Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

greencap · 07-03-2019 05:19AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Twitter etc. are beyond a private company at this stage.

No they're not.

They are a global public utility

what is a global public utility?

and should be held to standards as if run by a government.

why?

Tunes would certainly change if rich right-wingers took over the main sites.

Tunes wouldn't change on this particular matter if twitter and youtube were owned by hitler himself.

It is what it is.

Why do I feel this way?

feels over reals.

It's not prison, but the effect is the same.

twoo has over 1.8 billion conversations happening right now.
anybody banned from twitter can go there.

for youtube theres dailymotion or vimeo, and others

the only walls of this prison are personal preference, and the laziness that prevents registration.

DS86DS · 07-03-2019 05:30AM

greencap wrote: »

As is the applying of great sounding quotes to situations.

I could apply your definition of "great sounding quotes" all day long and worth it's weight of all the tea in China and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference

A nice sentence is not going to disestablish this fact......that Conservative voices are under increasing attack and facing censorship from all angles.

The Age of Enlightenment gave us documents like the American Constitution and the Rights of Man in France. Companies like Twitter are not above this tried and tested method

But thanks to Leftists, we are heading back to the Dark Ages.

greencap · 07-03-2019 05:40AM

DS86DS wrote: »

A nice sentence is not going to disestablish this fact......that Conservative voices are under increasing attack and. facing censorship from all angles.

ok.

The Age of Enlightenment gave us documents like the American Constitution and the Rights of Man in France.

right.

Companies like Twitter are not above this tried and tested method

But, if theres something in your constitution about the right to private property then I think they just might be.

Or is the state going to tell people to allow content on their privately owned servers?

Bit of a conundrum you have there.

DS86DS · 07-03-2019 05:52AM

greencap wrote: »

ok.

right.

But, if theres something in your constitution about the right to private property then I think they just might be.

Or is the state going to tell people to allow content on their privately owned servers?

Bit of a conundrum you have there.

Oh...you're such an Edgelord. Look at how you dismiss half of a post with one word put-downs...then with surgical precision, obliterate anything else that had to be said while making everything else seem like the ramblings of a mad man.

You're such an edgy Edgelord... you should be on QI with Stephen Fry.....you're so witty and intelligent, you'll fit right in.

What an idiot I was thinking I could debate you.

07-03-2019 06:39AM

The idea isn't to debate someone like that who puts the bare minimum of effort into their posts.

Just let themselves look like inane fools and be an embarrassment to their side. The arguments become a lot more enjoyable when you realise that the people who fully agree with them would rather they shut up, and people who disagree want them to keep posting drivel.

nullzero · 07-03-2019 08:21AM

DS86DS wrote: »

Oh...you're such an Edgelord. Look at how you dismiss half of a post with one word put-downs...then with surgical precision, obliterate anything else that had to be said while making everything else seem like the ramblings of a mad man.

You're such an edgy Edgelord... you should be on QI with Stephen Fry.....you're so witty and intelligent, you'll fit right in.

What an idiot I was thinking I could debate you.

Next Greencap will say "you can prove anything with facts".

Kermit.de.frog · 07-03-2019 08:23AM

This is more than a little disturbing, let's be honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVL59_I-z88

Christy42 · 07-03-2019 08:59AM

Didn't he admit it was all an act under oath in a court of law?

It is hardly censorship of his political opinion if it is just a character not to be taken seriously.

Unless you think he simply lied under oath (to be fair he did). However Facebook and the rest can hardly be held responsible for that and can ban an entertainment show without restricting someone's political viewpoints.

Finally banning Alex Jones is not banning conservatives. There are still many conservatives on each platform and the vast majority of conservatives would rightly get offended if you equated their views with Alex Jones. He did not get banned for his conservative views, he got banned because of his nuttier ones.

I get freedom of speech can be a slippery slope but forcing a private company to air shows that encourage the mental torture of the families of dead kids seems all types of messed up.

pauldla · 07-03-2019 09:06AM

DS86DS wrote: »

Even arch-leftist Jimmy Dore has been defending Alex Jones against all of these bans bordering on political censorship.

I may not agree with Jimmy Dore, but his words are true to the point here. I disdain many of his opinions, but I do not want him censored. To quote Voltaire

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it'

'I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for you to have access to any platform you want to promote your views'.

Does't quite roll off the tongue in the same way, does it...

Wheeliebin30 · 07-03-2019 09:06AM

Load of nonsense.

No one owns the land, humans are merely caretakers for this brief moment in history.

KikiLaRue · 07-03-2019 09:35AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Arguing about ideas > Arguing about events > Arguing about people

I hold complete and utter distain for people who defend the removal of the universal idea of free speech. I know the actual law and way it works around the world, so that's why I said "idea".

Twitter etc. are beyond a private company at this stage. They are a global public utility and should be held to standards as if run by a government. To argue that they can do what they want, specifically because of a person like Alex Jones, is really just a sign of a small and insignificant mind. Tunes would certainly change if rich right-wingers took over the main sites.

Why do I feel this way? Because it's obvious, and because I live in a country where free speech doesn't exist and people are put in prison for what they write online. Demonitising people, or completely removing them, disincentives others from creating similar content. It's not prison, but the effect is the same.

That’s the point. People should be disincentivised from writing the kind of content he got banned for. Hate speech is not protected.

Example: Do you think it is okay to target the parents of the Sandy Hook children? If not, what should a platform do when a high profile user repeatedly breaks the rules?

07-03-2019 09:51AM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

That’s the point. People should be disincentivised from writing the kind of content he got banned for. Hate speech is not protected.

Example: Do you think it is okay to target the parents of the Sandy Hook children? If not, what should a platform do when a high profile user repeatedly breaks the rules?

Arguing about ideas > Arguing about events > Arguing about people

I've bolded your level of argument, and don't throw strawmen at me like I'm a stupid teenager.

suicide_circus · 07-03-2019 10:45AM

Ipso wrote: »

As far as Infowars, see rule 19 in their terms of service.

Infowars is a service monopoly?

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.

by what mechanism can AJ be forgiven his sins?

KikiLaRue · 07-03-2019 10:50AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Arguing about ideas > Arguing about events > Arguing about people

I've bolded your level of argument, and don't throw strawmen at me like I'm a stupid teenager.

How is that a straw man?

I’m asking you a very sincere question. What do you think the appropriate consequences are for someone who repeatedly targets the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre?

It’s a total cop out to say you’re not going to respond to my point because you think your arguments are at a loftier level than mine.

07-03-2019 10:54AM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

How is that a straw man?

I’m asking you a very sincere question. What do you think the appropriate consequences are for someone who repeatedly targets the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre?

It’s a total cop out to say you’re not going to respond to my point because you think your arguments are at a loftier level than mine.

A cop out? I think it's despicable what he did. It's a stupid question that shouldn't even need to be answered.

ohnonotgmail · 07-03-2019 10:56AM

Deleted User wrote: »

A cop out? I think it's despicable what he did. It's a stupid question that shouldn't even need to be answered.

so what do you think should be the appropriate consequences for what he did?

KikiLaRue · 07-03-2019 11:00AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A cop out? I think it's despicable what he did. It's a stupid question that shouldn't even need to be answered.

You still didn’t answer it.

If you’re against him being deplatformed, what consequences do you think he should have faced? What other options were open to Twitter after they had exhausted warnings and temporary bans?

suicide_circus · 07-03-2019 11:08AM

why is Hamas allowed on twitter and Alex Jones is not? to my knowledge AJ has not literally killed hundreds if not thousands of people? strange.

KikiLaRue · 07-03-2019 11:12AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

why is Hamas allowed on twitter and Alex Jones is not? to my knowledge AJ has not literally killed hundreds if not thousands of people? strange.

Presumably because they haven’t broken the terms of service.

Side point: Republicans and Democrats in the US as well as the ruling parties in the UK and France are also responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people.

07-03-2019 11:16AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so what do you think should be the appropriate consequences for what he did?

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You still didn’t answer it.

If you’re against him being deplatformed, what consequences do you think he should have faced? What other options were open to Twitter after they had exhausted warnings and temporary bans?

Not really sure. More temp bans, forced removal of the Sandyhook materials etc. A retraction?

I just know I don't think a systematic removal from the main sites all at once pretty much is the right way to go about it. The cynic in me believes this was an easy target to drum up easy support for internet-wide removal of "right" content.

Youtube is already removing conspiracy theories from suggested videos. Twitter has been removing loads of people. It's a slippery slope in my opinion, and my belief that these services are too big and central to modern society to be merely called private companies anymore means I don't think they should solely decide who and what gets seen by the world, especially since it's content that is usually legal. It's a lot of power to hand over.

If the victims' families had seeked, and been granted his removal from sites as part of their case against him, I'd fully support it, since it would be a judge's ie. a government's decision. Or perhaps a part of some incitement charge. I don't like him or watch him, so while I'm happy he's gone, I don't agree with how it was done in the slightest.

stefanovich · 07-03-2019 11:23AM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Presumably because they haven’t broken the terms of service.

Side point: Republicans and Democrats in the US as well as the ruling parties in the UK and France are also responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Hamas hate the Jews and want them wiped off the face of the planet. You are seriously comparing them to Western governments?

ohnonotgmail · 07-03-2019 11:24AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

why is Hamas allowed on twitter and Alex Jones is not? to my knowledge AJ has not literally killed hundreds if not thousands of people? strange.

No he has only caused the continued harrassment of a group of people who have already suffered more than most.

ohnonotgmail · 07-03-2019 11:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really sure. More temp bans, forced removal of the Sandyhook materials etc. A retraction?

I just know I don't think a systematic removal from the main sites all at once pretty much is the right way to go about it. The cynic in me believes this was an easy target to drum up easy support for internet-wide removal of "right" content.

Youtube is already removing conspiracy theories from suggested videos. Twitter has been removing loads of people. It's a slippery slope in my opinion, and my belief that these services are too big and central to modern society to be merely called private companies anymore means I don't think they should solely decide who and what gets seen by the world, especially since it's content that is usually legal. It's a lot of power to hand over.

If the victims' families had seeked, and been granted his removal from sites as part of their case against him, I'd fully support it, since it would be a judge's ie. a government's decision. Or perhaps a part of some incitement charge. I don't like him or watch him, so while I'm happy he's gone, I don't agree with how it was done in the slightest.

How many temporary bans are acceptable to you before a permanent ban? Or do you not think that the YT, FB et al should be allowed to permanently ban people?

KikiLaRue · 07-03-2019 11:30AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really sure. More temp bans, forced removal of the Sandyhook materials etc. A retraction?

They already tried all that and it didn't stop him spouting that dangerous nonsense. Do you not think Alec Jones should own the fact that he knowingly chose to break the rules knowing what the consequences are? Where is the personal responsibility here? He's not a child, he knew the risk he was taking.

Deleted User wrote: »

I just know I don't think a systematic removal from the main sites all at once pretty much is the right way to go about it.

Isn't the Joe Rogan podcast one of the most popular in the whole frickin' world? The guy isn't being silenced. He has a platform of his own that got 13 million hits last month (just put the site name into Alexa).

Deleted User wrote: »

The cynic in me believes this was an easy target to drum up easy support for internet-wide removal of "right" content.

That's an opinion you're entitled to hold. I think you're mistaken.

Deleted User wrote: »

these services are too big and central to modern society to be merely called private companies anymore means I don't think they should solely decide who and what gets seen by the world, especially since it's content that is usually legal. It's a lot of power to hand over.

It is. And we need stronger laws in this area. But if a company can't say "We don't want your business any more - good luck" that's gone too far in the other direction.

Deleted User wrote: »

If the victims' families had seeked, and been granted his removal from sites as part of their case against him, I'd fully support it, since it would be a judge's ie. a government's decision. Or perhaps a part of some incitement charge. I don't like him or watch him, so while I'm happy he's gone, I don't agree with how it was done in the slightest.

There are multiple court cases going on where the families are doing just that. But since they already had their small children murdered, I think it's shameful to put them through this as well rather than ban one dickhead who's breaking the rules of the site, the rule of law (he is defaming them by calling them crisis actors) and the rules of common decency.

suicide_circus · 07-03-2019 11:36AM

i dont really care about the AJ case if im honest, he is a great entertainer but i can see how the sandy hook thing would be a career ending mistake, particularity in a world where redemption is impossible. im more concerned with twitter's inconsistency with applying their rules given their monopoly status.

Dohnjoe · 07-03-2019 11:37AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Youtube is already removing conspiracy theories from suggested videos. Twitter has been removing loads of people. It's a slippery slope in my opinion,

A slippery slope to where exactly?

A world with slightly less access to anti-vaxx and conspiracy videos? or some sort of extreme dystopian Orwellian future?

Dohnjoe · 07-03-2019 11:39AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

i dont really care about the AJ case if im honest, he is a great entertainer but i can see how the sandy hook thing would be a career ending mistake, particularity in a world where redemption is impossible. im more concerned with twitter's inconsistency with applying their rules given their monopoly status.

He made up lies about a mass shooting to make money. His followers harassed the relatives of slain children, one family had to move 7 times, some of them can't visit the graves of their kids

That's great entertainment?

KikiLaRue · 07-03-2019 11:41AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

i dont really care about the AJ case if im honest, he is a great entertainer but i can see how the sandy hook thing would be a career ending mistake, particularity in a world where redemption is impossible. im more concerned with twitter's inconsistency with applying their rules given their monopoly status.

Redemption is impossible? He's not seeking redemption. He hasn't any expressed remorse for what he put those families through. He hasn't taken it back. He continues to propagate very harmful lies.

suicide_circus · 07-03-2019 11:52AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's great entertainment?

entertainment is subjective obviously but unless you're rigorously po-faced and sanctimonious, yes his shtick is funny. Did you see him on Rogan lately? That was entertaining.

ohnonotgmail · 07-03-2019 11:55AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

entertainment is subjective obviously but unless you're rigorously po-faced and sanctimonious, yes his shtick is funny. Did you see him on Rogan lately? That was entertaining.

Harassing the parents of murdered children is funny. Gotcha.

Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Comments