision?

I never realised that the likes of ESB and Energia were social media platforms.

Venom wrote: »

The likes of Twitter, Facebook and Google have so much money behind them now, that they just buy up any competition before it has a chance to grow. Then there are the few platforms like Gab and Minds that don't sell out but start getting screwed over by payment processors.

by "screwed over" presumably you mean "payment providers dont want to be associated with right-wing hate"?

batgoat wrote: »

Gab, the same site that hosted the hateful ramblings of the synagogue killer from last year? If I recall correctly, that was why most companies steered clear of them. Seems reasonable, if you give a platform to hate speech that can negatively impact your platform. Gab was literally set up because some of the more ****ed up rhetoric of its users wasn't allowed on twitter and Co..

Many mass shooters have had their rantings hosted by Facebook, sexual assaults have been broadcast live on Facebook multiple times over the years and Twitter has been used time and time again to organise violence or to disrupt speaking events in the US but I don't see any payment processors dropping them.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes nothing wrong with private companies telling us what we should think? I wonder how far this will go, how far we accept being told what is acceptable, what’s next.
Very sinister indeed and what is more sinister is everyone defending and cheering it on.


People actually using Orwellian language of “hate speech” to defend it.



Sickening and frightening.

Is Alex Jones not doing the same on his own website? Is he right and twitter/Facebook etc wrong because their platforms are bigger than his?

They have no obligation to let dickheads like him use their platforms .

nullzero wrote: »

The issue is more about freedom of speech than the policies of private platforms.

Humans are generally quite good at deciding for themselves whether or not somebody's opinions are valid or not. We don't require the aid of others to make those decisions and to be honest the more out there opinions need to be aired publicly for all to see, hear and understand.

Censorship isn't the answer, and those acting as apologists for it need to examine their own motivations.

Freedom of speech should never be some a la carte style system where only certain individuals or groups get to voice their opinions, it just doesn't work.

History is littered with examples of entire nations believing bullsh1t. Humans are really bad at determining how valid something is. As a species we like to think of ourselves as rational but we're really not.

Venom wrote: »

Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are monopolies due to having no real competitors in each of their various market spaces unlike a business model such as iTunes, who faces real competition from the likes of Spotify and Google Play Music.

Spotify has him banned

Somebody dig out that Voltaire quote.

But seriously this is getting a little creepy. Who will they come for next?

It's weird how humans make the same mistakes over and over again. Censorship in a free society can never be justified.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

After all these months, this is the best Twitter can come up to justify their removal of Jones from their platform:

Is it though? Or do you just want to think to yourself that it is so that you can feel that warm feeling of right-wing grievance that's so hot right now with people like Jones and that little shít who self identifies as a Tommy Robinson.

The sense of perpetual victimhood is strong in these types.

"Whah whah, I just want to call brown people paki scum and slander and harass victims of school shootings. Poor me, look how badly I'm being treated. Where's my free speach. No I don't mean free speach on MY website. Just on yours. Whah, whah, whah."

So, back to your original question.

No this is not the best they could come up with. It may have been one poor reason from the employee that they sent on podcast but their official reason back when it happened was that he was banned for abusive behaviour. Now, unless you're one of those types that believe that mass shooting victims are crisis actors, you know perfectly well that what he was doing counts strongly as abusive behaviour. If anything, he was given far more leeway than most when he should have been banned long ago.

But yeah, keep up that sense of permanent victimhood.

Venom wrote: »

Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are monopolies due to having no real competitors in each of their various market spaces unlike a business model such as iTunes, who faces real competition from the likes of Spotify and Google Play Music.



It's not a case of them being bigger than Jones website or Reddit or Boards, its the case they are now vital communication tools on a world wide scale and as such need to be regulated as utilities.

And not allowed swallow up anymore competition.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Censorship in a free society can never be justified.

Racism, slander, defamation, anti-semitism, hate speech, doxxing, etc

Like everything, it's about common sense limitations

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Racism, slander, defamation, anti-semitism, hate speech, doxxing, etc

Like everything, it's about common sense limitations

Which there are already laws in place for. People in the boardrooms of multi billion dollar corporations should not be expected to have common sense limitations.