Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

It's more akin to having your chip turned off like in an episode of Black Mirror. If every major social media company works together to silence you without any due process in a court, then they are essentially shutting that person off from all forms of social internet.

Why do they have to take somebody to court to ban them??? They're not the police.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

A bit like all the energy companies agreeing together to not provide you with electricity into your own home. You are technically free to look for alternative ways like putting a solar panel on your roof, or buying oil or wood wholesale, but it's not very feasible.

These issues should be decided by laws that are there in a court by a judge/jury. Not faceless people in boardrooms.

It is absolutely nothing like that.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

A bit like all the energy companies agreeing together to not provide you with electricity into your own home. You are technically free to look for alternative ways like putting a solar panel on your roof, or buying oil or wood wholesale, but it's not very feasible.

And if they did it because you consistently broke the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed up would that not be ok? What is the point of having terms and conditions if you dont enforce them?

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.

you dont have freedom of speech on twitter.
they never promised freedom of speech.
in fact you had to sign up to terms which expressly restricted freedom of speech.

and they didnt censor you.
they denied you use of their service.
youre free to express your opinion elsewhere.

incidentally, you dont have free speech here on boards either.

maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and lead the charge by refusing to use platforms which demand you sign up to restrictions of expression.

boycott boards, twitter and all these other suppressors of your free speech if youre such a freeman of the land.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your example is inappropriate. websites are not public utulities. Jones can still get his message out there.

My example is perfectly appropriate. Social media, like electricity, mobile phones, water and food are things that 99% of the population use or need in one way or another.


Am fairly sure Alex Jones stopped talking about Sandy Hook when the families sued him. These things have ways to sort themselves by mechanisms that already in place as part of society.
I don't understand why people would want these decisions to be made by unaccountable faceless people in giant worldwide corporations?

Ipso wrote: »

People get banned from platforms for various reasons, below is a random example of a corporation giving it's reasons.

https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/#nineteen

I'd rather not give Alex Jones any clicks thanks very much.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Nobody needs phones or electricity either. That doesn't make it right to ban someone forever from using them.

you do realise he is not banned from the entire internet, right?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you do realise he is not banned from the entire internet, right?

I do. That's why I've mentioned the words social media in practically every post on this thread.

greencap wrote: »

you dont have freedom of speech on twitter.
they never promised freedom of speech.
in fact you had to sign up to terms which expressly restricted freedom of speech.

and they didnt censor you.
they denied you use of their service.
youre free to express your opinion elsewhere.

incidentally, you dont have free speech here on boards either.

maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and lead the charge by refusing to use platforms which demand you sign up to restrictions of expression.

boycott boards, twitter and all these other suppressors of your free speech if youre such a freeman of the land.

I don't know where you're getting this nonsense from.

I simply stated that the large platforms are hugely influential and have given more coverage to Alex Jones by banning him than he would ever have had otherwise.

All services like twitter and boards.ie have terms of service and restrict free speech, but none of them endorse the views on non deplatformed individuals and plenty of other nonsensical crap is allowed to be posted on the Internet all the time.

It seems that Alex Jones was to be made an example of but somewhat predictably he's now more relevant and visible than ever before.

If you want to project some sort of victim mentality onto me that's your business, you're getting a little too personal and heated for somebody I've never spoken to before.

nullzero wrote: »

It seems that Alex Jones was to be made an example of but somewhat predictably he's now more relevant and visible than ever before.

Except he isn't and he's losing his audience hand over fist......

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/technology/alex-jones-infowars-bans-traffic.html

super_furry wrote: »

But muh free speech!

Muh indeed.

i find the "its a private company, their platform their rules" argument from leftists hilarious. How far does that logic extend? To other service monopolies?

and the obvious pitfall of that argument...what happens when your politics or beliefs become wrongthink, as they inevitably will..."oh well, got deplatformed due to my ideology, c'est la vie"....such short term thinking.

batgoat wrote: »

Pretty sure I'll never be doing anything equivalent to calling victims of a spree killer 'crisis actors'. First they came for the anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, then they came for the Nazis then they came for the racists... Such losses for public discourse.

*Godwin Argument*