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

[Deleted User]

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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?

I understand that they're private companies. I'm arguing that because of their importance, there should be safeguards against a platform's owner doing what they like. A cabal of oligarchs could in theory take over say Twitter and promote Russian propaganda effectively removing that service from the public domain. I don't use Twitter but it's hard to deny that it's a core part of global journalism.

And yeah, illegal stuff should be removed. Incitement should be removed.

Madonna should have been removed for talking about blowing up the White House. If Alex Jones said that during Obama's term, I'd fully support his removal.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

I am anything but hysterical. Anyone who argues with my on this site knows I often play devil's advocate to combat it. I'm doing it right now, "supporting" a person I hate.

Demonitising is removal. It stops further content being made. Getting rid of anti-vaxx BS is good, and is happening now, but it's still part of the slippery slope.

mcmoustache wrote: »

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.

You're being a bit snide here by implying he's my cúnt. He isn't. In the same vein, people are more than happy to support actions that go against their best interests because it benefits them at the time. Patriot Act.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Hang on here Ads.

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.

That's a very wordy way of saying that I support the removal of illegal content, and people who produce it. Free speech is a very hard thing to nail down. Alex Jones was probably guilty of incitement, so I've said I'd rather that was why he got removed. Instead, it seems to me that he got removed because of the reverse logic of not doing so along with other companies would suggest support. And please don't try to attach me to his supporters.

There's a pretty big gap here in regards to how much of a public utility these companies are. If one believes they are private entities that can do what they like, his removal is obvious and understandable. If one believes they have become too big and prominent, his removal brings up more long-term implications. I've been online for for around 17 years and have seen the number of sites being used by regular people drop from dozens to a few. If removed from those few, it's a big deal.

Back to the thread title, I will retract everything about Alex Jones if each site who removed him followed their standard protocol. My points regarding these sites' importance, and the need for governance over them, stand, though.

Gimme A Pound

The private companies thing loses relevance when you're talking about monopolies.

But still, the insistence that there should be absolute free speech (much of the time by those who don't care about the free speech of those they disagree with) irritates me.

If a crowd of islamist militants were marching shouting "death to the west" and "subjugate women", no they should not be allowed to exercise their free speech, they should be bloody well arrested, or at least have their march broken up.

I fail to see the problem with refusing the orchestrator of the Sandy Hook hoax claim (resulting in his fans going out and doing his bidding) a platform.

Free speech does not exist and never has. Nobody can or ever could publish or broadcast whatever they want. There are so many exceptions to the first amendment as to deem it obsolete.

Freedom of speech is different to "free" speech, and it is not absolute. I agree in allowing all kinds of views to be voiced once they're supported and civilly expressed. Not baseless lies though - how is that anything other than dangerous?

[Deleted User]

Gimme A Pound, ultimately, I support legal speech online. But it's such a grey area, because of things like that nonsensical aniti-vaxx stuff.

There's no good solution. This is our new media, warts and all.

Gimme A Pound

Deleted User wrote: »

Gimme A Pound, ultimately, I support legal speech online. But it's such a grey area, because of things like that nonsensical aniti-vaxx stuff.

Those thick dangerous ***** should definitely be banned.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Gimme A Pound, ultimately, I support legal speech online. But it's such a grey area, because of things like that nonsensical aniti-vaxx stuff.

So you are against people being banned from social media platforms?

cfuserkildare

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So you are against people being banned from social media platforms?

Sure it's a violation of his Right to Free Speech.

Plus Censorship.

Dohnjoe

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Sure it's a violation of his Right to Free Speech.

Plus Censorship.

People are banned from this platform every day, you are against each case?

B0jangles

If I run a business renting out megaphones, am I preventing you from speaking if I refuse to rent one to you?

Am I being unfair if you've previously demonstrated that you use my megaphone to broadcast abusive and untrue remarks about other people?

Ipso

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Sure it's a violation of his Right to Free Speech.

Plus Censorship.

According to his own website it’s not a violation of free speech.

greencap

Dohnjoe wrote: »

People are banned from this platform every day, you are against each case?

It only becomes a legal/moral/ethical question when its their favorite site.

Every other site they'll be fine and dandy with the laws as they are.

mcmoustache

The cnut's now blaming his Sandy Hook slander on a psychosis in court now.

Conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones blamed a personal “psychosis” for spreading the theory that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax, he said in a court deposition.

Jones made the remarks in his response to a lawsuit filed against him by the family of a 6-year-old who was among the 20 children slain in the Sandy Hook attack, the Austin American-Statesman reported.

“I basically thought everything was staged, even though I’m now learning a lot of times things aren’t staged,” his deposition reads.

“The trauma of the media and the corporations lying so much, then everything begins — you don’t trust anything anymore.

“Kind of like a child whose parents lie to them over and over again, well, pretty soon they don’t know what reality is.”

I guess this raises an interesting question on whether we should compel private companies to provide a platform to what I've described before as the ravings of a lunatic.

paw patrol

mcmoustache wrote: »

The cnut's now blaming his Sandy Hook slander on a psychosis in court now.

I guess this raises an interesting question on whether we should compel private companies to provide a platform to what I've described before as the ravings of a lunatic.

do you not believe in redemption or forgiveness?

You call him a lunatic but plenty of what he said has been true and come to pass?

like the gay frogs rant , was ultimately true.

batgoat

paw patrol wrote: »

do you not believe in redemption or forgiveness?

You call him a lunatic but plenty of what he said has been true and come to pass?

like the gay frogs rant , was ultimately true.

Forgiveness? There are people who have to repeatedly move home because of the **** he started. Now he's backing down because he's in legal trouble. Doubt he feels an ounce of real remorse.

Dohnjoe

A series of interviews exposing the dark side of Jones and conspiracy theories

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/670/transcript

As best as we can tell, Alex never directly instructed his fans to harass the families. But on his broadcasts, he repeatedly talked about Lenny Pozner's ex-wife and son. And he gave Pozner's mailing address, and showed Google Earth shots of the building, and said he would probably have to go there himself

batgoat

paw patrol wrote: »

do you not believe in redemption or forgiveness?

You call him a lunatic but plenty of what he said has been true and come to pass?

like the gay frogs rant , was ultimately true.

Just another addition to this unfortunately. A father who was part of the suit died by suicide. Apparently Jones has tried to make the suicide a part of his conspiracies.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/31/sandy-hook-shooting-suicide-parents-fake-news-conspiracy?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

B0jangles

batgoat wrote: »

Just another addition to this unfortunately. A father who was part of the suit died by suicide. Apparently Jones has tried to make the suicide a part of his conspiracies.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/31/sandy-hook-shooting-suicide-parents-fake-news-conspiracy?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Alex Jones is an irretrievably poisonous human being.

splashuum

Another host of people removed from Facebook and Instagram all at once. Paul Joseph Watson being amongst them. PJW reports of facts and has never incited any hate/violence. But rest be assured you’ll still have people in here celebrating this mass censorship.

pauldla

splashuum wrote: »

Another host of people removed from Facebook and Instagram all at once. Paul Joseph Watson being amongst them. PJW reports of facts and has never incited any hate/violence. But rest be assured you’ll still have people in here celebrating this mass censorship.

From Wikipedia: 'As editor-at-large of Jones' website InfoWars.com he helped promote fake news and conspiracy theories such as the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati.'

It beats working, I suppose.

Is a content provider obliged to host content such as the above?

splashuum

I could edit your wiki “source” right now to suggest PJW is the devil himself....

pauldla

splashuum wrote: »

I could edit your wiki “source” right now to suggest PJW is the devil himself....

Indeed you could. But that wouldn't answer my question: is a site like Facebook obliged to host content such as that listed above?

ohnonotgmail

pauldla wrote: »

Indeed you could. But that wouldn't answer my question: is a site like Facebook obliged to host content such as that listed above?

They are not obliged to host anything at all from anybody.

ogsjw

splashuum wrote: »

Another host of people removed from Facebook and Instagram all at once. Paul Joseph Watson being amongst them. PJW reports of facts and has never incited any hate/violence. But rest be assured you’ll still have people in here celebrating this mass censorship.

Great to hear, though I've long given up on hoping Silicon Valley platforms can do this kind of thing in a timely manner. Hopefully his Twitter is next.

Deplatforming works. It worked very well on Milo's pocket and Alex Jones' mental state; now even PJW sees his lunacy.

stefanovich

ogsjw wrote: »

Great to hear, though I've long given up on hoping Silicon Valley platforms can do this kind of thing in a timely manner. Hopefully his Twitter is next.

Deplatforming works. It worked very well on Milo's pocket and Alex Jones' mental state; now even PJW sees his lunacy.

Shut down speech you disagree with. Common theme these days among the left.

Zorya

splashuum wrote: »

Another host of people removed from Facebook and Instagram all at once. Paul Joseph Watson being amongst them. PJW reports of facts and has never incited any hate/violence. But rest be assured you’ll still have people in here celebrating this mass censorship.

I don't follow these people, they seem rather clownish to me. But this banning of unpleasant speech or thinking is worrisome, and also largely one sided. There are some horribly unpleasant thoughts and speech on all sides. Some of the ''left wing' stuff is beyond parody for its neuroticism and hate. Better to leave most of it - all sides - available for people to make up their own minds, except for direct incitements to hatred/violence. This is becoming a very censorship-heavy time. It is also infantilising.
Especially considering how much of the net is made up of various genres of gore and porn and regular pay channels and web hosting platforms are perfectly happy to facilitate that.
Anyways it will be interesting to see what people come up with to stop growing censorship dead in its tracks - it's the non-stop innovation of people that I always find fascinating. Mesh networks and private satellites and independent money channels, something in that line maybe. Satellite hijacking will be part of the future

ohnonotgmail

stefanovich wrote: »

Shut down speech you disagree with. Common theme these days among the left.

Who has been shut down? Jones still has his website. He just isnt making as much money any more and it was only about making money for him. He didn't care about the consequences of what he said so **** him.

ogsjw

stefanovich wrote: »

Shut down speech you disagree with. Common theme these days among the left.

MUHFREEZZZPEACHHHH

Hate speech is not covered under European free speech protection, and social media platforms have private TOS.

Funny how I and tens of millions other Europeans have never been 'censored' for our 'views', despite having quite a conservative moderate/progressive lean.

Which makes your questionable impression of an american "(((THEGLOBALISTLEEEEEFT)))" all the more funny.

Even funnier when the radicalised right will ban/block progressive voices almost instantly on the subreddits, discords, and on Twitter.... so it's more of a theme with the radicalised right...

Hal3000

soups05 wrote: »

its a shame, he was bat**** crazy but funny as hell.

Ah yes, and Facebook are the sane ones...

Ipso

stefanovich wrote: »

Shut down speech you disagree with. Common theme these days among the left.

See number 19
https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/

ohnonotgmail

Ipso wrote: »

See number 19
https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/

Yeah but that is different because infowars is a private company and they should be able to say who can post on their website and the likes of FB, YT et al are private comp... oh right, i see what you mean.

ogsjw

Ipso wrote: »

See number 19
https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/

BUT

MY

FREEZE

PEACH

Alex Jones= Hitler confirmed