Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

super_furry wrote: »

Exhibit A - Milo Yiannopoulos

Literally a supplement salesperson now.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is it though? <nonsense snipped>

Yes.

They were there to explain why Jones was removed and what I posted was the guts of their reasoning. Listen to the complete podcast if you like.





I see the usual types on here accusing many of whinging about Jones, but that's missing the point by a country mile. As far as I'm concerned, and most people from what I can see, Jones is a nut, however it is quite clear that those with conservative views, or who disagree with regressive leftist rhetoric (and call it out regularly) are being targeted by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (especially if they have a large following).

If these companies want to have rules, cool, but they should hold everyone to the same standards, not just those who don't share their political ideals.

Huge corporations "regressive left"? (dafuq does that even mean anyway?)

What the **** are people huffing on?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I see the usual types on here accusing many of whinging about Jones, but that's missing the point by a country mile. As far as I'm concerned, and most people from what I can see, Jones is a nut, however it is quite clear that those with conservative views, or who disagree with regressive leftist rhetoric (and call it out regularly) are being targeted by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (especially if they have a large following).

If these companies want to have rules, cool, but they should hold everyone to the same standards, not just those who don't share their political ideals.

As I'm sure you're aware, twitter has banned quite a lot of prominent feminists for expressing the opinion that a bearded man in a dress isn't really a woman so the idea that people on the left don't get banned doesn't fly.


And as to the idea that conservatives are being targeted, can you name one who didn't threaten or harass people? Might it be that they were removed from the platform for being dicks and not for their views on the role of government?

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It doesn’t mean you have the right to say whatever you want on whatever platform you want. That’s just plain wrong.

Most platforms don't allow threats, doxing or harassment. That's just how social media works.


This "controversy" is little more than people whining about someone who they identify with being banned for being dicks. Let's also not forget that Jones was at this nonsense for a long time and they still kept him on their platform for financial reasons. He was treated far better than he should have been simply because he was a cash cow.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Nope, my point is factual and I’m basing it off US law since it’s a US company and a US citizen.

Getting yourself banned from a website for repeatedly breaking their rules (which you agreed to when you signed up) in no way infringes on your human rights.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

To begin with the American constitution lays out in its first ammendment the right to freedom of speech and expression, subsequent to that there are a number of exceptions to that which it may be difficult to say Alex Jones has been directly guilty of contravening to an extent that would impinge on his right to freedom of speech and expression.

I mentioned the universal declaration of human rights as it directly references the right to freedom of speech and expression, not because I equate being banned from a website as a human rights violation (thanks for making that assumption without asking for clarification btw), I was merely stating that private companies the size of alphabet or twitter who hold monopolies perhaps should be held to a higher standard in regard to issues like freedom of speech, a simple disclaimer "this members views do not reflect the beliefs of alphabet, twitter etc" would suffice.

The clamour of some people here to throw basic rights on the scrap heap in the name of corporate operational norms is strange at best.

You don't have to like Alex Jones or his ideas to defend his right to express them.

nullzero wrote: »

I was merely stating that private companies the size of alphabet or twitter who hold monopolies

https://socialmedialist.org/social-media-apps.html a list of ~240 alternatives.
many with users in the millions or tens of millions.

perhaps should be held to a higher standard in regard to issues like freedom of speech, a simple disclaimer "this members views do not reflect the beliefs of alphabet, twitter etc" would suffice.

The eternal question. WHY.

You don't have to like Alex Jones or his ideas to defend his right to express them.

yes we get it. we know. free speech matters.
just some of us know that there is a grey area when it comes to free speech.

Billy86 wrote: »

Someone has already directed you to Alex Jones' very own social media website (where free speech is explicitly not allowed, which doesn't seem to bother you much at all) and has plenty of access to other social media platforms like the voat, who also advertise Jones' own social media outlet at the very top of their pages, in turn.

Alex Jones is not banned from all social media by any means.

Infowars isn't really a social media website though.

When all actual social media websites are working together to get someone deplatformed for life I think it is a much more different thing than free speech.

Billy86 wrote: »

In this context, it was lazy. Jones has only really been accused of being a shill for Jews and not an anti semetic.

DS86DS wrote: »

"Burffoon" is a matter of political opinion with no grounding in reality.

As is the applying of great sounding quotes to random situations.