Patty Hearst wrote: » Not only in Jones banned, but anyone who shares anything by him will be banned too.. very very worrying. China/North Korea level stuff.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I'm far too old to be a millenial and i have no issue with a private company deciding who should and should not be allowed use their platforms. You are woefully misinformed if you think it is only millenials that support this.
Patty Hearst wrote: » Whatever you are, she describes you too a tee.
Patty Hearst wrote: » Sometimes I despair at how utterly weak and pathetic many of the Millennial generation are. But seeing how different a lot of the younger generation seem to be, it gives me hope. The 14 year old girl in the video above sums it up quite well.
stefanovich wrote: » Best solution is to not use facebook.
mcmoustache wrote: » That's all this is. It's a gobshíte being banned off a social media platform for being a díck.
Former Observer wrote: » Nobody should be banned simply for being a "dick", as you put it. If somebody thinks there is something fishy about the Sandy Hook murders (for example) they should surely be able to express those opinions on social media, including but not limited to the hypothesis that the children and parents involved were crisis actors. I understand that this may be upsetting to parents etc. but that's just the way it is. For Alex Jones to be banned from social media he'd surely have to have done something more than perpetuate an unpopular line or reasoning/opinion. I haven't spent any time reading about this, but I'd be surprised if he was literally and directly sending baying mobs to people's homes, was he?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Upsetting? they had to move house several times because of harrassment. that is a little more than upsetting. and alex jones is responsible for all of that. Hence why the parents are suing him.
Patty Hearst wrote: » Ipso wrote: » But you’re ok with Infowars terms of service that has the same thing? Or are you one of those people who take him seriously? Infowars is not a social media company, in the same way that RTE isn't.
Ipso wrote: » But you’re ok with Infowars terms of service that has the same thing? Or are you one of those people who take him seriously?
Former Observer wrote: » Yes, my point, or rather my question, is how can Alex Jones be held responsible for what other people do on the back of his right to express his opinion that Sandy Hook was a hoax. I haven't heard anyone suggest that he was handing out road maps and sending columns of drivers that way.
20Cent wrote: » Good day for Antifa yesterday. Those nutjobs deplatformed, and Tommy + milkshake. Maybe the tide is turning people getting tired of these right wingers stirring up hatred.
Billy86 wrote: » Yeah, it is social media. It's their forums that they ban you off of,and forums (including this one we are posting on right now) are social media.
Ipso wrote: » He accused parents of the murdered children of being crisis actors etc
Patty Hearst wrote: » You still support Antifa even though they're associated with the killers of Lyra McKeee?
Patty Hearst wrote: » Perhaps one of the European Right wing Govts will ban any mention of Transgenderism on social media. I'm sure all those who support PJW, Jones etc bans will have no problem with that.
Billy86 wrote: » Hold on... which country was it that forced Facebook to ban Paul Joseph Watson, again?
20Cent wrote: » Stretch there dude.
batgoat wrote: » Firstly, you're exploiting the murder of a girl because of your own views. You do have a tendency to make outlandish statements and fail to back them up. Eg your ravings that got sourced back to weird nazi forums about antifa Ireland.... :P
Former Observer wrote: » Yes, my point, or rather my question, is how can Alex Jones be held responsible for what other people do on the back of his right to express his opinion that Sandy Hook was a hoax. I haven't heard anyone suggest that he was literally handing out road maps and sending columns of drivers that way. A bunch of people on the spectrum listened to his radio station and took their own initiative.
Former Observer wrote: » If somebody thinks there is something fishy about the Sandy Hook murders (for example) they should surely be able to express those opinions on social media, including but not limited to the hypothesis that the children and parents involved were crisis actors. I understand that this may be upsetting to parents etc. but that's just the way it is.
turbbo wrote: » Billy86 wrote: » Yeah, it is social media. It's their forums that they ban you off of,and forums (including this one we are posting on right now) are social media. Yes it's a fine line for Social Media and I predict a legal backlash for any of the big ones for suddenly wanting to control their content. Afaik boards has always controlled the content through it's mediators - which gives them a free pass - they always considered themselves as content providers. FB on the other hand never claimed to be content providers. Where will this lead? Imagine trying to regulate FB. Must be close to impossible.
Patty Hearst wrote: » batgoat wrote: » Firstly, you're exploiting the murder of a girl because of your own views. You do have a tendency to make outlandish statements and fail to back them up. Eg your ravings that got sourced back to weird nazi forums about antifa Ireland.... :P The photographs above show a clear link between Antifa and Saoradh..quite clear. But as I said this is off topic
Former Observer wrote: » Surely a person should be able to publicly express the opinion or otherwise speculate as to whether the parents of the children are crisis actors? Interesting question as to when/if that becomes libel though.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » He encouraged them.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » He provided them with information on where the parents lived.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » He expressed an opinion that is libellous.
