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

suicide_circus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Harassing the parents of murdered children is funny. Gotcha.

I've said that was a mistake

KikiLaRue

suicide_circus wrote: »

I've said that was a mistake

It wasn't a mistake. It was very much on purpose, repeatedly, over an extended period of time.

ohnonotgmail

suicide_circus wrote: »

I've said that was a mistake

Continuing to repeat something that is causing the harassment of the parents of murdered children is not simply a mistake. If it was a schtick he would have stopped after the harassement started. He didn't. The schtick story is a lie he invented to stop himself getting sued. There is no schtick. That you continue to think there is is very worrying.

suicide_circus

maybe i should say, to me its a shtick, maybe a find it entertaining because i dont believe 99% of what he says

ohnonotgmail

suicide_circus wrote: »

maybe i should say, to me its a shtick, maybe a find it entertaining because i dont believe 99% of what he says

so we are back to

Harassing the parents of murdered children is funny.

KikiLaRue

suicide_circus wrote: »

maybe i should say, to me its a shtick, maybe a find it entertaining because i dont believe 99% of what he says

Cool, I personally don't find harassing parents whose kids have been murdered funny, but it's fine that you do. You are free to visit the infowars site for that 'entertainment' any time you want.

Doesn't mean social media sites are in any way obligated to host it.

mcmoustache

suicide_circus wrote: »

maybe i should say, to me its a shtick, maybe a find it entertaining because i dont believe 99% of what he says

Congrats. Then you're not a retard but a lot of his fans are and they believe what he says and they harass the people that he accuses of being actors.

suicide_circus

you guys win

francois

Here are some results of Jones' followers and the damage the moron has caused

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/conspiracy-theories-internet-survivors-truth

Cienciano

He didn't seem all there on his live video AMA yesterday. Funny seeing that other tool Paul Joseph Watson cringe any time Jones spoke.
Here's a few funny bits:

https://youtu.be/Qsh_2bf4cd0?t=5522

https://youtu.be/Qsh_2bf4cd0?t=6438

https://youtu.be/Qsh_2bf4cd0?t=3765

https://youtu.be/Qsh_2bf4cd0?t=6285

PJW is like a sober child stuck talking to his píssed up auntie. Jones must have taken too many inforwars supplement pills.

greencap

social outcasting of an individual is part of free speech.
if a group of people all individually decide someone is a dick then its their right to not associate with that person.

im guessing thats what happened in jones' case.
jones probably came up as a topic among sharesholders and in boardrooms , and a bunch of people agreed to boycott him.

which is their right as individuals.

were their motives due to a disdain for jones' politics? maybe they were. what of it.

they dislike the guy, he's using their equipment, they can pull the plug at any time, so adios.

just the reality of human society. create enough enemies and problems arise.

tl;dr no homers club.

mcmoustache

Should private companies be compelled to host people who are harmful to their brand?

Maybe we've been looking at this arseways and should look at the rights and freedoms of corporations.

kowloon

mcmoustache wrote: »

Should private companies be compelled to host people who are harmful to their brand?

Maybe we've been looking at this arseways and should look at the rights and freedoms of corporations.

I think that's fair, Boards have a similar right to remove posters. They also need to watch how much they wield the banhammer. People want whatever platform they're using to have consistent rules and it needs to be clear from the start what those rules are.

Alex Jones is entertaining to watch, maybe not the full six-hour rants, but the best parts in shorter videos. It's crazy that people take him seriously and I don't think the bans will help because he feeds off claims that the establishment/media/alien overlords are trying to silence him.

greencap

just as a side note. think how many borderline cases he must have moved from the 'stressed out and considering seeing a doctor' category into the 'i see now that its all a government plot against me' category.

given his level of public expose it must be in the early thousands.

mcmoustache

Cienciano wrote: »

He didn't seem all there on his live video AMA yesterday. Funny seeing that other tool Paul Joseph Watson cringe any time Jones spoke.

PJW is like a sober child stuck talking to his píssed up auntie. Jones must have taken too many inforwars supplement pills.

To many people, PJW is an intellectual. To others, he's little more than another supplement salesman.

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/928665320587448321

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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?

From what I can see, he was removed from a few big platforms in one week, then he got a temp ban the next week from Twitter, followed by removal.

It was companies using the logic of "If we have him, it looks like we support him."

So I would say he collected a cumalative sort of set of warnings etc. over a couple of sites followed by removal for publicity reasons and damage limitation. If that general timeline is right, then no, I don't think there were enough sanctions before complete removal from the face of the internet.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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?

A slippery slope where companies that provide the services that the entire world uses have complete control over what is seen and heard. It's hardly rocket science to look at the bigger picture here and see that one understandable removal leads to more of the same but less publicised.

The fact people can't separate this idea and Alex Jones in this thread is the exact problem I have with his removal, and others who didn't incite this sort of thing. There are people with zero reasoning skills on here who believe that my posts are a support of this thing. Fck that.

And conspiracies do turn out to be true. Not every conspiracy is a loonfest. If the platforms decide that only stuff backed up with evidence can be talked about, then they disappear. If the same were applied across the board, it would be a bit better, but still bad.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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?

From what I can see, he was removed from a few big platforms in one week, then he got a temp ban the next week from Twitter, followed by removal.

It was companies using the logic of "If we have him, it looks like we support him."

So I would say he collected a cumalative sort of set of warnings etc. over a couple of sites followed by removal for publicity reasons and damage limitation. If that general timeline is right, then no, I don't think there were enough sanctions before complete removal from the face of the internet.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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?

A slippery slope where companies that provide the services that the entire world uses have complete control over what is seen and heard. It's hardly rocket science to look at the bigger picture here and see that one understandable removal leads to more of the same but less publicised.

The fact people can't separate this idea and Alex Jones in this thread is the exact problem I have with his removal, and others who didn't incite this sort of thing. There are people with zero reasoning skills on here who believe that my posts are a support of this thing. Fck that.

And conspiracies do turn out to be true. Not every conspiracy is a loonfest. If the platforms decide that only stuff backed up with evidence can be talked about, then they disappear. If the same were applied across the board, it would be a bit better, but still bad.

I repeat there was no removal from the face of the internet.

What sanctions should lead to a banning? How long should it take?

How badly should you destroy other people's lives via a private company's before that private company is allowed to even think about stopping you from using that product?

What laws do you wish to enact to force a private company to host certain content?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

From what I can see, he was removed from a few big platforms in one week, then he got a temp ban the next week from Twitter, followed by removal.

It was companies using the logic of "If we have him, it looks like we support him."

So I would say he collected a cumalative sort of set of warnings etc. over a couple of sites followed by removal for publicity reasons and damage limitation. If that general timeline is right, then no, I don't think there were enough sanctions before complete removal from the face of the internet.

A slippery slope where companies that provide the services that the entire world uses have complete control over what is seen and heard. It's hardly rocket science to look at the bigger picture here and see that one understandable removal leads to more of the same but less publicised.

He was given several warnings and temporary suspensions prior to being banned. I'll ask again, how many warnings do you think is sufficient? 1? 2? 10? 20?

[Deleted User]

It would be good if people could make points instead of just posing questions.. In what you quoted, everything I responded to was a question, and then my post had none, and then yours is just more questions.

As to your questions, yes, removing from all of what I would consider to be the main internet-based public services is removing someone from the face of the internet. And the removal all within a short period time was a deliberate act since companies feared the repercussions of not doing it. So more per warnings and sanctions per platform basically.

Your third question misses my point entirely. This isn't about an event or a person. It's about companies having the power and the person having no ability to rectify the problem.

As to your last one, I've made the argument here previously that these particular private companies should be held to different standards and legal requirements. It is far too easy to say "They're private." is support of their actions in certain situations when the same people would be outraged at the audacity and lack of oversight if they promoted AJ to their front page instead of banning him. If Youtube started putting scat porn into their recommended videos, I highly doubt the same posters would be saying "Just use Dailymotion."

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He was given several warnings and temporary suspensions prior to being banned. I'll ask again, how many warnings do you think is sufficient? 1? 2? 10? 20?

Google is really annoying to try and get info on this. Can you tell me roughly when he received these on the various sites?

I'll retract everything I've said if it was done properly per site. Not being smart, I will. I've only found the Twitter 7-day one and a Facebook 30-day one.

stefanovich

Deleted User wrote: »

Google is really annoying to try and get info on this. Can you tell me roughly when he received these on the various sites?

I'll retract everything I've said if it was done properly per site. Not being smart, I will. I've only found the Twitter 7-day one and a Facebook 30-day one.

Google is a pile of ****e. Try yandex.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Google is really annoying to try and get info on this. Can you tell me roughly when he received these on the various sites?

I'll retract everything I've said if it was done properly per site. Not being smart, I will. I've only found the Twitter 7-day one and a Facebook 30-day one.

Honestly, i'm not arsed to do this research for you. HIs banning was far from the first time he had got into trouble. For his sandy hook stuff alone he should have been immediately banned. You keep ignoring this as if it isn't relevant.

batgoat

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He was given several warnings and temporary suspensions prior to being banned. I'll ask again, how many warnings do you think is sufficient? 1? 2? 10? 20?

Also worth noting that it's known that Facebook gave a level of protection to significant personalities that they would ordinarily ban. For reference, the channel 4 Dispatches doc from last year.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Honestly, i'm not arsed to do this research for you. HIs banning was far from the first time he had got into trouble. For his sandy hook stuff alone he should have been immediately banned. You keep ignoring this as if it isn't relevant.

I've already said it was despicable. But I'd be a lot more comfortable with his removal if it was a court order.

It's really quite frustrating to be arguing the bigger picture here but it all be Alex Jones. Probably should have made these arguments in a regular thread not specifically about him.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I've already said it was despicable. But I'd be a lot more comfortable with his removal if it was a court order.

It's really quite frustrating to be arguing the bigger picture here but it all be Alex Jones. Probably should have made these arguments in a regular thread not specifically about him.

*looks at thread title* Yeah, maybe they should

KikiLaRue

Deleted User wrote: »

As to your questions, yes, removing from all of what I would consider to be the main internet-based public services is removing someone from the face of the internet. And the removal all within a short period time was a deliberate act since companies feared the repercussions of not doing it. So more per warnings and sanctions per platform basically.

Deleted User wrote: »

As to your last one, I've made the argument here previously that these particular private companies should be held to different standards and legal requirements. It is far too easy to say "They're private." is support of their actions in certain situations when the same people would be outraged at the audacity and lack of oversight if they promoted AJ to their front page instead of banning him. If Youtube started putting scat porn into their recommended videos, I highly doubt the same posters would be saying "Just use Dailymotion."

You don't seem to fully understand that social media platforms are not a public service.

Your point about porn is interesting. Facebook deletes posts all the time if they show a woman's nipple - even if the context is breast feeding - because that level of nudity goes against their Terms of Service. I think that's absolutely f*cking ridiculous, but I understand that Facebook gets to make the rules because they are providing a service to me free of charge.

Is there anything a poster could post that you think would warrant being banned from social media sites?

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

A slippery slope where companies that provide the services that the entire world uses have complete control over what is seen and heard. It's hardly rocket science to look at the bigger picture here and see that one understandable removal leads to more of the same but less publicised.

This is the hysteria part

They struggled to ban a conspiracy theorist for years, they can't even ban anti-vaxx stuff (just try to demonitise it). Yeah I think we're okay.

mcmoustache

stefanovich wrote: »

Google is a pile of ****e. Try yandex.

Нет, спасибо.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

I've already said it was despicable. But I'd be a lot more comfortable with his removal if it was a court order.

It's really quite frustrating to be arguing the bigger picture here but it all be Alex Jones. Probably should have made these arguments in a regular thread not specifically about him.

Unfortunately, a lot of people suddenly become free speech advocates when one of their cnuts gets kicked off a private platform. A general thread on free speech would be a good idea but as I said, nobody really cares that much about it until their kind of cnut is affected.

Sonics2k

Deleted User wrote: »

I've already said it was despicable. But I'd be a lot more comfortable with his removal if it was a court order.

It's really quite frustrating to be arguing the bigger picture here but it all be Alex Jones. Probably should have made these arguments in a regular thread not specifically about him.

Hang on here Ads.

Deleted User wrote: »

But I'd be a lot more comfortable with his removal if it was a court order.

You'd be happier with a private firm removing the access for someone based on a direct order from the Government itself? That in itself would breach Freedom of Speech, the very thing that Jones supporters have been banging on about.