On the one hand, they're private entities and are entitled to host whatever content they ultimately please, but on the other hand, people should be free to determine what is and isn't bullshit on their own.
r/conspiracy should not defend Alex Jones. He may shed light on some issues, but at this point he's doing more harm than good for the critical thinking community.
This harm you mention benefits those who carried out 9/11. If his conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook are so wrong then it brings into question what he says about 9/11 even more.
Lol he was a little hesitant hopping on the Sandy Hook train. Alex Jones didn’t make Sandy Hook a conspiracy topic, he eventually came around to covering it. Just like every other serious conspiracy.
Things like 9/11 and Sandy Hook are under the microscope because lots of people can see the official stories don’t add up. If you need Alex Jones to spoonfeed you the full picture, you shouldn’t be participating in this sub or stating opinions on these complex matters. You should be at school or daycare with the rest of the kids.
That doesn’t mean anything. He still has his own website, nobody is shutting it down or denying access to it. I’m sure he won’t get the traffic but there aren’t any barriers put in place to stop people from going to his site.
Did you see the words between the quotes? They're kinda important, that's why I quoted them. "reddit /r/conspiracy" It's the second result down. /r/conspiracy hasn't been removed from the search engine, but I'd be willing to consider that other groups with the word conspiracy in them have SEO'd it off just "reddit conspiracy"
Verizon is an isp, that’s not the same as a web site. Controlling the gateway and determining who gets what is a problem, not a website deciding who it will do business with.
Censorship by private entities is absolutely allowed by the constitution and has to be, otherwise you're violating the 9th for those private entities.
Hell, censorship by private entities instead of the government used to have 100% conservative support. It still has full libertarian support. It should have full constitutionalist support.
If I own a church and don't want gay people in my church, I'm allowed to do that right?
If I own a church and want to kick out anyone spouting that religion is bullshit, well I wouldn't be very christian but I'd be entirely within my rights.
Same thing here. Because a business is open to the public, does not mean they cannot control what goes on in their business, to suggest as much is to simply suggest chaos backed by government forces, which is about as anti-constitution, anti-conservative as you can get.
Gay people aren't protected by the federal civil rights act. You can get confused, because there has been contradictary rulings about title VII which exclusively covers employer discrimination - The seventh appeals circuit says Title VII alone covers sexual orientation, where as both the eighth and second say it does not and no part of the civil rights act covers sexual orientation.
But absolutely no one is making the claim that the entire civil rights act covers sexual orientation or gender identity, mainly because that would be a violation of the first amendment. (Arguably the entire civil rights act is unconstitutional due to the first amendment, but we have to wait until Trump's SC pick gets confirmed before it would be overturned.)
It’s hard to say these companies have a monopoly over the Internet because AJ can stream on his own website. It’s not a complete shut down of his free speech.
The biggest four tech giants involved in media distribution banned Infowars on the same day: Facebook, Apple, YouTube/Google, and Spotify. No mention of any breach of contract/terms of service. This is private companies doing political censorship. How much of a share of the market do they have? Only 95% so it's not a monopoly?
That only really restricts the number of people that will engage with him online not really what he can say online. You also conflated ISPs with digital distribution platforms which are not the same thing dude. But please explain how you are a legal expert and any lawyer will win this case again?
"The Infowars podcasts are still available on many other podcast apps, like Pocket Casts, and Spotify still hosts other Infowars shows, like War Room. So it’s not like Infowars’ podcast listeners are out of luck entirely. Plus, Infowars still has its official app available for download in the Apple App Store, where it boasts a five-star rating, ranks No. 56 among all news apps for iPhone, and has amassed more than 2,500 ratings from listeners. While Apple isn’t exactly kicking Alex Jones to the curb, its decision to remove the five Infowars shows from its massively popular podcast library is still the largest action taken to date by a tech platform to remove news programs that promote conspiracy theories. "
No. If you have access to iTunes you can use a different podcast app to find it. If you have Spotify you still have internet and can find his podcast. If you watch it on YouTube you can still go to his website directly and watch things.
This in no way prevents those that already know about Alex Jones that wish to watch Alex Jones from doing so.
And there's the Streisand effect. And new free speech platforms popping up. Still doesn't make what they did right.
Why is it that one side attacks the other by shutting them down and the other side by exposing them to a larger audience? The left silences speech they don't like and the right makes sure everyone knows what the left is saying because it's clearly ludicrous.
Case in point. Antifa shuts down free speech events, forbids members from filming, and shouts hate at people they don't like regardless of whether or not it makes any sense, getting louder and louder with whistles and screaming to block out all speech they oppose. Meanwhile, the victims and opposition to Antifa simply expose them for who they are and what they do by turning the camera on them and uploading the footage for everyone to see for themselves. Current example: https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1026458005464907777?s=19
It really is a sides thing. Conservatives and Libertarians are for true speech and free speech. Liberals and Leftists are for hate-speech laws and shutting down speech they oppose. Those one the left are also after what I've heard referred to as "linguistic hegemony" and this is about redefining words and phrases to support their political agenda.
Libertarians are all about free speech. Conservatives are not.
Proof:
Look at what happened when someone kneeled during the national anthem. Libertarians shrugged and conservatives clutched their pearls and asked the NFL to ban them.
What happens when the media attacks Trump? (Trump supporting) conservatives want to increase libel laws and stop them.
Ok. I just always find it interesting how those on the right who say they are bullied by the left are the most transparently shit kickers that are selling you a story.
Milo and Brietbart. Candace Owens. They are so punished and censored by the left they do college tours. They are so censored every right winger knows who they are.
Here's Noam Chomsky on how he is banned from mainstream media entirely. Is Candice Owens ever on MSM? I know for sure Milo was until he became flagged as a pedo sympathizer.
Well those kids assaulting her wouldn't have known anything about her or TPUSA if it weren't for the MSM dragging her out once in a while to demonize her. If she were white, nobody would have heard her name. She's a Democrat apostate who converted and is now an evangelist for conservatism with a massive voice.
Chomsky's situation was spooky. They couldn't even let him speak at all or there'd be civil war.. I suppose that was the beginning shot of the war we're still battling today. Only now, we still have a little control of the information channels. Obviously not InfoWars though.
She is still building. She has her anonymous patreon; I expect her to get some sort of book deal too just like Milo did. She makes appearances on conservative outlets like Infowars and Fox News.
Basically she is the new darling conservative because she gets to play identity politics.
Milo, Reubin, and her they all cry about how identity politics is how the left will destroy everything. Then whenever criticized immediately fall back on identity politics.
AKA shit kicking. She gets to rile people up so they ignore the actual oligarchy that is forming around them.
Do you know that infowars on youtube got 1 million views daily on just one channel? And the other stuff they lost goes millions daily too. They just lost probably on a daily basis 75% of their daily views at least.
That is an oxymoron, when a few powerful companies effectively control something that isn't a "Free Market", it is actually called an
ol·i·gop·o·ly
a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers.
If the internet was like 20 to 30 big companies controlling video platforms that would be a lot more of a Free Market than when one or two platforms control it.
Maybe be an intelligent human being and read some books ;)
Yup and apparently that's the end result with capitalism and a free market. We are almost 250 years into this experiment and this is where it has led. Look at it like Pokemon. Your 2000-3000 individual companies, much like Charmander becoming Charmeleon and then Charizard, evolved into 2-3 companies. A truly free market left to it's own devices became an oligopoly. Put down your book and look out your window.
If one of the companies had a contract with the other to not host Infowars, resulting in no competition between the companies for Infowars traffic, you would have a point.
Competition isn't being limited. There is so little desire to host the content that there is no competition.
Do you know that infowars on youtube got 1 million views daily on just one channel? And the other stuff they lost goes millions daily too. They just lost probably on a daily basis 75% of their daily views at least.
So those people can't move to a different place to listen to him? Seems like they aren't very much a fan then.
You are equating "being a fan" with "getting views". Not the same thing, sorry, thanks for playing.
ol·i·gop·o·ly
a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers.
You are confusing me for someone that doesn't like busting up large companies.
My point being if they wish to still hear his content they can find it with the same internet connection they used before. No downloads required. I don't even know if they have to create a user account on the main infowars website.
If they don't even want to put that TINY amount of effort in they clearly aren't that interested in his views.
The tech giants are as much sheep as the consumers. AJ called for the execution of Mueller like a week ago. Tech giants sat on their hands until one of the companies stepped up, decided to deal with the censorship outcry and the other companies followed suit, because precedence from the other tech companies.
True, but they do control a monopoly in social media and cell platforms. Given that most civilian communications are based out of their software, denying someone to publicize their beliefs through them is the nowaday equivalent to banning their free speech.
An issue that will be raise is: if these companies choice to censor certain types of political speech It could be viewed as political contributions. For instance twitter partially shadow banning Republicans.
Is AJ really pushing a conservative viewpoint or just a bonkers viewpoint? Just because a raving lunatic has a political point of view, shouldn’t protect his speech when it can be considered dangerous.
"That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen," Jones said, miming a pistol with his hand.
"It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's the real world. Politically. You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We're going to bang heads. We're going to bang heads.”
“Bonkers” is relative. People thought it was bonkers when Trump announces he was running for President. AJs speech could be considered dangerous if he’s actually calling for violence. But is it performance art? Should Sara Jeong be banned too? Or she performance art too? I think people would just like consistency in policy or a Bonkers Committee
Yeah, Al the platforms like Facebook and YouTube are just convenient ways for casual people to watch his stuff...if they are into it. He can still host videos on his website no problem. Get donations through patreon etc as well.
Not a fan of censorship overall but maybe a line has to be drawn for private companies. It's does seem really really odd that they all occured around the same time. Has he said something offensive recently? Like more so than the sandy hook thing?
It was a metaphor. He said "Politically" several times. Granted, it was just another stupid Alex Jones rant, but I don't think somebody should be banned from 4 platforms because he goes on dumb rants.
"That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen," Jones said, miming a pistol with his hand.
There's a video of it on that link too. Anyone who takes this obvious metaphor and interprets it literally is either a moron or a liar. This is an entirely separate point from "is Alex Jones an idiot," to which I agree.
Yeah, his metaphors are strong but then they are usually pretty...don't know the word for it, kinda tongue in cheek. Like the whole psychic vampires....didn't directly mean that or he did and Hillary isn't a pedaphile or shoe is bit not like that cause it was a metaphor. It's all nonsense but I've seen worse that doesn't get bans
“That’s a demon I will take down, or I’ll die trying. So that’s it. It’s going to happen, we’re going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he’s going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it’s going to happen,” Jones said, miming a pistol with his hand.
“It’s not a joke. It’s not a game. It’s the real world. Politically. You’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We’re going to bang heads. We’re going to bang heads.”
98% of all internet traffic goes through 5 companies, all of which are majority owned by the same 20 investors/founders, how is that not a monopoly?
That's like saying I own the only newspaper in the US and everyone is given it for free on a daily basis to read exactly what I want believed, but you are free to go yell on the street corner to 10 people about how I'm destroying the worldso shut up, you have free speech as well.
Infowars is ranked ~870 in the United States. That’s less like randomly yelling on a street corner and more like being broadcasted on a major radio station and picked up by affiliates across the country.
At least have some intellectual honesty. The internet of today isn't the internet of the 2000s. Most people congregate on a small number of massive social media sites and kicking someone off of those sites effectively denies them exposure to the vast majority of people who might be receptive to their message. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be such a push for de-platforming people like Jones from people who want to see them get shut down.
In the days before the internet the major media platforms were the big newspapers and television stations, which were of course not open to conspiracy theories and non-mainstream political ideologies, so denying them influence was as easy as not reporting on them or flooding the media with smear pieces if they somehow got too big not to report on. To the extent that a conspiracy community existed it was composed of tiny mailing lists, low-circulation magazines, and small radio stations. The internet changed that because it allowed someone with little or no money to reach massive numbers of people and expose them to ideas they probably never would have heard of otherwise. How many people would even know the federal reserve is a private bank if it wasn't for the internet? How many people would even recognize the word Illuminati? How many people would even know the term New World Order? How many people would have seen the WTC 7 footage? It doesn't matter if you buy into those theories or not. The point is that they are extremely basic mainstays of community culture and lore and they would be almost unknown in mainstream circles if it wasn't for the internet. It's simply a fact that the internet has been essential to the spread of conspiracy theories, political heresies, and outside the box thinking of all kinds. The internet has allowed more people than ever before to break away from the mainstream narrative.
For all intents and purposes, major social media sites are now the internet. Forums are a thing of the past. Every imageboard other than 4chan is dead, dying, or tiny and not growing. IRC is way past its heyday. Denying people like Alex Jones access to sites like Yotube and Facebook is the equivalent of denying them and their ideas public exposure. Not only should it be considered censorship but more importantly it should be recognized for what it is: an attempt to reverse the spread of the outsider theories, ideas, and ideologies that the internet has allowed to flourish. An attempt to destroy one of the last real marketplaces of ideas that exists in this country and put us back under the intellectual tyranny of the media class. It doesn't matter if you like Alex or not, if you support that there's no reason for you to even be on a conspiracy sub other than to shill.
And if AJ's hosting service banned Infowars you would be cheering that too and saying that it's just capitalism and that he's not having his first amendment violated so nobody has any right to complain. In fact, that's precisely what happened when the Daily Stormer was shut down.
I'm not sure what you're saying but it sounds like you're saying people are unable to decide what's bullshit without Alex Jones telling them what to think.
I'm answering your question. You asked, how are people going to make up their own minds if he's not on those other platforms, and I said he has his own website, they can just go there. Doesn't that answer your question?
This isn't censorship, either. You don't have the right to somebody else's platform. The government can't force you to support speech you don't agree with, because that's literally the opposite of free speech.
Ok so it’s starts with YouTube censoring people, and you say sure, it’s a private company they have that right. Then social media, and again you say, sure they have that right. Then what if ISPs start censoring content, we’ll, they’re private companies so why not??? If there is no platform FOR free speech, then there is NO freedom of speech.
It's my opinion that ISPs are different, since in a lot of areas they operate as state sanctioned monopolies. Which is why I support net neutrality, which would keep ISPs from "censoring" things.
Also, what you just said was literally a slippery slope fallacy. You and I both have "lines in the sand" that "censorship" shouldn't cross. My line is in a different place from yours; that does not mean I'm pro "censorship" and you're against it.
And I'm putting "censorship" in quotes because I don't believe it's censorship if it's not the government banning your speech.
And finally, even if ISPs "censored" Alex Jones, if every company in America "censored" him, he still has the right to say the things he says. If you go to his house, he's free to say them to you. His right to free speech does not mean anybody else in America has to help him spread his views.
So you’re opinion on free speech is that it should be confined to the privacy of your own home... and yes this IS a slippery slope. It starts with people like Alex Jones and when they see that people are fine with him being censored, they encroach further. This isn’t a fallacy, this is reality.
I like to listen to Alex as a balance to the increasing bias in every other form of media. I can only listen to so much NPR talk about Trump putting kids in cages. I get it! Orange man bad! What are the other POVs? Not allowed to be discussed anymore! WTF?!
people should be free to determine what is and isn't bullshit on their own.
And business owners should have the freedom to offer products and services they feel isn't bullshit on their own. Honestly, people like you need to be given an IQ test before they can even get online. I should have the freedom not to have to be constantly confronted by morons like you whenever i'm online.
Honestly people like you need to be given an IQ test before they can even get online.
I understand you're upset by my comment, but you entirely ignored the first half that explains that I understand these companies are entitled to control content on their pages.
If you had stopped your criticism two sentences earlier, your comment might make sense.
And if you had stopped writing your first post at the first comma, you would have said all that actually needs to be said about this. Jones incited violence when he made what would have been a threat without his intentional use of the word "politically" and he was banned because that breaks the rules he agreed to. That's it.
I thought Facebook suspended his account because of the 4 videos last month that supposedly invited violence. What instance are you talking about with the use of the word "politically?"
That is the ridiculous video in question. I thought he was funny when he was yelling about gay frogs, but this is actually a dangerous time. There's no place for this kind of rhetoric.
The irony being that atrazine does in fact cause some male frogs to turn female! That part always killed me. The one story Jones got truly right was memed into oblivion. I never could stand the guy but in that one particular instance, he was correct and there is plenty of peer reviewed research to support a number of surrounding claims.
Thank you for sharing this link. I knew about the 4 last month but hadn't heard this yet. He's his own worst enemy lol
I like to use Ben Shapiro as an example of someone on the right who's not going down the same dangerous path as Jones. We can still have reasonable discourse.
I can't remember agreeing with Shapiro about anything I've really ever heard him say. I'm not surprised he's supportive of Israel. I'm sure there are other things people could point out like that too. But he's not ranting and raving about political gunfights at high noon and accusing Mueller of raping children.
Business owners are allowed those freedoms. That’s how you end up with shit holes like Walmart. Hopefully online media services won’t all end up like shitty Walmarts that pretty much dictate what products their customer has to choose from-as you seem to prefer, dumbass.
"No shoes, no shirt, no service"
"We refuse the right to serve any customer at any time for any reason"
You may have seen these signs before. I imagine you likely have.
Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class. At the national level, protected classes include: Race or color. National origin or citizenship status.
That's your response? You do not address any of the issues I raised. There is already case law regarding public forums. Maybe you should read it so you can sound more intelligent.
Which only applies to government prosecution. Write up an article and go insist your local paper print it because of the 1st Amendment. You won't get very far.
"If the government is involved with a private entity to a significant degree, then the First Amendment can become an issue."
"All of this is to say that if someone is arguing that he or she is not violating free speech when attempting to silence an unpopular opinion or if this person says that something was not technically censored because the government wasn't involved, he or she does not know what he or she is talking about."
He is correctly interpreting case law. Research it.
You said it only applies to government "prosecution". I think you mean government action.
He gives an example of a private prison, which is a corporation and not part of the government. By your logic, the private prison can ignore the Constitution, but this is clearly not the case. Private prisons are required to follow the Constitution because they are agents of the government.
Why not just hire private police so that they do not have to follow the Constitution?
You see where I am going with this?
If your logic holds, then the government can get around the limits of the Constitution by creating corporations to act for them. They can't do this, and you should be thankful for it.
What will you do when they decide to limit your Free Speech? Will you still be so eager to take away the Free Speech rights of others?
Yeah. What don’t u get? If they can ban him they can ban anyone especially for conspiracy. I take it u like conspiracy shit since ur on this sub. U like modern day book burning? How every truther doesn’t get the massive impact this ban on jones for his speech is super troubling. Wake up people. This is their move. Midterms are around the corner. This is election meddling.
Is it? Realistically it’s a reaction to his lawsuits, especially in facebooks case. And yeah, I dabble in conspiracies, just not the “these parents are crisis actors who’s dead kids aren’t real” shit.
You just nailed it. Everyone in conspiracy theory circles can't stand Alex Jones because of the crisis actor stuff. If Jones and company hadn't leaned into that so heavily, and maybe if he laid off hawking the brain supplements, he might have some more sympathy from the larger community.
Is it as harmful as...say...telling the world the lie that a nation has "weapons of mass destruction" and that they were responsible for an attack on America...invading said nation and slaughtering millions of civilians through sanctions and war?
Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to freedom of a platform.
The idea of freedom of speech is only viable with a society that keeps the worst fringes in check. You’re welcome to say it, but what you say might not necessary be welcome.
Have u seen the cnn ratings? 200k a day for cooper. Jones gets what 5-10 million a week easy. Plus YouTube and social media. Use your brain. Alex jones has more listeners than cnn for sure. During the election jones was getting a combined 40-80 million in one week. U telling me Anderson cooper even comes close.
I am using my brain, I'm asking you for a citation on your claims rather than taking your word for it. When I search on my own for those numbers everything is coming back saying your claim is wrong. So if you've got hard data to back your claim, I'd love to see it.
That's not the question or comparison you posed. You posed, 'He(Alex Jones) has more audience than cnn and msnbc.'
This is incorrect, even a cursory comparison of the numbers shows more households view each CNN and MSNBC than households view Alex Jones -- If we use a sketchy Neislen <-> Youtube Views comparison. Since they are not the same platform, and the platforms vary by audience and ratings measures, exact comparisons are hard to find.
Which Alex Jones? The one that spews insanity at the suffering parents of school shootings? Or the one who's lawyer argues he does it for show and nobody sensible would believe any of his ravings?
This thread feels like it's being brigaded. I don't like some of what AJ says either, but if every platform on the web bans him despite the fact that what he says is legal, that is suppression of free speech. Free speech is not just the first amendment, it's a principle.
Youtube are banning everyone even remotely controversial and will lose all the audience once a rival streaming service gets popular.
Facebook is a toxic ship that is best avoided by everyone anyway
The problem is, the barrier to entry is so high, no one is replacing FB or YT. Many many billions of dollars to get in the game. Having that much money to throw around automatically makes you someone's bitch, so you become the evil you are trying to displace.
Never heard of it. I have heard of YouTube though. The amount of ad revenue that content producers make via that platform, makes it stupid to go away and put content elsewhere. Market cap is a thing. People will bring up old tech that fell to the wayside, but fail to understand the reach of FB or YouTube. FB sold the data of their users to foreign adversaries, and guess what, they still own the social media market. YouTube is backed by google, they will be just fine letting a lunatic like AJ produce elsewhere.
When google was unable to even make a dent in Facebook I learned that "users" are a commodity that is very expensive... You don't just start a big site like youtube.
Must be Soros, maybe also Rothschild and for sure plenty of Jews, maybe Bezos as well. I would assume that when Facebook launched they were already planning the Russia Hoax to defeat Trump. It is only logical that they invested big money into this.
Yep, the zuc dropped out of uni and said "my life's goal is to start a hoax to Destroy a presidential candidate. More specifically, it will involve Russia and trump. I'll make it work, somehow!"
Youtube are banning everyone even remotely controversial and will lose all the audience once a rival streaming service gets popular.
LOLz. For starters, it's "YouTube is" not "YouTube are". I mean, you can't even get two words into a conversation without screwing up. It's just an indication of your overall stupidity. Let's not even get into how asinine your statement about YouTube is in regards to banning everyone and that they will lose their audience. You sound like a 10 year old moron.
its because of net neutrality. ISPs are going to reduce everyone's data caps soon, and then you'll have to pay for the 'privilege' of using websites without it counting against your cap, so websites will be like cable TV channels.
At that point Youtube is going to become a paid service (pay a monthly fee to watch vids without using data) complete with corporate sponsors. That's why they're pruning all the controversial content makers now, it's in preparation of that.
Slet me rearrange some words for him so you can understand: "If one gets silenced, they all get silenced." Last bits of democracy flying away. Amd yes even the crazy ones get their freedom of speech whether we like them or not, thats how it roles.
Oh yea we have. Source: r/conspiracy, etc . mods have been caught deleting alot of important posts.just scroll thru r/conspiracy and you will see many post calling them out for it.( not all mods tho)
Exactly. Alex Jones and InfoWars are a government-sponsored disinfo campaign. As gatekeepers, their purpose is to corral people who believe in conspiracy theories and distract them from digging into the real conspiracies and crimes. It also helps by associating conspiracy theorists with the right wing, furthering our political divides and again, keeping people from the issues that really matter. Finally, it makes conspiracy theorists look completely insane by association, keeping the general public from looking into conspiracies at all. Win, win, win for TPTB.
Interesting that he's getting banned lately. Possibly just upping the ante on distractions and culture wars. Or, as another user says: "This validates AJ's disinfo and it sets up a perfect precedent for future industry-wide deplatforming of political personas."
I don't think so. I think Alex Jones is semi-legit in his authenticity. I understand your perspective and I do believe the government has done this in the past (especially with the popularity of flat earthers). This is a two pronged problem. 1) The government spreads disinfo to make conspiracy theorists look nuts. 2) The further down the rabbit hole you get, you look nuts to normal people.
If there was only some entity that could regulate corporations to prevent them from becoming monopolies. Or when they become too big, they can be regulated as a utility and be forced to not discriminate based on legal content. But then that government tyranny. So there you go.
There's barely a distinction between Government/Corporation these days, not in the US, at least. So with that regard, I think corporations should be held to the same standard as the government and be forced to abide by the US Constitution when doing business in the US, just as the Government has to.
Central banking is the power, money by fiat, by debt, rules the planet... big business vs government is merely their charade. Really an occult mockery system.
And when their hosting service bans them, you'll cheer that as the free market in action too and still say he's not being silenced. Which is exactly what happened with the Daily Stormer.
Because its very blatantly a coordinated effort by 3 different corporations who censor political persona. I think AJ is a disinfo agent, but that's what's going on here. You shouldn't support it because it can, and will be, used against people that you support.
Also this is in total agreement with general leftist sentiment. It screams political targeting.
God you leftists suck. You see how bullshit this broad deplatforming is but you will defend it with all you got because it censors people you don't like. Just realize that one day it might turn around and it might be your people who are getting """perfectly legally""" deplatformed.
I guess its a paradox then. Deplatforming people based on political opinions violates 1a as well.
Only if it prevents them from expressing it. Nothing prevents Alex Jones from expressing his opinions and views. They are just stopping it on their site.
Youtube is the biggest video hosting site but it isn't the only one.
"right to free speech doesn't guarantee right to an audience", am i right? This is what Marxists have been using for quite a few years and i see its entering mainstream. Its sick.
"right to free speech doesn't guarantee right to an audience", am i right? This is what Marxists have been using for quite a few years and i see its entering mainstream. Its sick.
It's not a "Marxist" viewpoint. It is a free market libertarian viewpoint.
You say that as if it’s not patently true. You would force a private entity to provide service that’s against their values? This is the baker refusing service, you can’t have it both ways.
? Yes. Obviously. What happened when a bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? Discrimination, be it partisan or otherwise, is illegal. It should be.
The only thing a right to free speech guarantees is that the government can't censor your speech. It does not guarantee that anyone else has to put up with it.
They're not here in good faith. They are pro D centrists, not leftist. The leftist are your I's and mostly Sanders camp. They are much further left than the neoliberals that pay to be the dominant voice on Reddit. Just saying you will find many allies on the "left". Do not let these centrist assholes make you think otherwise. Divided we fall.
Well youtube is now more of a public utility then a private corporation.. I mean the US gov't did use taxpayers money to prop up and build google and facebook.
Quite a reach! The govt cannot control what these private orgs host on their own resources, there is a ton of precedent for that, and that appears to be what /u/jt2424 is advocating for
No, I am just saying there has been lots of theories stating that facebook and google were helped by the NSA.. you know what I mean.. They shouldn't be allowed to silence people for what is free speech. I never said the government should take complete control, i am just saying they shouldn't be allowed to de-platform people because they don't like their politics.. Especially sense youtube, facebook and google are such big parts of the internet now days and they wouldn't have gotten to where they are without the help of the US government (NSA, etc).
The thing is, what is the solution? Either we have a free market or we don't have a free market. I am left leaning myself but I can assure you that if a person like Alex Jones were a leftist I would hooray his downfall just like I do now. This man excerpts extremely toxic behavior. He does not speak for conservatives, he speaks for ignorant idiots.
Audience should decide. Don't like it - don't watch it.
As if that matters though. I think all of this is just a charade. AJ gets deplatformed for "hate speech" without any specific comment mentioned, yet Sarah Jeong gets hired for repeated, documented hate speech. I think this discussion overall is pointless because those in power will continue to do what they want to do. What the people think or what the truth is hardly matters anymore.
If you follow the mentality of allowing the audience to dictate what is on a private entities platform you are then stripping said private entities of controlling their own product(s).
Private entities are being stripped of their right to control anyway. Illegal content is removed because nation states demand it and define what is illegal. Germany has setup a scheme were they can fine social media network up to $3m for violating their defined "hate speech" and "islamophobia".
Nah it doesn't matter. A private corporation can ban you from using their services for literally any reason besides for being from a protected class like race, religion, or sex. They could even ban you explicitly just because they don't like you or because they don't like your opinion.
I'm a proud Bernie Sanders and Obama donating liberal. I despise hearing all of this rhetoric about the marxists/leftists/progressives causing hell on earth. It's partisan and poorly backed.
However, the comment I responded to is why we the people are too stupid to remain free. If government shuts speech down, we get legitimately worried. If those who own the means of communication shut speech down, we become aspergers rocking back and forth chanting, they have the legal right to do so.
Um, we already knew that, geniuses. It's not the point. The outrage we are supposed to direct at them is dampened by our acquiescence to current law. We are tacitly consenting to have our communication micromanaged by untrustworthy entities. That is noteworthy. Is it not? Let's point out some superficial, obvious crap and ignore what will affect us?
Remember when wiki leaks was denied donations from credit cards and PayPal, because of some coordinated effort by those companies? That was coordinatedly strange too. They had bitcoin to go around it, but few used it.
I know stupid is going to kick in and tell me my point is invalid, because they no longer like wikileaks. Well, doesn't that seem similar to accepting what is happening to Alex Jones now? Just because we don't agree with him doesn't mean we should accept what is happening to him. Fools!
We're building a panoptocon for the powerful, but a media for the peasants micromanaged by and for its corrupt owners. No problems here, the law is God.
He's a disinfo agent. It doesn't matter though. Its obviously a targeted campaign with all 3 corporations being in cahoots. This validates AJ's disinfo and it sets up a perfect precedent for future industry-wide deplatforming of political personas. Surely you must be able to see the bigger picture here, no?
he is actively spreading lies for money. 3 companies saw that and finally decided he can do it elsewhere and gets no more of their money. not everything is a conspiracy but i guess i'm in the wrong place to be saying that so ill excuse myself
3 companies saw that and finally decided he can do it elsewhere and gets no more of their money.
Let me get this straight. For all these years companies didn't think anything about it, until today, when all 3, by pure coincidence, decided to deplatform him? Really, dude?
I'm sure they thought about it, and were worried about backlash. And rightfully so. Cause look at whats going on here. Then they decided fuck it we dont want him associated with us anymore. Thats Within their rights. He hasnt been silenced. He can still talk and make vids. People just have to go to his website now. Which is still running i think.
If you don't think it makes sense for them to watch what the other is doing, you're crazy. They've probably been wanting to pull the plug, but didn't want to be the one company to do it and get the backlash. Either one took the leap and the others followed, or they all agreed it was a good time. Either way, it is entirely unsurprising that it would happen this way.
Also consider that the companies aren't doing this for some moral pat on their own backs. Most likely they all have a mutual advertiser that threatened to pull ads if he isn't banned.
I get that. it doesn't look entirely normal. and I do not believe it was by pure coincidence. just look at how stitcher almost lost a lot of their subscribers by hosting alex jones less than a week ago. due to the backlash by their customers, they dropped the infowars podcasts less than a week later. maybe these bigger companys are seeing that its ok to drop him, and decided to do it all together. I wouldn't be suprised if the ceo's of these companys talk often
i get that, and I know that they probably do spin shit to make it further their cause, which i agree is bad. I just think he actively is saying stuff he doesn't even believe because its controversial and a lot of people like that. I think it can lead to people doing and thinking some messed up shit which i do not believe is good for the world. but thats just my opinion. I understand that i might be wrong
I know I know, he was just one person. I did not like him and its pretty obvious but he uses his free speech to be a dick and i use mine to call him a dick on the internet. I know he isn't even the worst. but he is the one i noticed. If i get silenced i don't care because my livelihood doesn't depend on me earning money through being a dick.
No, no it does not. Alex Jones is nothing more than a disillusioned conspiracy theorist. He is by no means a political correspondent nor does he provide his audience with actual political affairs.
i believe in free speech but also believe in responses to said free speech being viable. if I break rules (thus being a piece of shit myself) i should face the repercussions of it without crying about being silenced
As a leftist independent that doesn’t even like Alex Jones, it’s insane how many people just don’t get it. 100% agree with your viewpoint, enjoy all the downvotes you’ll receive for it.
Youtube is subsidized with American taxpayer money, they are an agent for the CIA, and they are a public platform. They have to respect Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
My big issue isn't that he got taken down by them. My big issue is they took him down but leave Scientology pages and information up which has been MUCH MORE harmful to many more people.
This is clearly a political issue and nothing more.
They can do whatever they want. People don’t have to use their platforms. People can open their own platform and host whatever content they want. Stop feeding the beast you don’t want to continue living.
At the end it's all about money. It's the response to the Adpocalypse and loss of Ad revenue because companies pulled out due to having thier ad on controversal topics and them beinv linked to those topics by ads.
Wah wah white men. You really that sensitive bro? As a white person seeing people like you bitch about them targeting us is just sad. It's long overdue and you can step up and show them you're a decent man or crack under he pressure. Being called mean names is nothing compared to what whites have done to people throughout history. Just saying.
This is the free market whites created and its finally catching up with them.
Have you read about what black people do to each other in Africa? Have you read about what black people do to each other in the USA? Get the fuck outta here.
Wow. So the black on black violence in a country created by whites that they don't want to be in but would prefer to be in Africa is causing these unbelievable murder rates against each other?
How about those racist cops killing blacks? Or the CIA putting crack out there to break up black families. Seems like the white man has it out for anyone other than their fellow white man. Even white women are starting to wake up to how damn selfish those white men are. Just wait. I bet your fragile little ego will collapse soon and we will all see the type of 'man' you are.
You seem very fragile? Is it hard growing up in a white created country for you because of your liberal belief system and hatred for things that happened centuries ago? Settle down and move home then!
I'm white my friend but it doesn't mean I have to follow in the footsteps of the white supremacist regimes. I'm also probably one of the strongest people ever tyvm so get out of here with your claims of fragility.
I've suffered endless triggers, dealt with severe anxiety caused by hateful people. However, I overcame those issues and rose up to become a stronger person. Which leads me to standing up to Trump. No matter how much authority a bully has they can be taken down. With enough of my friends we will take this man down and make sure his mark on history is so miniscule it makes his hands (and peepee) look big.
Ah ok, well you do realize that white people like you created this? Trump is here because so many white people hate themselves and have white guilt (which is fake by the way). Proud to be white! Trump 2020!
Yet if a black person says "Black Power" or raises a fist it's celebrated. It's all reverse racism and globalism because everyone flocks to white created countries because we are the master race. It's a shame most people are too stupid to create a decent country. We are a minority on Earth but still are the master race. Seems odd. China and Japan are okay. They already know multiculturalism cannot work so they have that going for them.
It's really easy to claim stupidity when you don't agree with the way things are, I get it. But you're only doing yourself a disservice with the claims.
Wrong way for whom? For Alex Jones fans and fans of complete free speech? Sure. For a corporation like YouTube, it’s likely a right decision as they look to rebrand their platform.
I'm not an Alex Jones fan but I'm a free speech absolutist. I understand the argument that YouTube can do what it wants, but I think it's wrong, just because it's Google/Alphabet in charge.
There has to be regulations put on a corporation so large with so much of the market share. I'm not sure what exactly that number of users is to be enforceable, but Alphabet, Apple, and Facebook have all definitely achieved it.
This is so stupid. Free speech (as in the first amendment) regulates what the government can regulate in terms of speech. You, as a free speech absolutist, want the government to regulate what tech companies allow on their platforms. So, you're essentially saying you AREN'T a free speech absolutist, based on the fact that you want the government to be able to regulate more speech than they're currently able to regulate.
You, as a free speech absolutist, want the government to regulate what tech companies allow on their platforms.
I want them regulated to allow everything that isn't illegal by US law. Why is that so crazy?
So, you're essentially saying you AREN'T a free speech absolutist, based on the fact that you want the government to be able to regulate more speech than they're currently able to regulate.
Wrong. I want all speech open at all times. Banning somebody is not "free speech", it's censorship.
Okay, but that's not plausible, because the first amendment regulates what can be regulated. "All speech" isn't something that the government can regulate. It has to be types of speech that fit into very narrow categories that honestly aren't even used that much these days. The company has the responsibility of moderating their content, the government generally can't, and to suggest that another scheme of government oversight be put into place makes you the exact opposite of a "free speech absolutist".
It's very fucking possible and plausible. Allow all speech at all times except for when it's directly hurtful to innocent people, just the same thing as yelling bomb at an airport or fire in a crowded theater, which would cause a stampede.
So yeah, maybe a free speech absolutist with a caveat on absolutist, but not everything is black and white.
Allow all speech at all times except for when it’s directly hurtful to innocent people
I don't think it should apply to illegal speech.
Aaaaand now it’s all totally ambiguous. Short of the government forcing companies to host content they don’t want to I’m not really sure what you want. You yourself even even went from free speech absolutist to free speech with caveats in 5 mins, so when you scale that up to an entire countries its not really surprising lots of people disagree with where the line should be.
Let’s say YouTube are forced to host Alex jones content, not only does that mean YouTube are not allowed to curate content on their own platform which is already odd, but they wouldn’t even be able to monetise it as advertisers want nothing to do with it, so we’d be forcing YouTube to eat a cost and damage their brand in order to please Alex Jones and his fans.
On a basic level I just don’t see how you get around the issue of forcing people to provide a platform to people they don’t want to. You’re just trading the rights of x to control their product, to please y who aren’t even necessarily the customers of x.
On a basic level I just don’t see how you get around the issue of forcing people to provide a platform to people they don’t want to. You’re just trading the rights of x to control their product, to please y who aren’t even necessarily the customers of x.
I've explained this time and time over. You just don't listen, or don't want to listen.
The problem is not "providing a platform for those that don't want to," it's that Google shouldn't "not want to provide a platform" to anybody. Their entire business model is being a platform.
"Regulating" them so that they can't ban people for legal free speech is wrong. Period. I realize it's legal for them to do so, I just think it's wrong, and I think it can be used to ban other people of views without question, which I think is wrong.
This is textbook "wrongthink" from 1984. It should be stopped.
But for example Google is primarily a publicly traded technology and advertising business.
Why would they have absolutist freedom of speech at their core? They will largely do whatever is most popular and makes them money.
Look at the coverage of their potential move into China if you’re in any doubt that they care more about markets then anything else.
I’ve explained this time and time over. You just don’t listen, or don’t want to listen.
I mean this is literally the first time I’ve ever responded to you so I don’t know about that? And if people are continuing to ask you about something maybe it’s because what you’re saying is confusing.
You said
Allow all speech at all times
Immediately followed by
except for when it's directly hurtful to innocent people
And then
So yeah, maybe a free speech absolutist with a caveat on absolutist, but not everything is black and white
????????
I don't think it should apply to illegal speech.
You must see why this is a biiiiiiit ambiguous though. Not everyone shares the same assumptions, so not everyone will agree where to draw the line. You’ve already acknowledge that free speech doesn’t actually mean free speech.
If someone claims they’re harmed by the speech of x, and that was directly hurtful, what is the test for if that’s true? Does it include being offended? What if it’s a racial slur? What if it encourages others to do something? Etc
I don’t know what the answer is, but I find it a bit annoying when people just hand-wave over the issue with oh just let everyone have free speech everywhere, because as demonstrated that’s often not what’s actually being discussed and it’s quite an open ended discussion.
I mean, you can pick apart my words all goddamn day and argue against them, my viewpoint is that they should be held to the same standards that US courts are held to. They shouldn't be allowed the capability to ban, unless directed by a court to do so. End of story.
I realize that varies from state to state and court to court, but it's a starting point.
my viewpoint is that they should be held to the same standards that US courts are held to. They shouldn't be allowed the capability to ban unless directed by a court to do so..
That fine, I don’t personally agree that companies should be held to the same standard as an entire branch of government and you did just previously say the exact opposite thing...
"Regulating" them so that they can't ban people for legal free speech is wrong. Period. I realize it's legal for them to do so.. And that person should be prosecuted. End of story.
I guess though that that’s my entire point. It’s just difficult to get people to agree on the issue, so I just don’t think it’s helpful to talk in absolutes as it’s always going to fall apart if it has to interact with the real world.
Oh, my bad, I meant to say "Not 'regulating'"... I'm for regulation once a company is as ubiquitous and large as any of the companies we're talking about, but not for the same sort of regulation on smaller forums.
I think maybe 1 million users might be a good number for this type of regulation, since there isn't any.
But the only way to institute that is by regulating what a private institution can and can't remove from their platform, therefore regulating their speech.
I'm confident I followed your own argument better than you did.
You just seem really intent on changing your words so what you actually want doesn't sound as batshit as it actually is.
No private entity should be forced(especially not by the fucking government) to host something they don't want to host.
The only time that breaks down is when that "something" is outside of any entities control and when the only way to access information is through a private entity.
In this case Alex has a choice, he can change what he says or he can accept that he can't say it on these entities' space especially since those entities aren't stopping him from saying what he's saying at all, but rather not allowing him to say it on their property.
Now if it was an ISP that was censoring Alex this whole conversation would fall under "when the only way to access information is through a private entity" which as I said above is another instance where the "no private entity should be forced to host something they don't want to host" bit doesn't apply because now Alex Jones' entire existence is being censored and now a private entity is being kept from existing at all(in 2018 if you're not on the internet you don't exist) by another.
And I'm sure you just equate that to yt/fb/tw/apple having so many eyeballs that it's basically the same thing, but it isn't because I can still go to infowars.com and there's lil Alex with his lil pills, his business is still there and I can still access it. If my ISP of which I have no other choice but to use unless I move far from my source of income removes him though then there is No Way for me to get to his content.
You see how that's entirely different than non-ISP level companies censoring him I would hope.
There’s no difference between these corporations and the government, I think that’s where we disagree. All of these have received governmental funding despite being multi-billion dollar companies.
Your defense of their right for free speech over the little guy is incorrect and misguided.
All of these have received governmental funding despite being multi-billion dollar companies.
So? Lots of companies and industries get government funding, that doesn't mean that they should be considered part of the government and if the government is EVER found to be influencing a private entity through what are essentially bribes than those officials responsible should be punished. I'm not sure but there might be some laws to that effect already.
Your defense of their right for free speech over the little guy is incorrect and misguided.
Their right to free speech is the same as the little guy's, it's literally the only way to ensure an even playing field. It's the only way to have competition even.
If they can be barred from selectively hosting people then that means that I can also be barred from selectively hosting people, no thanks.
The funny thing will be when Alex Jones sues and wins in the Supreme Court and your precious corporations lose their Safe Harbor rights they’ve had thus far because he can make a case he was targeted for his political beliefs.
Then you will have government enacted mass censorship because you didn’t stand up for it now.
That implies I get paid. I'm more puzzled by the sheer stupidity who thinks a private corporation is anything like the soviet union. History failed you eh? Or maybe you're just another liberal communist apologist trying to rewrite history.
Youtube and Google are the CIA. This is not a private corporation rebranding its content and image. This is a totalitarian crackdown on the flow of information. Get with it.
Youtube is subsidized with American taxpayer money, they are an agent for the CIA, and they are a public platform. They have to respect Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
I don't think you grasp how much money Alphabet makes, and how much they've been able to monetize Youtube from profits. See, I'm capable of reading a company's finance reports. They're not subsidized by anyone.
Hate speech is especially free speech. Doesn't make it right or pleasing, but there can be zero limitations on truly free speech. Everyone has the right to make themselves out to be a bigoted asshole, no matter how offensive they may be.
So that's the point at which you'd agree to him being censored? If his website was banned?
Are you sure you wouldn't just come back if his website was banned and say "He isn't being censored, nobody is stopping him from going on a street corner with a megaphone?"
These are companies providing a service. If a baker can deny a gay couple service YouTube can deny AJ service. The internet has been deemed a human right. YouTube has not.
It’s not even an argument I’m trying to make. I’ve said I understand why they can, but I think it’s wrong and should be changed, and they should be regulated to the point that they have to abide by the same terms of free speech that the government has to.
I get it, I know why they can, people can stop “explaining” that to me.
They do abide by the Constitution, because the First Amendment is about government. Can YouTube, iTunes and Twitter point to their Terms of Service as a reason for his ban? Yes. So that should be the end of it. Everyone agrees to abide by their rules. Jones did not.
You seem to not understand, still. I’m advocating for a change to this. I think they should be treated as public spaces, you just keep telling me things I already know.
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre should still be illegal right?
Inciting lawless action should still be illegal right? You don't think Jones' veiled threat to Mueller in a time where people actually believe he's an enemy of the country is an incitement? That's why he was banned.
Yes, I believe Jones should be held to the same standard he would be in court. Of course yelling fire in a crowded theate would be unacceptable and prosecutable.
As far as threats to Mueller, could you link them?
I don’t listen so I haven’t heard, but I’d be surprised if they were anything more than hyperbole.
Other than using the word "politically" to avoid making an actual death threat, he says that the only thing he's afraid of is not being man enough to do what needs to be done when the time comes. I genuinely worry about how people who feel Mueller and the press are enemies of the people would interpret that.
he says that the only thing he's afraid of is not being man enough to do what needs to be done when the time comes.
He says he fears he's not man enough to tell the truth.
I genuinely worry about how people who feel Mueller and the press are enemies of the people would interpret that.
Tons of people on the left called Trump/Bush/etc. a war criminal, traitor, and worse. Did you "genuinely worry" what people would do when they heard that?
Let me ask you, do you agree with BP being regulated to not dump toxic chemicals into the closest river/ocean available? Do you think it’s a bad thing that Coca-Cola is regulated to not allow poison in their products?
I think the point being made is this. Freedom of speech isn't just freedom from unreasonable censorship it's also the freedom to not be forced to say something you don't want to (think JBP's issue with Bill C-16 in Canada). If for a second we view content on YouTube as part of YouTube's "speech" then it should be allowed to ban whatever it wants or in other words not be forced to "say" something it doesn't want to.
Why would anybody think that YouTube is saying anything any of what it’s creators say, though? It’s just a platform. You’d have to be a complete moron to think that it’s an official YouTube viewpoint on every video they host.
Personally I agree with you. I don't think that content on YouTube is part of YouTube's speech. It should be considered a neutral platform but YouTube is free to determine how they view content on their platform and if they choose to treat it as their own speech for whatever reason then that's their call. On the bright side for Alex this should increase traffic to his website and subsequently male vitality supplement sales (lol).
Maybe this all comes down to potential lawsuits at least as a viable excuse for the censorship. People sue companies all the time for stuff that isn't the company's fault. It's why we have a million warning labels on everything, as if it wasn't obvious to most people that you shouldn't drink Lysol. It reminds me of the lady who sued and won against McDonalds for not having a "coffee may be hot" warning label on their cups after she spilled it on herself.
I'm trying to but can't imagine a scenario where YouTube get's sued successfully for something Alex Jones (or his crew) said or did instead of InfoWars being sued but that might just be a lack of imagination on my part. Maybe it has something to do with appeasing the hardcore wing of the SJW movement who tends to call anyone willing to give someone right of Bernie a fair shake or a platform to speak a "Nazi sympathizer" etc... There's a lot of weird people out there and they're only getting weirder.
I'm trying to but can't imagine a scenario where YouTube get's sued successfully for something Alex Jones (or his crew) said or did instead of InfoWars being sued but that might just be a lack of imagination on my part. Maybe it has something to do with appeasing the hardcore wing of the SJW movement who tends to call anyone willing to give someone right of Bernie a fair shake or a platform to speak a "Nazi sympathizer" etc... There's a lot of weird people out there and they're only getting weirder.
Never in a million years, I'm also a left-leaning independent but I'm forced to defend AJ here because I do believe in personal liberty and don't see much of a distinction between Corporations/Government. Seems like a lot of people mistake me for a Trump supporter for saying some shit so basic, not everything is binary.
There's lots of "left-leaning" people out there that support Antifa. They're people that stand for nothing other than a worldview that they're not even smart enough to understand.
Why would anybody think that YouTube is saying anything any of what it’s creators say, though? It’s just a platform. You’d have to be a complete moron to think that it’s an official YouTube viewpoint on every video they host.
Just try hosting ISIS propaganda videos or e.g. child porn and you will realize that this statement ain't true. Youtube already blocks lots of content which is far less harmful than Jones hatespeech.
Fun thing about the internet... anyone can go to whatever sites they want. The user base of Youtube has no bearing on people visiting Inforwars.com or from Alex hosting on Vimeo or whatever user content streaming sites there are.
But if you remove an avenue of access, people are not going to be able to find it as easily. Think of it like this...imagine YouTube, Facebook, Google, etc. is a big city, and it's surrounded by smaller towns, each of which is connected to the big city by a major highway. There are small roads that interconnect as well, but they are poorly maintained and not easy to traverse. Now imagine one of the towns does or says something the big city doesnt like. The big city decides to demolish the highway leading to the offending small town. Now for anyone to get there, they have to use the small roads to do so. The roads discourage travel and the small town starts to suffer and shrink, over time becoming smaller and smaller until the traffic ceases because of the difficulty to get there. That small town because deserted, a ghost town because its easier to just stop going there.
I'm not arguing for infowars in particular, but rather all websites that use the "big city" websites to help direct traffic to their "small town". What happens when it happens to another, then another, then another because they may not agree with what the current narrative may be at any given time? Most people don't care now because its infowars, but what if it were a contemporary site on the left?
We should all care about things like this. Google has been waging it's own information wars on those who seek knowledge on the other side of the coin, helping to push the Russian narrative all the while. In my opinion, Google should allow all the information to be available to those that seek it, regardless of political affiliation. Information should not be controlled to influence opinion, because eventually you just end up having the same situation as China or North Korea.
I think I understand your argument, but where are you going to draw that line?
Are you going to require all bookstores to carry all books? Should I be able to go down to the Christian book store and buy a Satanic Bible? Should the bookstore be forced to sell that to me?
What about newsstands? Are they removing an avenue of access by not carrying every newspaper in existence? Can Weekly World News sue any place that sells newspapers but doesn't carry theirs?
These things/ideas are still available on other platforms, YouTube/the bookstore/the newsstand has no requirement to make them easily accessible. If these were the only sources maybe I'd agree, but it's not.
I don't think you can force these companies to do these things. They still have their freedom of speech/association.
I draw the line at the unequivocal, unambiguous threat of violence. Once you threaten to do harm to others, you are outside the realm of diplomacy and rationality. That isn't protected under the 1st Amendment, as far as I'm concerned.
I see what you are trying to say with your examples, but comparing them to Google is like comparing a Gameboy to the Mars Rover. Once you make your business information, you are morally required to make information freely available to the populace. Attempting to subvert information with the intent of molding truth, weaponizing information, if you will, is what we're alleging Russian agents of having done. Just because Google is a business, should they be able to do the same? Personally, that's some 1984 shit right there, I don't care what side of the aisle people are on.
Seems no platform wants the legal dirty hands dealing w this guy causing lawsuits over conspiracies aimed at family members who want to sue YouTube for allowing his fans to push his theories
Well...yeah. You may be bringing a message that they don't want to hear, or maybe others to hear as well. By banning you, they are controlling the narrative they want to be seen there. In effect, they're censoring you.
Youtube is subsidized with American taxpayer money, they are an agent for the CIA, and they are a public platform. They have to respect Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
Can you provide a source on those claims? Also small businesses receive subsides. Does that mean that what that Colorado bakery did was unconstitutional?
Why would the CIA allow twitter to operate independently? That would make no sense from the CIA point of view. The CIA controls the MSM and the narrative for the Bilderberg Group people. The Bilderberg Group people own the MSM and they are heavily invested into the companies we are discussing.
Why would the Bilderberg Group people use their own money to build a billion dollar server farm when they can get the American taxpayer to pay for it? This is one reason they do not want American taxpayer money spent on healthcare, infrastructure, education, etc.
I did a quick search after you said that and didn't find anything... But that's probably because it's being suppressed by the deep state right?
You made the claim. You should provide sources to back up your claim. And if you're in mobile and posting on Reddit how are you unable to provide sources?
Youtube is not publicly funded. They're not the CIA either. Wake the fuck up. It's China's MSS running the whole thing, and you're just another puppet of theirs obfuscating the truth.
Very true. They're not. Youtube is actually the only one that isn't related to spy agencies. Youtube is actually a non-funded cabal of psychiatrists attempting to manipulate the masses. It's why they're so anti-Scientology.
Lack of government oversight to prevent collusion.
This is not the problem. The US government is HUGE.
The problem is crony capitalism. People who work in government are corrupted by these corporations. They accept bribes on the condition that problems are ignored and legislation that is favorable to these companies is enacted.
When the only source for the culture is private entities, like almost all media in US is controlled by 6 corporations, all news, fox. Then most service providers are laregly private, and then these behimoths pay off senators and then the gov only accounts through its laws for 30percent for what the public wants. Its a corporate state. When the freedom of speech is a basic human right, does allowing private entities to control personal free speech in a state where these entities are majoroty influencers on laws a good thing or a bad thing?
Because all these media faces and comoanies firing people over bad speech and public all supporting them, because they are using their right and posting hate speech on public forums like tweeter under their name. Everyone thinks its social justice, but its leading the way to media now sensoring what they deem to be not appropriate opinion. Which is authoritarian, which is fascist. Its a slippery slope in US atm. Everyone thinks this is just social justice but it is now leading the way to corporations and media sensoring and creating their narrative. Their way.
And all these public social issues of auditors on tweeter or what ever getting ounishment for what should just be a social choice to stop listening to them is manufacting that consent to control speech at a government level. The lgtbq movement tried that, with the pronoun game, now they are doing it with the hate speech. When it reaches state level legislature people will wake up. But atm its all fine and dandy because coporations are private and are outside human law?
Right, Google doesn't serve any public utility. Imagine Sprint or Bell in Canada cutting off service with consumers who use "hate speech" without citing specific examples. Perfectly fine, eh?
Remember how Alex Jones was shilling for the telecom lobby against net neutrality? and now hes shitting his pants and complaining about big tech firms censoring him?
how much tax breaks did they get after lobbying our congressmen? If they paid their taxes and their board members didn't have an incestuous relationship with the government then maybe I would believe that. They are part of the government AFAIC
If he was a disinformation agent why would TPTB allow for his ban?How else is he going to spread disinformation now when he's banned from Youtube,FB,etc?
It's disinfo perfection to be honest. Bill hicks will emerge as the most wealthy entertainer of all time in several decades. Want something to immediately be dismissed by those pesky mentally competent citizens? Plug it on infowars. The end.
The only evidence you need is simple. An entertainer's act and his brand are being treated as if they are government entities who are responsible for people's decisions.
Has Drake stood trial for the mentally ill kids hopping out of cars and smashing their skulls into the ground? No.
Has huffpost been hit with a lawsuit for the suffering of a million mentally ill people surgically removing their genitals for attention and writing gigs? No.
Has a brand ever been held legally responsible for causing people to become ill from a product? Yes.
Were the makers of Fast and Furious sued for retards exceeding the speed limit and splattering pedestrians bodies across the street? No.
I was just watching AJ livestream from an alternative youtube account and just witnessed it going black in front of my face. This is real folks. 1984 is here.
You should block the sub if you don't want to read the "loonies" talk about "conspiracies". Freedom of speech is dying and people like you are making a mockery of people who are using their right to freedom of speech.
I hope you're not American because next you will be begging facebook and google to censor your news feed for being "controversial".
Sounds like you’re trying to stop my free speech because you don’t like what I have to say.
I have every right to come here and express my opinion. Which is: You conspiracy morons are a cancer on this country. You’re liars and traitors. Alex Jones admits he’s an actor and nobody in their right mind should take him seriously.
just like how Google is trying to censor an entire press organization?
How could you call yourself a proud American and supporting big corporations trying to hide information?
You do know what the definition of "press" means, right? webster says PRESS"news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters". You're obviously triggered I brought up your embarrassing story about how you are prone to panic attacks from reading emails.
Infowars has a long list of independent reporters and broadcasters that talk about the news on their payroll.
You’re a fucking lunatic. How far back in my post history did you have to go. Lol. Dumbass. Can’t win on the issue so you attack someone for their disability.
I’ve had panic disorder for years. I’m not ashamed of it. It’s a horrible condition and you are an absolute monster to try to use that to shame and attack me.
So you're hiding behind your disability to pretend you don't know the definition of the press?
Honestly, didn't want to talk about it, but I find it funny how you come into this sub pretending no one will look at your history and your embarrassing stories being exposed maybe next time you should censor yourself. Sorry, this is not your safe space.
I’m not hiding behind shit asshole. The fact that you have to go back years into my posts because you got so butthurt about being called out for being a conspiracy moron shows how fragile you are.
You’re a god damned moron. And I don’t need to look at your post history to tell that.
You notice that I never called you any of the names you are calling me? I see past your bullshit and biased, Really silly of you to label people you don't agree with stupid or inferior. Is that what the liberal media is teaching you to go around name calling if you don't agree with the other person?
People keep trying to produce new platforms, they usually fail within a couple of years as the audience lost by banning groups like Infowars isn't enough to sustain a video platform.
Conservatives are at best around 25% of the population, add another 10% or so for non-conservative conspiracy theorists and you still can't match the revenue of a platform like youtube that caters to the other 65% of the world.
I never watched Alex Jones but I checked out the website just now. All the videos were still hosted on youtube and imbedded in his site. I guess he will just have to host them on something else now.
That's just the thing if att, time Warner and Comcast decide to remove his website from their dns servers he will just about cease to exist. Oops I hope I didn't jinx it
For one thing, the amount of money it costs to host your own content is many times what you can ever expect to make back reasonably through advertising and other monetization.
If you have a few thousand followers sure, but you can't get your content to the masses without the tech giants, and this is by design.
Alex Jones can't afford a 6 figure a month bandwidth bill to host all his videos and podcasts.
I don't think you realize the billions of dollars in infrastructure needed to truly own a space on the internet.
If his web host decides to ban him he's shit out of luck, you need to buy the servers, the facility, etc, and it's so much more than that. None of these guys have the kind of money to ever do that.
What a coincidence. All of these corporations just decided to do the same exact thing at the same exact time, in total agreement with general far left sentiment. HMMMM.
well I took it as they are not wanting to be the last one not to ban him and have the bad PR of "why haven't you banned him yet. Do you support free speech? Your competitors don't so we'll go to them instead"
its already happening, youtube and twitch recently ushered in new and much stricter rules for content makers, especially partnered and sponsored ones. They only selectively apply them as a way of controlling peoples actions or censoring the ones they don't like.
Regardless of what you think of him, this is a direct attack on free speech. It starts with him then who’s next? Anybody who says anything that doesn’t support the mainstream narrative? Yup.
“but they are a private entity they can censor whoever they want.” True. Can’t wait to see every single conspiracy channel taken down on youtube. Maybe then we will get an alternative platform that supports free speech and isn’t a tool controlled by the globalist elite to push their agenda.
he can make his own website or streaming service. These companies might not want pieces of shit profiting off their platforms. he can still make all the videos and say all the dumb shit he wants. he just isn't guaranteed an audience through the large streaming platforms anymore.
exactly this. It's starts with the low-hanging fruit. Infowars is easy to smear as racist and loony and the avg person will swallow that easily. Just wait until you try and find facts from the next big shooting that goes against the media narrative...
Yeah, but when his followers are shooting up pizza places and harassing people that lost their children to violence based on what he says, we are no longer talking about Constitutional "Free Speech."
Nah, I’m more thinking Mueller’s going to find something tangentially related to Alex. Could be like “this informant also communicated with InfoWars” sort of thing, but it would shoot a hole in Jone’s already questionable credibility with his audience.
Interpreting a metaphor literally is what the excuse is, yea.
He said "Politically" several times. Granted, it was just another stupid Alex Jones rant, but I don't think somebody should be banned from 4 platforms because he goes on dumb rants.
"That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen," Jones said, miming a pistol with his hand.
There's a video of it on that link too. Anyone who takes this obvious metaphor and interprets it literally is either a moron or a liar. This is an entirely separate point from "is Alex Jones an idiot," to which I agree.
Seems like he's purposely trying to have it interpreted as a threat while giving himself a weak out (I said politically) to get banned exactly the way he did. It's all for attention.
I don’t get Alex Jones. He’s all in with QAnon but at the same time wants to take down Mueller? Isn’t Mueller, according to QAnon, doing gods work in dismantling the DNC-Clinton Foundation-sponsored global pedophile network?
No, they're new plan is to pretend like they've discovered corruption in the mods for banning them all for calling people "retards" and "faggots" during their shit talk anti-conspiracy brigades.
They like to make fun of people for blaming the victim, but it's their current game plan to attack the sub.
What does the fact that /r/conspiracy bans people even have to do with being upset that InfoWars got banned? That sub literally shit stirs just to stir shit, they're more obsessed with conspiracy theorists than most conspiracy theorists are with their respective conspiracies
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
They don’t get pissed. They just look toward the next move which in this case is muddying the public discourse on censorship by casting the disenfranchised newscaster to the wolves that have been gathering from both sides.
They simultaneously make him a martyr to his remaining listeners, giving him back some credibility and legitimizing a farewell to the dwindling audience, which also avoids constantly dodging the question of authenticity, but the larger play is easing public acceptance of internet censorship, especially towards views contrary to popular opinion.
Most comments I’ve read whole-heartedly support the move by the internet giants without questioning its validity or the precedent it sets.
I agree it's a trial balloon. But the reason for the drastic measures is because US Intelligence is getting their ass kicked.
They're saying these are the types of things we need to do order to fight the Russians effectively in the digital. If you don't let us get anyway with this - then Russia has won.
The way I look at it is - if the idealogy you're pushing is that bad where no one wants it (there's no demand unless it's created artificially), then maybe there's something wrong with the product?
This is basically CIA/NSA (Google/YouTube) saying we can't compete with KGB. The symbolism shows us exactly how far behind they are as well. Amount of action taken = Amount US is playing Ketchup.
Why doesn't youtube, fb, and apple remove and ban the tens of thousands of videos/users with an average of 12 views that tout even more extreme things?
The reality of this entire thing is that the entertainer Alex Jones is being represented as an influential brand. I could understand the brand being banned for whatever reason. I do not understand the exponentially growing spotlight for the brand. I like Bill Hicks as much as the rest, but his new act isn't that entertaining to me.
Why the fuck are they marketing him so well under the guise of objection to the brand's content? Surely he hasn't made enough money to buy this exposure from big tech companies and every single english-speaking media outlet.
You can have it both ways Alex boy. Take yourself so seriously but then fall back on “ I’m a performance artist!” Whenever you get into legal trouble. Fat psych-op toad
Uncensoreable decentralization video sharing networks are being developed as we speak. This will add fuel to the fire. Thanks youtube and Facebook. Make the inevitable faster
Bc he has been exposing that Kappy guy. Pedos are being exposed . We all need to share Kappy’s story and expose the pedo scum out there ! Also boycott and and all related movies from the pedos .
It’s this simple: Jones is about to be financially smeared across the pavement as a result of all of this Sandy Hook shit. They don’t want to be next on the chopping block.
Youtube bans him for "hate speech" without explaining what "hate speech" offense he has committed. Apple deletes his entire library of podcasts...was every single one of his podcasts "hate speech?" Did he just upload one that was "hate speech" but they still decided to delete his whole library?
They did not ban him for "hate speech" because he did not engage in any "hate speech." They banned him because it is now August, and they are stacking the deck for the next three months of midterm election propaganda.
Alex and InfoWars were instrumental in getting the facts about wikileaks and Hillary's emails out to the public before the Presidential election. All these media companies have colluded together to censor Alex Jones in order to remove the most successful non mainstream media voice in America.
Dare I say this manipulation and censorship of an independent media organization in the run up to important midterm elections could even be considered election meddling.
Its funny how everyone cares about the rights of these companies to control who uses their platforms when they ban someone that they don't like. These companies have all colluded together to attack an independent media organization. They have used their ability to censor their platforms, all within 24 hours. Its not rocket science that there was a lot of back room discussion and agreement about this. If there was a unified effort to black him out all in the same day, and we know that the "hate speech" excuse is bogus, then why did they all ban him at once?
There is a lot more going on here then just platforms exercising their rights. You would have to have brain worms to think that there is not something much deeper going on here. There were politicians that were involved like the democrat from Florida that just called for him to be censored.
I can't imagine why they are going after the most successful conspiracy channel in the history of the internet with an ACTUAL CONSPIRACY. I mean fucking LOL. Can you imagine InfoWars fans "Ohh looks like youtube banned Alex, I guess he really was promoting hate speech. Oh well I guess I will start watching CNN." Umm no I don't think that is how they will react.
Maybe they did this to ratchet up tensions. Some guy in an InfoWars shirt and a Confederate flag bandanna throws a brick through a window at YouTube offices and BOOM all Trump supporters are domestic terrorists. "This is why we had to ban them, but that's not enough. Lets make sure we ban all Conservative "hate speech" news outlets. In order to restore peace and order that Trump has compromised."
But don't think about all that, cause after all they are just innocently exercising their rights to ban people from their platforms. Nothing more behind this at all. Tune out your brain and tune in to CNN for the most trusted name in news.
I think that hate speech is probably right. That guy is off his rocker, nobody is required to keep that garbage on their platform. Personally I'm glad they did it, hopefully the fans of AJ stay on other platforms.
“You’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying.”
This isn't something that normal people would say while imitating firing a gun. Let him go, he is a stain on society.
They banned him because it is now August, and they are stacking the deck for the next three months of midterm election propaganda.
This is exactly the reason. They are restricting access to their platforms in hopes of bringing about a blue wave this fall. They are electioneering for the Democrat party.
Why the fuck would these companies want Democrats? The right has been way more friendly to corporations. Apple repatriated billions of dollars under the new tax laws, which lead to share buybacks and sky rocketed their stock.
Maybe Alex Jones is a disgusting trash man that claims Sandy Hook was a hoax and incites hatred against others with no evidence to back up his claims and nobody wants them on their platform? Or is this all an evil liberal conspiracy? Probably the first one.
Yeah I've been coming here less and less with how obvious it's becoming. Been visiting this sub for over 5 years and the past year has just been horrible.
They banned him maybe because they are preparing for war and don’t want one of the biggest anti-war independent news (IMO his show is mostly wild, but some of his false flags antiwar stuff is not that crazy and reasonable)
The trolls who hate Alex when at the same time, they have never even watched Alex have no idea about him.
I am proud to say that I have watched him for probably 15 years. I myself saw 9/11 happen and I did not buy it for a second. When they blatantly just switched the war to Iraq for no reason I was convinced something was up, so I wanted to see if anyone on the internet had the same feelings and I saw the movies that Alex made and I thought "Thank God I am not the only one who is not convinced by the lies."
Alex was super critical of Bush and all his fake wars and neo-con lies. Alex was quickly critical of Obama because it was instantly apparent to anyone with a brain that Obama was just black Bush. Obama had the same policies but he also had this cult like brainwashing effect where most Americans thought he was doing a better job, whereas in reality somehow he managed to be worse and more evil then Bush, who was already pretty fucking horrible.
Trump gave the idea of actual hope and change, and after Obama, Bush, Clinton, and elder Bush, Americans who still had functioning brains could see the pattern, did not want nasty wench Hillary to be in charge, and so they backed Trump.
When Trump bombed Syria after the fake chemical weapons attacks Alex straight up condemned Trump, and spoke about how maybe the neo-cons have compromised the President. In my memory Alex has always condemned the government when they have done bad, regardless of whether they are democrats or republicans, he has always supported strength, but also always been against the insanely stupid wars that we have been involved in since 9/11. He is not a war monger, no matter who is in charge and that tells you right away that he has a moral conscience. And in my opinion that is good because you should not support war unless someone is directly threatening America.
What worries me after thinking about all of this is there are plenty of neo-cons and Republicans who still want never ending war, and also some who have influence with Trump. When it comes to doing what is right and doing what is wrong, Alex has always been more fair then any mainstream or fake news media.
In the last day most people who applaud his being censored, they say its good he was censored because he is a "Jew disinformation operative" or an "Israeli shill."
Listen to me: Alex could never condemn Israel because he knew he would be shut down within moments. He had Roddy Piper on and they were talking about "They Live" and someone called in and got on air and asked if the aliens in "They Live" were an allegory for the Jews and Alex went fucking ballistic on him. People say that's what makes him an Israeli shill, but no, he is a media personality, and he knows it would be suicide to criticize Israel or the zionists. He's not a shill, he is well aware of what "conspiracies" he can talk about and what will get him run off the road and suicided.
He has been against every war since 9/11 whilst pointing out the real genuine holes in the 9/11 narrative. I have respect for anyone who can be anti war without looking like a pathetic loser hippie.
I never thought I'd see the day that globalists would begin their takedown and destruction of the western world and free speech. I knew it was coming but I thought it was going to take much longer.
the only real reason theyd have to shut him down on such a scale is that he finally said something that wasnt bullshit for once they find threatening to their world order
Telling parents that their dead children don't exist (while true in some way ironically) is simply something the vast majority of people find disgusting
People only care about kids if it's a conspiracy of Clinton/Podesta hurting them. When they're actually gunned down, then they're just make believe/child actors.
I could never be sure something didn't really happen and risk attacking people that lost loved ones in a tragedy, however I watched the conspiracy videos and the debunked videos countering them and frankly if you don't think there is a lot of odd things with that tragedy, you have very little common sense.
All the training in the world can't really prepare you for an instant tragedy or disaster, so of course we must leave a lot of room for error, people behaving strangely do to shock, etc, but even if we leave A LOT of room for all that logic, quite a few things still don't add up.
Did it happen as they said? maybe, I wouldn't risk calling a dead kids mom a lying sociopath if I wasn't 100% sure and to do that, I would have had to of been a part of the conspiracy in some way, so I bow out of making a call one way or the other.
Either way, do I think something like sandy hook COULD be faked, knowing what we all know about the tricks of the governments and rulers of the world present and past? Of course they could fake it, did they? not sure.
Because they give him a platform like every other content creator and want to pull the plug if he brings a bad image. It's not really fair or noble of them but they are making up censorship as they go. And they can do whatever they want even if it's silencing people.
Ok there lol Wait until mainstream society really finds out. I'm not saying I agree but it is exactly why they are droping him. The question is if it goes against free speech which is kind of pointless anyways because those companies make up their policy as they go.
You know, I don’t agree with anything mr Jones and his team puts out, but on one hand, he dug his own grave with some of the stuff he said ambition the other, he’s being silenced for something he truly believes in. I have mixed feelings on this, because it goes to show that it’s only a matter of time before they start silencing more organizations they disagree with.
Yeah imagine if google and facebook banned msnbc, the liberal media would make Google look like evil dictators of information, but its just info wars so who gives a fuck right.
Occupy Wall Street chose the only non-public park in NYC, Zuccotti Park, on private property, to start their public protest. Think that was an accident? Alex knows what he's doing. Or his handlers do. Because now the precedent has been set to eliminate all serious conspiracy researchers and authors. Just like the Occupy Movement set a precedent that later got used for public property.
You're saying Alex Jones is being used by the powers that be or something to set a precedent for removing all conspiracy content? I'm just gonna say that they don't need to set a precedent. They could already do that the moment you agreed to their TOS by using the site and Youtube does in fact remove conspiracy videos all the time even before this.
In fact, many historical videos can be considered "conspiracy content." Iran-Contra, Enron, Watergate, the Dreyfus Affair, the Profumo Scandal, Robert Hanssen. Who decides what's "Conspiracy"? YouTube. But now YouTube gets legitimacy and cover for the Court of Public Opinion -- which they give a fuck about. And now they have a blank check for a Purge. Which is the unethical rationale of military coups and "Q" and Rumsfeld's "Sweep it all up, things related and not."
I bet you won't shed a tear for the next or next next victims of censorship. In the end, only mainstream media controlled by the rich won't be labelled as hate speech
if you want to hear his drivel then go to his website the tech firms are clearly not obligated to provide their loudspeakers platforms for his defamatory propaganda
I don’t like Alex Jones but something seems fishy here. Apple, Spotify, facebook, and youtube all banned him around the same time?? No strikes on his channel? I wonder who is behind this
He had a strike and then a 90 day ban on Youtube for streaming, which he then decided to circumvent by using other channels, breaking the ToS. Not going to argue whether or not it was fair or why all the other tech companies decided to ban him, just saying you should do some research before make false statements.
Once you establish that these services are some sort of cabal working against you it's a nothing thing for them to remove you, costs nobody anything. Careful what you wish for.
What if the Manafort trial will trigger some more arrests, and it might be people associated with Republicans and admired conservatives.
So maybe some of these more poisonous and inflammatory sites are being throttled back to limit their ability to call the population to react violently.
Of course there is this other problem Trump is dealing with after his weekend tweets.
It's easier than that. The companies are filled with liberals anyway, and Jones is an easy target. The guy is famous to most people because of Sandy Hook, and he's currently being sued by the parents/families of dead children. Now I know half the people on this particular board won't understand this, but to most of the world Jones is a complete scumbag for this, and people want nothing to do with him. That said, these companies don't want some conservative boycott over Jones either. When Apple went for it the others, who have been facing building pressure, all jumped on the opportunity to do it now.
They look like they care, they're reacting reasonably, and they're protecting their bottom line by all doing it together.
And, I would bet they were NOT talking to one another, just all dealing with the same question of how to distance themselves or deal with Jones with minimal risk to them.
I wouldn’t doubt it. Wh n he exposed bohemian grove , at one point he was walking by and people were saying “ Ho Alex” that gave it away for me. You have to be invited to attend . Hummmm
Good. He is a lying liar that lies for money. He hurts people willfully for profit and hurts America and humanity for money and just because. He knows what he says are lies and doesn't give a damn. I wish no illness befalls Alex Jones, but I will read his obituary with a smile one day.
Some have more of a bias than others (Fox News is out right propaganda, and there are liberal propaganda as well. No, I'm not talking about MSNBS, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. They originally tend to be biased towards the corporate side.) Anyways, I'm getting away from my point. The PRESS is an absolute necessity to bring to light the evils of both government and business that are done in the shadows in the pursuit of money and power.
I have been duped in the past and recent past. It is a constant battle to try to see through the bullshit, but keep fighting through it. Don't let the orange man divide us. Don't let Alex Jones divide us. This is what they want. We need a government accountable to it's people, both Democrat and Republican and whichever political party. We need to stand up to those that would want to tear us apart for their own gain. Live and let live.
This is not censorship. Alex Jones can say anything he wants. The government is not stopping him. He is not being arrested. He can go to another medium or start his own. The first amendment protects his free speech from the government, NOT from the repercussions from his speech from the public. A company has a policy if your want to do business with them and he breached that policy. So, go to another company. He can host his own videos. It's easy.
I can’t wait to have a conversation in about 20 years “You guys remember infowars? What was the crazy guys name? Yea him. Wow that were the good days where you could post whatever you wanted online, but you wouldn’t understand”
on top of that he’ll probably settle down on an alt-tech platform (gab, bitchute, etc) and be one of the main reasons they end up seriously competing with these places in a decade or so.
every move the left makes guarantees more trump voters. it’s poetry.
Well, they got the biggest ones Ron Gibson a couple others, I couldn't find any when I posted that but checking back several new channels have been set up.
Did Jones say something that started a riot? If not, it's a real stretch to say that he was using 'fighting words'.
Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
Feiner v. New York (1951)
In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.
Youtube isnt covered by the constitution it is a privately owned company they can do whatever the fuck they want and people should recognize this and stop thinking their hate speech is protected on the internet.
yo dog, this dude literally tries to convince people that school shootings didn't happen just so he can sell dick pills. It's not censoring political views, its kicking a dumbass off of their platforms
It's up to the platform what the deem acceptable, don't like it? Bye.
Because viewers are apparently incapable of doing this themselves by clicking off onto content that doesn't offend them. This is called a broken system.
I wonder if this was part of AJ’s endgame. Is his purpose to ultimately be a massive domino in the justification of banning on the grounds of “hate speech”? Because he certainly won’t be the last one banned and he’s certainly benefited from all the attention. I have a hard time believing he isn’t controlled opposition.
I'm sure all the free minded people on this subreddit are smart enough to tell Alex Jones is just a huckster that gets idiots to buy valueless nutritional supplements by spinning creazy conspiracy theories and has no integrity at all as a journalist, right?... Right?
yes, most people realize alex jones is a mixture between legitimate news, propaganda and entertainment. what exactly does this have to do with him being censored across multiple platforms at the same time for “hate speech” with no eviden to be found of it?
People have made corporations their new gods. As long as it's legal, it's fine. Morality and democratic integrity are completely irrelevant to them, because, duh lawl.
and a lot of people on r/conspiracy are ok with it. Shills I guess.
I've never watched any of his videos but he has a right to publish it and saying that a private company has the right to do what they want doesn't hold when it comes to monopolies like YT and FB
Hey, if anyone wants to know what's going on, you're getting caught up in a GAME. People don't understand the "alt" media is just another arm of the mainstream media. They play both sides of the net. How do you win? You choose not to play.
Not a huge fan of alex jones as he might be a psyop, but his banning makes things strange. Or his banning is supposed to make things strange to sow dissent. I just don’t know
It makes him a "Free Speech Martyr" to his audience, which can be used to radicalize his audience. Now we have a new pool of Lone Nut Patsies in the pipeline.
Alex could even use this to get funding for a new video platform. Peter Thiel, for example.
InfoWars has not been banned by any website, meaning this post is pure lies. Brazenly spreading falsehood is defeating the purpose of this subreddit. Lest you think I'm kidding, all of us remember what happened when some lunatics foretold the closing of this place by some imaginary Reddit overlords. Credible evidences prove that InfoWars is doing just as fine today as it was a year ago. Kingpins of conspiracy theories will never be attacked because their insanity demolishes their own credibility well enough. Masterminds of censorship don't exist outside the drug-addled brains of conspiratards.
Ask anyone if they have trouble accessing Alex Jones' content. Internet censorship is not actually a thing. Lay off the pot. Eat something healthier than Doritos. Draw reasonable conclusions instead of conspiracy theories and go out and enjoy life!
Alex Jones hounded the Sandy Hook victims and force them to move multiple times. He would then publish their new addresses to his followers to hound the victims. Its more of a legal thing rather than a political thing.
Read the news. There's a reason why Infowars is just now being removed from venues. He's getting sued by the Sandy Hook victim's families for harassment and defamation. Half a dozen of the families sued him.
Honestly while it is mildly concerning from a freedom of speech perspective, Alex Jones is a very toxic presence for the conspiracy community. I think it's probably ultimately for the best that he gets sequestered to his own little corner of the internet.
Censorship is coming. The shills defending this as private companies' right are too obvious right now. I see through you - you paid, lying morons. Get another job. Reconsider your life.
Well that's what happens when you pull 4 policy violations in less than a week and then top it off with another one where you threaten to shoot Mueller on air. Not hard to draw a line in the sand when the moron hands you the chalk and laser levels it for ya.
I really feel bad for you if this is the hill you wanna die on. None of these platforms are monopolies. Proving that would be near impossible since they are mostly competitors. Especially since he owns his own website with which he already hosts his materials. Since the internet is world wide, no harm was done not that can be proven besides of his own doing. Damages would be pennies as that is what he makes on each of those. Thus why he has to hawk skin bronzer and fake supplements.
I'm not humoring hand waving that has little to nothing to do with the case. You repeatedly linking the same thing doesn't make it valid. It has about as much legal bearing as a Rick Roll vid.
I want to say that Stanford University often closes the streets that the public uses around the campus to avoid this. The guards say Stanford is private and will kick you out anytime they feel like it. So an internet company could lock itself down and restrict use a few times a year to note that it is private not public.
Is it a coincidence that this happened all at once? From the posts here, people are naive and believe there is not a hidden hand at play here. You think that Apple, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all independent and not interconnected.
Im not a fan of jones or his channel, i will not defend the sandy hook comments.
What i will fear is that any platform is having a major shut down on channels with millions of subscribers who are entitled to air thier views.
It is because i am capable of critical thinking that i judge myself able to listen to alternative views and decide for myself if i believe them.
I am also sceptical as to the reasons the platforms decided to ban the channel now. I think they may have chosen this time because of the petition to pardon assange, or because of usa elections coming up and the fear of jones sway to his viewers.
Youre missing the point. Even though it was written in the post. Its not about Alex Jones' material but the fact that all these companies clearly worked together to remove him. Its about the way theyre working together.
Tech companies more powerful than some countries, who have been proven to work hand in hand with governments, who are literally working with China to censor the internet, who in the last month have been shown to be removing this very subreddit from search results coordinate to attack and purge an outlet from all their platforms within 24 hours that, whether you like them or not, have been proven right more than once (although, a stopped clock is right twice a day...) and all this sub has to say is "oh well"?
Yep. The shills are here in full force. These companies have a huge economic incentive to crack the consensus against them by hiring some shills online.
In all seriousness if they were as common place in the US as everything thinks, you think it would be easy to find information on these online shill jobs.
I have watched Alex Jones. I have found it entertaining in the past. It is over the top, a lot of BS with an ounce of truth. BUT this coordinated attack on free speech is terrifying.
So? Like fuckin alex jones is a real person. He's a fucking troll that's got nothing right. A better question is did you buy his dick pills and they didn't work?
It's ironic that Alex Jones, a mouthpiece for libertarianism and an advocate of small government, would benefit from a situation where government regulations prevent private companies from banning problematic users.
Imagine if a white supremacists site like Stormfront was suddenly forced by the United States government to allow diverse people from all ethnicities to express their opinions on the server.
Imagine if a pro-abortion web site was suddenly forced by the government to post anti-abortion videos and data.
Also banning a user for expressing dissenting opinions or opinions considered by a company to be distasteful is it's own form of expression. For a government to regulate this sort of thing would be a direct violation of the first amendment.
If you want to be certain that you can express yourself on the internet then you must form your own ISP and go from there. Otherwise it's back to the printing press for you!
Can't say I care too much about this one. Alex Jones is a repugnant individual and what he's done with Sandy Hook is disgusting. Private companies are entirely within their legal rights to deny access to their services to anyone for any reason. Plus, you can still easily access his Infowars website, which shouldn't all his fans be using in the first place? Aren't Apple, Facebook and YouTube tracking all the personal information of anyone who uses their services? Hell, if Jones wasn't a piece of shit hypocrite he would have removed himself from their platforms a long time ago.
We're in uncharted waters here. Jones hasn't been silenced, but "de-platformed". And the de-platforming has been done by corporations, citing breaches of their T&Cs.
He's still at liberty to publish whatever takes his fancy, just not through those corporations. To take YouTube as the example, there are plenty of YouTube alternatives where AJ could pitch his tent. I can think of three without even stretching my memory.
AJ is doing his best impersonation of Giordano Bruno, because he's a huckster and secretly he knows that this kind of thing only adds to any aura of intrigue and radicalism that he might have.
So yeah, the Streisand Effect strikes again, and AJ will turn a profit from it, because that's what he does.
Nice cold glass of filtered water, anyone? We're all overheated this summer.
I've never watched Alex Jones except for his interview on Joe Rogan and a few snippets. I've always thought he was a joke. However I think long term it's not in internet user's/creators best interests for big media companies to exert this kinda of control on social media content. I feel like whatever harm his dumb act was doing to people that actually believe him is less than the long term consequences of these companies banning people. Side note: Infowars as a title is has reached its full potential.
It didn't take them long after net neutrality was eliminated. Even though I don't care for his rhetoric, free speech isn't free if censorship becomes a corporate responsibility.
I'm not backing that dirty rat ethier. Read the Bill reinstating net neutrality and you will see that it doesn't actually do anything but obfuscate net polarization.
They request the legal protections from the federal government of being public commons and then they politically censor people, you can't have it both ways, this would be like AT&T banning you from using their phone because they don't like your politics. Infowars was prepared for this, they have major lawsuits pending but this endangers everyone elses 1st amendment online as well.
This thread has been curated by a bunch of lying scumbags, this website doesn't need to be censored they just destroy your ability to communicate with the voting functions.
There are certainly a lot of ways to look at this, but I simply think it is because Alex Jones has become a legal liability. If you don't think he has incited violence, he's undoubtably come very close. He's already being sued by 2 families. It's only a matter of time before some nut kills someone and blames AJ for it. Which will turn into a million dollar liability. As a company, I'd ban him too.
This is proof that reddit has died. Barely any discussion of this in any major subreddit. Any discussion that does happen is under careful moderation and all comments at the top are in support of the censorship. Take a look at a certain subreddit. All the comments are the pathetic classic reddit one liners "sad trombone" "thoughts and prayers" "oh boo hoo". Any one who has any memory of the past would remember a reddit that would support Alex no matter what he said. All speech is free speech. This is a effective monopoly on all free speech that is controlled by nefarious means.
I see some people supporting and justifying this ban. Just wait, soon more channels will be banned, then more. In the end they'll introduce a system where no new content is allowed by anyone unless they are approved. To be approved will cost you money, at first it'll be really cheap, like 5 bucks. Slowly that price will increase to become unaffordable.
Everyone says they'll use a different service, but they won't. To build a site that can compete with YouTube will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and as YouTube hasn't yet made a cent in profit, it's not exactly a model with much potential.
What nominally got him banned? I saw references to a video called "how to stop liberalism" and "hate speech against Muslims and transgenders". I would like to see them for myself.
The CIA has confirmed links between Alex Jones/InfoWars and some entity thereby instructing all their satellite companies to drop that content. Or....
Bilderberg group globalists have noticed that Alex Jones/InfoWars has been influential in disseminating counter-opinion and thus had its affiliates drop his content.
These tech companies are trying to install a global real government ID system for the internet tying you to your real information to use it against you just like with China's social credit score. They may use a FF to get it going/justify it.
If this happens, free speech on the internet is over.
They should ban us all from everything, youtube, twitter, facebook, reddit - censor the crap out if us. We’re not just going to go away, that’s not how that works. If they drive us underground we’ll get stronger.
You ever heard of shadow ban. Jones has been slowly shadow banned for years now. We all know why cnn tried to get jones banned. If you can figure that out then why even bother. Free speech was attacked today. The biggest red pill ever was erased off multiple platforms. If u can see the severity then ur one of the hopeless sheep.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Alex Jones if he had even an ounce of self control or discretion about what comes out of his mouth. Its one thing to promote conspiracy theories, it is another thing entirely to threaten and promote violence.
He brought this on himself. We all acknowledge that Freedom of Speech comes with certain rules, and one of those is that you aren't free of the consequences of what comes out of your mouth. No private company is obligated to carry someone else's messages on their platform.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Alex Jones if he had even an ounce of self control or discretion about what comes out of his mouth. Its one thing to promote conspiracy theories, it is another thing entirely to threaten and promote violence.
He brought this on himself. We all acknowledge that Freedom of Speech comes with certain rules, and one of those is that you aren't free of the consequences of what comes out the things you say. No private company is obligated to carry someone else's messages on their platform.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Alex Jones if he had even an ounce of self control or discretion about what comes out of his mouth. Its one thing to promote conspiracy theories, it is another thing entirely to threaten and promote violence.
He brought this on himself. We all acknowledge that Freedom of Speech comes with certain rules, and one of those is that you aren't free of the consequences of what comes out of your mouth. No private company is obligated to carry someone else's messages on their platform.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Alex Jones if he had even an ounce of self control or discretion about what comes out of his mouth. Its one thing to promote conspiracy theories, it is another thing entirely to threaten and promote violence.
He brought this on himself. We all acknowledge that Freedom of Speech comes with certain rules, and one of those is that you aren't free of the consequences of the things you say. No private company is obligated to carry someone else's messages on their platform. If you don't agree with the company, vote with your feet and stop using their services.
Apple, however, has many podcast apps on their platform, and their own isn’t even the most popular. All they did was delist from their own app. That’s nowhere near a monopoly situation. It’s also not delisted from Android as far as I know.
Alex Jones is alright. He has an agenda. Would prefer if he was less conservative than those hipocrite Republicans that tout small government ideals while growing the government by their social restrictions and military.
Good, the sooner we get some clarity into this situation the better. Companies that provide billboards for political messages cannot restrict it to one party, it is considered illegal donation and they should register as PAC in that case, and then different laws apply. Same is true with internet boards and restricting the messages there.
This is really sad. Platforms should not let themselves be pressured into censoring people. Alex is crazy yes but that doesn't mean that his opinions should be suppressed. It's also scary how they colluded to censor him all at once.
I wonder if something planned is about to happen and they need to shut down any sort of discourse from spreading on social media. Ya infowars is kind of a joke they might post anything against the next false flag or hoax.
He's nothing more than a CIA plant to control the information flow. Hes literally a performer, and his documents and court dealings have made this truth known. He's a fucking actor.
| The real Alex Jones is not his bombastic, conspiratorial InfoWars persona, his lawyer is hoping to convince a Texas jury in the radio host's child-custody battle.
That's more or less what attorney Randall Wilhite told Texas District Judge Orlinda Naranjo, the Austin American-Statesman reported on Sunday .
Wilhite told Naranjo that Jones' public personality should not be considered as material in evaluating the InfoWars founder's ability to be a father. Wilhite said doing so would be comparable to judging actor Jack Nicholson in such a custody battle based on his performance as the Joker in "Batman."
That is an oxymoron, when a few powerful companies effectively control something that isn't a "Free Market", it is actually called an
ol·i·gop·o·ly
a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers.
If the internet was like 20 to 30 big companies controlling video platforms that would be a lot more of a Free Market than when one or two platforms control it.
Maybe be an intelligent human being and read some books ;)
Have u seen the cnn ratings? 200k a day for cooper. Jones gets what 5-10 million a week easy. Plus YouTube and social media. Use your brain. Alex jones has more listeners than cnn for sure. During the election jones was getting a combined 40-80 million in one week. U telling me Anderson cooper even comes close.
on top of that he’ll probably settle down on an alt-tech platform (gab, bitchute, etc) and be one of the main reasons they end up seriously competing with these places in a decade or so.
every move the left makes guarantees more trump voters. it’s poetry.
and a lot of people on r/conspiracy are ok with it. Shills I guess.
I've never watched any of his videos but he has a right to publish it and saying that a private company has the right to do what they want doesn't hold when it comes to monopolies like YT and FB
I mean, you can pick apart my words all goddamn day and argue against them, my viewpoint is that they should be held to the same standards that US courts are held to. They shouldn't be allowed the capability to ban, unless directed by a court to do so. End of story.
I realize that varies from state to state and court to court, but it's a starting point.
It makes him a "Free Speech Martyr" to his audience, which can be used to radicalize his audience. Now we have a new pool of Lone Nut Patsies in the pipeline.
Alex could even use this to get funding for a new video platform. Peter Thiel, for example.
yo dog, this dude literally tries to convince people that school shootings didn't happen just so he can sell dick pills. It's not censoring political views, its kicking a dumbass off of their platforms
Read the news. There's a reason why Infowars is just now being removed from venues. He's getting sued by the Sandy Hook victim's families for harassment and defamation. Half a dozen of the families sued him.
Lol he was a little hesitant hopping on the Sandy Hook train. Alex Jones didn’t make Sandy Hook a conspiracy topic, he eventually came around to covering it. Just like every other serious conspiracy.
Things like 9/11 and Sandy Hook are under the microscope because lots of people can see the official stories don’t add up. If you need Alex Jones to spoonfeed you the full picture, you shouldn’t be participating in this sub or stating opinions on these complex matters. You should be at school or daycare with the rest of the kids.
Well...yeah. You may be bringing a message that they don't want to hear, or maybe others to hear as well. By banning you, they are controlling the narrative they want to be seen there. In effect, they're censoring you.
All of these have received governmental funding despite being multi-billion dollar companies.
So? Lots of companies and industries get government funding, that doesn't mean that they should be considered part of the government and if the government is EVER found to be influencing a private entity through what are essentially bribes than those officials responsible should be punished. I'm not sure but there might be some laws to that effect already.
Your defense of their right for free speech over the little guy is incorrect and misguided.
Their right to free speech is the same as the little guy's, it's literally the only way to ensure an even playing field. It's the only way to have competition even.
If they can be barred from selectively hosting people then that means that I can also be barred from selectively hosting people, no thanks.
Did Jones say something that started a riot? If not, it's a real stretch to say that he was using 'fighting words'.
Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
Feiner v. New York (1951)
In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.
860 comments
1 TheMadQuixotician 2018-08-06
On the one hand, they're private entities and are entitled to host whatever content they ultimately please, but on the other hand, people should be free to determine what is and isn't bullshit on their own.
1 Errol_Gibbings_III 2018-08-06
Http://infowars.com
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-06
Don't worry, I approved it.
1 Errol_Gibbings_III 2018-08-06
Heh, /r/conspiracy joined the infowars boycott before it was cool!
1 SomethingInThatVein 2018-08-06
r/conspiracy should not defend Alex Jones. He may shed light on some issues, but at this point he's doing more harm than good for the critical thinking community.
1 --_-_o_-_-- 2018-08-06
This harm you mention benefits those who carried out 9/11. If his conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook are so wrong then it brings into question what he says about 9/11 even more.
1 SomethingInThatVein 2018-08-06
Lol he was a little hesitant hopping on the Sandy Hook train. Alex Jones didn’t make Sandy Hook a conspiracy topic, he eventually came around to covering it. Just like every other serious conspiracy.
Things like 9/11 and Sandy Hook are under the microscope because lots of people can see the official stories don’t add up. If you need Alex Jones to spoonfeed you the full picture, you shouldn’t be participating in this sub or stating opinions on these complex matters. You should be at school or daycare with the rest of the kids.
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-06
That's reddit, not us ;)
1 WarSanchez 2018-08-06
Is there a list out there with the names of all the "unacceptable" sources according to Reddit Inc?
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-06
Maybe. I only know of the ones that I manually approve here so they show up.
1 SomethingInThatVein 2018-08-06
Facts should be enough
1 axf72228 2018-08-06
“information”
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
https://i.imgur.com/CcKkM6O.jpg
1 TheMadQuixotician 2018-08-06
Just the precedent I'd been hoping for. Thank you
1 TopHatTony11 2018-08-06
That doesn’t mean anything. He still has his own website, nobody is shutting it down or denying access to it. I’m sure he won’t get the traffic but there aren’t any barriers put in place to stop people from going to his site.
1 TheMadQuixotician 2018-08-06
It's an added layer to the argument in either direction, that was the point of praise.
1 clemsonwebdesign 2018-08-06
How long till Google black list his website? uh huh. First they censored Alex Jones.. then..
1 sadmep 2018-08-06
"reddit /r/conspiracy" Second result.
1 DietInTheRiceFactory 2018-08-06
Shhh
1 clemsonwebdesign 2018-08-06
https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+conspiracy&oq=reddit+conspiracy&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.4439j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Not even front page
1 sadmep 2018-08-06
Did you see the words between the quotes? They're kinda important, that's why I quoted them. "reddit /r/conspiracy" It's the second result down. /r/conspiracy hasn't been removed from the search engine, but I'd be willing to consider that other groups with the word conspiracy in them have SEO'd it off just "reddit conspiracy"
1 clemsonwebdesign 2018-08-06
Youre using a direct search. You might as well type the url.
https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+conspiracy
I'm sure Finland conspiracy is the most relevant search result lmfao.
1 sadmep 2018-08-06
Honestly, "reddit conspiracy" is about as close to typing the url in as "reddit /r/conspiracy" is
1 TopHatTony11 2018-08-06
Google can do what it wants, google isn’t the internet, they aren’t the only search engine. If I search info wars the website still comes up.
1 clemsonwebdesign 2018-08-06
"Verizon can do what it wants. Theres other phone and media provider companies."
1 Sarcophilus 2018-08-06
That's a false equivalency since in some parts of the US Verizon is the only or one of few ISPs available.
On the other hand there are a large number of search engines available to everybody.
1 clemsonwebdesign 2018-08-06
https://fiber.google.com/
Google is a ISP as well. Just like Verizon.
Google and Bing are the major search engines. Any chance ther searxh engines are basically irrelevant.
1 Sarcophilus 2018-08-06
And Google should not interfere with traffic they provide to their customers.
This has nothing to do with their online platforms though.
There are many other search engines. Duckduckgo, yahoo and a lot of smaller ones.
1 TopHatTony11 2018-08-06
Verizon is an isp, that’s not the same as a web site. Controlling the gateway and determining who gets what is a problem, not a website deciding who it will do business with.
1 clemsonwebdesign 2018-08-06
Google is a ISP. Try again.
1 TopHatTony11 2018-08-06
Are they blocking someone from going to info wars? No, stop grasping at straws.
1 NappyGlove 2018-08-06
Censorship by private entities is absolutely allowed by the constitution and has to be, otherwise you're violating the 9th for those private entities.
Hell, censorship by private entities instead of the government used to have 100% conservative support. It still has full libertarian support. It should have full constitutionalist support.
If I own a church and don't want gay people in my church, I'm allowed to do that right?
If I own a church and want to kick out anyone spouting that religion is bullshit, well I wouldn't be very christian but I'd be entirely within my rights.
Same thing here. Because a business is open to the public, does not mean they cannot control what goes on in their business, to suggest as much is to simply suggest chaos backed by government forces, which is about as anti-constitution, anti-conservative as you can get.
1 clemsonwebdesign 2018-08-06
No. You cant ban gay people from your church..
1 Sarcophilus 2018-08-06
You can't ban them for being gay. You can absolutely ban them without any reason given.
1 NappyGlove 2018-08-06
Gay people aren't protected by the federal civil rights act. You can get confused, because there has been contradictary rulings about title VII which exclusively covers employer discrimination - The seventh appeals circuit says Title VII alone covers sexual orientation, where as both the eighth and second say it does not and no part of the civil rights act covers sexual orientation.
But absolutely no one is making the claim that the entire civil rights act covers sexual orientation or gender identity, mainly because that would be a violation of the first amendment. (Arguably the entire civil rights act is unconstitutional due to the first amendment, but we have to wait until Trump's SC pick gets confirmed before it would be overturned.)
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
it's not censorship. Private companies don't want trash people using their services. They can do what they want.
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-08-06
The problem with using this as a precedent is how will this apply to everyone?
If I run a conservative Christian website should I be forced to host material offering abortion services?
If Im the Mormon Church should I be forced to allow Christians to preach on my property?
1 kerrykingsbaldhead 2018-08-06
It’s hard to say these companies have a monopoly over the Internet because AJ can stream on his own website. It’s not a complete shut down of his free speech.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
The biggest four tech giants involved in media distribution banned Infowars on the same day: Facebook, Apple, YouTube/Google, and Spotify. No mention of any breach of contract/terms of service. This is private companies doing political censorship. How much of a share of the market do they have? Only 95% so it's not a monopoly?
1 Schump97 2018-08-06
95% of what market? Internet viewing? Music? Search?
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
Media distribution.
1 Schump97 2018-08-06
They don't have anywhere near 95% of that 'market'
1 iam413x 2018-08-06
That only really restricts the number of people that will engage with him online not really what he can say online. You also conflated ISPs with digital distribution platforms which are not the same thing dude. But please explain how you are a legal expert and any lawyer will win this case again?
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
That escalated weirdly..
1 eideteker 2018-08-06
/r/iamverysmart is calling...
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
Post it. I'll upvote it. You have my permission to show my username.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
"The Infowars podcasts are still available on many other podcast apps, like Pocket Casts, and Spotify still hosts other Infowars shows, like War Room. So it’s not like Infowars’ podcast listeners are out of luck entirely. Plus, Infowars still has its official app available for download in the Apple App Store, where it boasts a five-star rating, ranks No. 56 among all news apps for iPhone, and has amassed more than 2,500 ratings from listeners. While Apple isn’t exactly kicking Alex Jones to the curb, its decision to remove the five Infowars shows from its massively popular podcast library is still the largest action taken to date by a tech platform to remove news programs that promote conspiracy theories. "
https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/apple-and-spotify-are-now-both-blocking-infowars-and-alex-jones-podcasts.html
They clearly aren't stopping them from putting out a podcast.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
Just shutting down 90% of his access to listeners.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
No. If you have access to iTunes you can use a different podcast app to find it. If you have Spotify you still have internet and can find his podcast. If you watch it on YouTube you can still go to his website directly and watch things.
This in no way prevents those that already know about Alex Jones that wish to watch Alex Jones from doing so.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
And there's the Streisand effect. And new free speech platforms popping up. Still doesn't make what they did right.
Why is it that one side attacks the other by shutting them down and the other side by exposing them to a larger audience? The left silences speech they don't like and the right makes sure everyone knows what the left is saying because it's clearly ludicrous.
Case in point. Antifa shuts down free speech events, forbids members from filming, and shouts hate at people they don't like regardless of whether or not it makes any sense, getting louder and louder with whistles and screaming to block out all speech they oppose. Meanwhile, the victims and opposition to Antifa simply expose them for who they are and what they do by turning the camera on them and uploading the footage for everyone to see for themselves. Current example: https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1026458005464907777?s=19
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
This isn't a "sides" thing.
This is cyclical but it still isn't one side.
In the 90s it was very much church goers that had control of social discourse and would censor left wing viewpoints.
Some people wish to have authoritarian views that impose what can and cannot be said. It isn't inherently left or right.
Case in point: Antifa isn't something I support and I am on the left. I don't believe in violence to oppose people talking about ideas.
Protesting against something you disagree with, however, happens on both sides as well. See the Tea Party movement under Obama.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
It really is a sides thing. Conservatives and Libertarians are for true speech and free speech. Liberals and Leftists are for hate-speech laws and shutting down speech they oppose. Those one the left are also after what I've heard referred to as "linguistic hegemony" and this is about redefining words and phrases to support their political agenda.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
No it really isn't.
Libertarians are all about free speech. Conservatives are not.
Proof:
Look at what happened when someone kneeled during the national anthem. Libertarians shrugged and conservatives clutched their pearls and asked the NFL to ban them.
What happens when the media attacks Trump? (Trump supporting) conservatives want to increase libel laws and stop them.
https://www.alternet.org/culture/inside-bizarre-right-wing-political-correctness-movement-threatens-free-speech
More modern examples of right wing attacks on free speech.
You are being a useful tool to those that wish to control you.
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
/u/gamefrk101 wrecked you and if you don't directly respond to him, you must know you've been beaten. So do it. If you can.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
I made statements on the internet. You have opinions about those statements. You may not agree with me. I may not agree with you. Such is life.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
If something is happening or not isn't an opinion.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
Interpretation then.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
Ok. I just always find it interesting how those on the right who say they are bullied by the left are the most transparently shit kickers that are selling you a story.
Milo and Brietbart. Candace Owens. They are so punished and censored by the left they do college tours. They are so censored every right winger knows who they are.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
Milo's allowed to speak at DePaul? Publishers love him now?
Candace Owen was literally attacked by leftists this morning.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
Oh wow one university?
Here's Noam Chomsky on how he is banned from mainstream media entirely. Is Candice Owens ever on MSM? I know for sure Milo was until he became flagged as a pedo sympathizer.
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/13/noam-chomsky-explains-how-he-was-banned-from-mainstream-media/
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
Well those kids assaulting her wouldn't have known anything about her or TPUSA if it weren't for the MSM dragging her out once in a while to demonize her. If she were white, nobody would have heard her name. She's a Democrat apostate who converted and is now an evangelist for conservatism with a massive voice.
Chomsky's situation was spooky. They couldn't even let him speak at all or there'd be civil war.. I suppose that was the beginning shot of the war we're still battling today. Only now, we still have a little control of the information channels. Obviously not InfoWars though.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
She is someone that gets paid a lot of money to shit kick because she realized there is a ton of money in being a right wing shit kicker.
Just like Milo was a rising star that was taking in tons of money.
Chomsky didn't play shit kicking games he just spoke truth to real problems. He was actually censored.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
Who pays her? How much?
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
She is still building. She has her anonymous patreon; I expect her to get some sort of book deal too just like Milo did. She makes appearances on conservative outlets like Infowars and Fox News.
Basically she is the new darling conservative because she gets to play identity politics.
Milo, Reubin, and her they all cry about how identity politics is how the left will destroy everything. Then whenever criticized immediately fall back on identity politics.
AKA shit kicking. She gets to rile people up so they ignore the actual oligarchy that is forming around them.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
https://i.imgur.com/hUpAdlH.gif
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
Ok, enjoy your team sport champ. I will continue laughing at you.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
https://i.imgur.com/m59EJv3.gifv
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
Nice! Still laughing at you! Have a good day!
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
Ok, but why?
1 monsterismyfriend 2018-08-06
Yes true free speech except for kneeling at a football game
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
What's true about that?
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
/u/gamefrk101 wrecked you and if you don't directly respond to him, you must know you've been beaten. So do it. If you can.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
So wrecked. Can't breathe.
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
Wow I check back hours later and I see you left him the limpest reply I've seen today.
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
What would you suggest? My honour is clearly in tatters and I am a defeated man..
1 bluebird2912 2018-08-06
How are they shutting out access to 90% of his listeners? Anyone who wants to listen to him can do so easily
1 ContextFactsLogic 2018-08-06
Do you know that infowars on youtube got 1 million views daily on just one channel? And the other stuff they lost goes millions daily too. They just lost probably on a daily basis 75% of their daily views at least.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
Too bad. Free market.
1 ContextFactsLogic 2018-08-06
That is an oxymoron, when a few powerful companies effectively control something that isn't a "Free Market", it is actually called an
ol·i·gop·o·ly
If the internet was like 20 to 30 big companies controlling video platforms that would be a lot more of a Free Market than when one or two platforms control it.
Maybe be an intelligent human being and read some books ;)
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
Yup and apparently that's the end result with capitalism and a free market. We are almost 250 years into this experiment and this is where it has led. Look at it like Pokemon. Your 2000-3000 individual companies, much like Charmander becoming Charmeleon and then Charizard, evolved into 2-3 companies. A truly free market left to it's own devices became an oligopoly. Put down your book and look out your window.
1 wurrboutit 2018-08-06
yup, but there is no end result. this is just a stage - which will eventually be followed by a reset.
1 jubway 2018-08-06
How is this an example of oligopoly?
If one of the companies had a contract with the other to not host Infowars, resulting in no competition between the companies for Infowars traffic, you would have a point.
Competition isn't being limited. There is so little desire to host the content that there is no competition.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
So those people can't move to a different place to listen to him? Seems like they aren't very much a fan then.
1 ContextFactsLogic 2018-08-06
You are equating "being a fan" with "getting views". Not the same thing, sorry, thanks for playing.
ol·i·gop·o·ly
a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
Yup... that's what you get with capitalism and the free market. That's what you guys wanted tight?
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
You are confusing me for someone that doesn't like busting up large companies.
My point being if they wish to still hear his content they can find it with the same internet connection they used before. No downloads required. I don't even know if they have to create a user account on the main infowars website.
If they don't even want to put that TINY amount of effort in they clearly aren't that interested in his views.
1 moparornocar 2018-08-06
Also can't you just download podcasts? Why can't these people go to Alex Jones website and listen to them there?
1 andr50 2018-08-06
But mah persecution complex
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
In this example the internet is the side walks not YouTube, Spotify, and Facebook. If the ISPs did this then you'd have a point.
1 kerrykingsbaldhead 2018-08-06
The tech giants are as much sheep as the consumers. AJ called for the execution of Mueller like a week ago. Tech giants sat on their hands until one of the companies stepped up, decided to deal with the censorship outcry and the other companies followed suit, because precedence from the other tech companies.
They’re all pussies.
1 andr50 2018-08-06
Or, the most recent thing he posted had a ton of users reporting it.
1 DrP-DrPapa 2018-08-06
True, but they do control a monopoly in social media and cell platforms. Given that most civilian communications are based out of their software, denying someone to publicize their beliefs through them is the nowaday equivalent to banning their free speech.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
no it isn't
1 kerrykingsbaldhead 2018-08-06
Repeating it over and over doesn’t make it true.
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
Having internet access makes someone equally able to look up Alex Jones' site as go on any other website to watch him.
1 obdm 2018-08-06
An issue that will be raise is: if these companies choice to censor certain types of political speech It could be viewed as political contributions. For instance twitter partially shadow banning Republicans.
1 kerrykingsbaldhead 2018-08-06
Is AJ really pushing a conservative viewpoint or just a bonkers viewpoint? Just because a raving lunatic has a political point of view, shouldn’t protect his speech when it can be considered dangerous.
"That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen," Jones said, miming a pistol with his hand.
"It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's the real world. Politically. You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We're going to bang heads. We're going to bang heads.”
1 obdm 2018-08-06
“Bonkers” is relative. People thought it was bonkers when Trump announces he was running for President. AJs speech could be considered dangerous if he’s actually calling for violence. But is it performance art? Should Sara Jeong be banned too? Or she performance art too? I think people would just like consistency in policy or a Bonkers Committee
1 kerrykingsbaldhead 2018-08-06
AJ only called his act “performance art” because he didn’t want to lose access to his kids. No public apology.
SJ’s tweets date to 2013 and were in direct response to harassers. She called her tweets wrong and apologized.
See the difference? AJ is bonkers.
1 Ninja_Arena 2018-08-06
Yeah, Al the platforms like Facebook and YouTube are just convenient ways for casual people to watch his stuff...if they are into it. He can still host videos on his website no problem. Get donations through patreon etc as well.
Not a fan of censorship overall but maybe a line has to be drawn for private companies. It's does seem really really odd that they all occured around the same time. Has he said something offensive recently? Like more so than the sandy hook thing?
1 kerrykingsbaldhead 2018-08-06
He said he would shoot Mueller. Or that Mueller deserved to be shot or something like that.
1 Ninja_Arena 2018-08-06
Ahhh, ok. Was out of the loop. Still see lots of people on Twitter and Facebook wanting to kill all white men..... but yeah, two wrongs etc.
1 kerrykingsbaldhead 2018-08-06
Yeah extremists on both sides are morons.
1 A_Reddit_Conspiracy 2018-08-06
It was a metaphor. He said "Politically" several times. Granted, it was just another stupid Alex Jones rant, but I don't think somebody should be banned from 4 platforms because he goes on dumb rants.
There's a video of it on that link too. Anyone who takes this obvious metaphor and interprets it literally is either a moron or a liar. This is an entirely separate point from "is Alex Jones an idiot," to which I agree.
Missouri Democratic state senator apologizes for hoping Trump is assassinated
Peter Fonda: "We should rip Barron Trump from his mother's arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles and see if mother will will stand up against the giant a--hole she is married to."
1 Ninja_Arena 2018-08-06
Yeah, his metaphors are strong but then they are usually pretty...don't know the word for it, kinda tongue in cheek. Like the whole psychic vampires....didn't directly mean that or he did and Hillary isn't a pedaphile or shoe is bit not like that cause it was a metaphor. It's all nonsense but I've seen worse that doesn't get bans
1 yesipooptoo 2018-08-06
Or nothing like that.
1 kerrykingsbaldhead 2018-08-06
Or something like that.
“That’s a demon I will take down, or I’ll die trying. So that’s it. It’s going to happen, we’re going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he’s going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it’s going to happen,” Jones said, miming a pistol with his hand.
“It’s not a joke. It’s not a game. It’s the real world. Politically. You’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We’re going to bang heads. We’re going to bang heads.”
1 andr50 2018-08-06
Dude, he reported a Ten Million dollar income on supplements alone last year. Why does he even need donations?
1 Ninja_Arena 2018-08-06
Not saying he needs it, just saying I'm sure YouTube is part of his expected revenue stream so another angle might work to continue a similar stream
1 bestmaleperformance 2018-08-06
98% of all internet traffic goes through 5 companies, all of which are majority owned by the same 20 investors/founders, how is that not a monopoly?
That's like saying I own the only newspaper in the US and everyone is given it for free on a daily basis to read exactly what I want believed, but you are free to go yell on the street corner to 10 people about how I'm destroying the worldso shut up, you have free speech as well.
1 kerrykingsbaldhead 2018-08-06
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/infowars.com
Infowars is ranked ~870 in the United States. That’s less like randomly yelling on a street corner and more like being broadcasted on a major radio station and picked up by affiliates across the country.
25M+ monthly page views. I think they’ll be fine.
1 greetingearthlings 2018-08-06
Probably won't be long until they start shutting down websites. That's what I'm worried about.
1 -_-_-_----_ 2018-08-06
At least have some intellectual honesty. The internet of today isn't the internet of the 2000s. Most people congregate on a small number of massive social media sites and kicking someone off of those sites effectively denies them exposure to the vast majority of people who might be receptive to their message. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be such a push for de-platforming people like Jones from people who want to see them get shut down.
In the days before the internet the major media platforms were the big newspapers and television stations, which were of course not open to conspiracy theories and non-mainstream political ideologies, so denying them influence was as easy as not reporting on them or flooding the media with smear pieces if they somehow got too big not to report on. To the extent that a conspiracy community existed it was composed of tiny mailing lists, low-circulation magazines, and small radio stations. The internet changed that because it allowed someone with little or no money to reach massive numbers of people and expose them to ideas they probably never would have heard of otherwise. How many people would even know the federal reserve is a private bank if it wasn't for the internet? How many people would even recognize the word Illuminati? How many people would even know the term New World Order? How many people would have seen the WTC 7 footage? It doesn't matter if you buy into those theories or not. The point is that they are extremely basic mainstays of community culture and lore and they would be almost unknown in mainstream circles if it wasn't for the internet. It's simply a fact that the internet has been essential to the spread of conspiracy theories, political heresies, and outside the box thinking of all kinds. The internet has allowed more people than ever before to break away from the mainstream narrative.
For all intents and purposes, major social media sites are now the internet. Forums are a thing of the past. Every imageboard other than 4chan is dead, dying, or tiny and not growing. IRC is way past its heyday. Denying people like Alex Jones access to sites like Yotube and Facebook is the equivalent of denying them and their ideas public exposure. Not only should it be considered censorship but more importantly it should be recognized for what it is: an attempt to reverse the spread of the outsider theories, ideas, and ideologies that the internet has allowed to flourish. An attempt to destroy one of the last real marketplaces of ideas that exists in this country and put us back under the intellectual tyranny of the media class. It doesn't matter if you like Alex or not, if you support that there's no reason for you to even be on a conspiracy sub other than to shill.
And if AJ's hosting service banned Infowars you would be cheering that too and saying that it's just capitalism and that he's not having his first amendment violated so nobody has any right to complain. In fact, that's precisely what happened when the Daily Stormer was shut down.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
Wouldn't the reversal of Net Neutrality make that null and void. Or at least put that in the hands of the ISPs?
1 battles 2018-08-06
The funniest part of that is referring to massive corporations as 'left wing.'
Massive capitalist enterprises that make all decisions based on profit do not fit the criteria for 'left wing.'
1 Autopilot_Psychonaut 2018-08-06
You seem to be blissfully unaware of their corporate culture.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
People are still free to determine what is and isn't bullshit even with him removed. I don't see how that is affected by his removal.
1 wafino1 2018-08-06
A lot of idiots on here probably believe in chemicals making the frogs gay!
1 EmotionalSupportDogg 2018-08-06
If it’s removed, how are they supposed to determine that?
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
I'm not sure what you're saying but it sounds like you're saying people are unable to decide what's bullshit without Alex Jones telling them what to think.
1 Jerronbao 2018-08-06
Sigh... He means why not let people judge Alex Jone's words for themselves rather than just deleting him.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
Ahhh got it. That seems like a more rationale response. Well they probably could have if he hadn't violated their T&S.
1 EmotionalSupportDogg 2018-08-06
Yep
1 denreyc 2018-08-06
Doesn't he have his own website? What, are people incapable of typing in the url now too?
1 EmotionalSupportDogg 2018-08-06
Couldn’t the same be said about every other content producer? I don’t get this... are you really arguing for censorship on this sub...
1 denreyc 2018-08-06
I'm answering your question. You asked, how are people going to make up their own minds if he's not on those other platforms, and I said he has his own website, they can just go there. Doesn't that answer your question?
This isn't censorship, either. You don't have the right to somebody else's platform. The government can't force you to support speech you don't agree with, because that's literally the opposite of free speech.
1 EmotionalSupportDogg 2018-08-06
Ok so it’s starts with YouTube censoring people, and you say sure, it’s a private company they have that right. Then social media, and again you say, sure they have that right. Then what if ISPs start censoring content, we’ll, they’re private companies so why not??? If there is no platform FOR free speech, then there is NO freedom of speech.
1 denreyc 2018-08-06
It's my opinion that ISPs are different, since in a lot of areas they operate as state sanctioned monopolies. Which is why I support net neutrality, which would keep ISPs from "censoring" things.
Also, what you just said was literally a slippery slope fallacy. You and I both have "lines in the sand" that "censorship" shouldn't cross. My line is in a different place from yours; that does not mean I'm pro "censorship" and you're against it.
And I'm putting "censorship" in quotes because I don't believe it's censorship if it's not the government banning your speech.
And finally, even if ISPs "censored" Alex Jones, if every company in America "censored" him, he still has the right to say the things he says. If you go to his house, he's free to say them to you. His right to free speech does not mean anybody else in America has to help him spread his views.
1 EmotionalSupportDogg 2018-08-06
So you’re opinion on free speech is that it should be confined to the privacy of your own home... and yes this IS a slippery slope. It starts with people like Alex Jones and when they see that people are fine with him being censored, they encroach further. This isn’t a fallacy, this is reality.
1 mountainwampus 2018-08-06
I like to listen to Alex as a balance to the increasing bias in every other form of media. I can only listen to so much NPR talk about Trump putting kids in cages. I get it! Orange man bad! What are the other POVs? Not allowed to be discussed anymore! WTF?!
1 steffanlv 2018-08-06
And business owners should have the freedom to offer products and services they feel isn't bullshit on their own. Honestly, people like you need to be given an IQ test before they can even get online. I should have the freedom not to have to be constantly confronted by morons like you whenever i'm online.
1 TheMadQuixotician 2018-08-06
I understand you're upset by my comment, but you entirely ignored the first half that explains that I understand these companies are entitled to control content on their pages.
If you had stopped your criticism two sentences earlier, your comment might make sense.
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
And if you had stopped writing your first post at the first comma, you would have said all that actually needs to be said about this. Jones incited violence when he made what would have been a threat without his intentional use of the word "politically" and he was banned because that breaks the rules he agreed to. That's it.
1 TheMadQuixotician 2018-08-06
I thought Facebook suspended his account because of the 4 videos last month that supposedly invited violence. What instance are you talking about with the use of the word "politically?"
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/398512-alex-jones-threatens-mueller-youre-going-to-get-it-or-im-going-to-die-trying
That is the ridiculous video in question. I thought he was funny when he was yelling about gay frogs, but this is actually a dangerous time. There's no place for this kind of rhetoric.
1 TheMadQuixotician 2018-08-06
The irony being that atrazine does in fact cause some male frogs to turn female! That part always killed me. The one story Jones got truly right was memed into oblivion. I never could stand the guy but in that one particular instance, he was correct and there is plenty of peer reviewed research to support a number of surrounding claims.
Thank you for sharing this link. I knew about the 4 last month but hadn't heard this yet. He's his own worst enemy lol
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
I like to use Ben Shapiro as an example of someone on the right who's not going down the same dangerous path as Jones. We can still have reasonable discourse.
1 TheMadQuixotician 2018-08-06
What's the draw to Shapiro? He has a similar attitude of silent acceptance of human rights violations in Israel that is remarkably similar to Jones'.
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
I can't remember agreeing with Shapiro about anything I've really ever heard him say. I'm not surprised he's supportive of Israel. I'm sure there are other things people could point out like that too. But he's not ranting and raving about political gunfights at high noon and accusing Mueller of raping children.
1 shitzafit 2018-08-06
Business owners are allowed those freedoms. That’s how you end up with shit holes like Walmart. Hopefully online media services won’t all end up like shitty Walmarts that pretty much dictate what products their customer has to choose from-as you seem to prefer, dumbass.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Not true. They take American taxpayer money.
1 ninjawasp 2018-08-06
America is not the world!
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
And? What is your point? I don't see what you are saying.
Infowars is in the U.S. and these companies do business in the U.S., so U.S. law applies.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
They aren't breaking any laws.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
The Constitution guarantees the right to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
Are you just playing dumb or is this really your argument?
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
What about my argument is dumb? You do not say.
Are you playing dumb?
1 Bruce_Banner621 2018-08-06
"No shoes, no shirt, no service" "We refuse the right to serve any customer at any time for any reason"
You may have seen these signs before. I imagine you likely have.
Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class. At the national level, protected classes include: Race or color. National origin or citizenship status.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Gender and religion are also protected classes.
Look up the case law about public forums.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
How does that apply to Alex Jones?
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
The companies in question are public forums, they are subsidized using U.S. taxpayer money, and they are agents of the CIA.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
Why do all your comments just bring up random, unrelated points?
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
That's your response? You do not address any of the issues I raised. There is already case law regarding public forums. Maybe you should read it so you can sound more intelligent.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
You were just spouting random nonsense and when I try to clarify your point you bring up more random nonsense.
The first amendment does not apply to private companies.
Alex Jones was not banned for his gender or religion.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
LOL. Private companies are not agents of the CIA and they do not take American taxpayer money, right?
"Alex Jones was not banned for his gender or religion." Well, no kidding. Who said he was?
The issue is Free Speech.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
You brought up gender and religion being protected. I guess you can't keep track of your own random pieces.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
I respond to a lot of people, but the banning of infowars is about Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
Which only applies to government prosecution. Write up an article and go insist your local paper print it because of the 1st Amendment. You won't get very far.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
No it doesn't only apply to the government. I have no idea where you get your information.
Beyond the First Amendment: You’re probably confused about free speech:
https://www.salon.com/2016/08/31/beyond-the-first-amendment-youre-probably-confused-about-free-apeech/
"If the government is involved with a private entity to a significant degree, then the First Amendment can become an issue."
"All of this is to say that if someone is arguing that he or she is not violating free speech when attempting to silence an unpopular opinion or if this person says that something was not technically censored because the government wasn't involved, he or she does not know what he or she is talking about."
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
Are you mistaking his opinion for case law?
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
He is correctly interpreting case law. Research it.
You said it only applies to government "prosecution". I think you mean government action.
He gives an example of a private prison, which is a corporation and not part of the government. By your logic, the private prison can ignore the Constitution, but this is clearly not the case. Private prisons are required to follow the Constitution because they are agents of the government.
Why not just hire private police so that they do not have to follow the Constitution?
You see where I am going with this?
If your logic holds, then the government can get around the limits of the Constitution by creating corporations to act for them. They can't do this, and you should be thankful for it.
What will you do when they decide to limit your Free Speech? Will you still be so eager to take away the Free Speech rights of others?
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
Private Prisons and Security working for the state are in no way similar to a public media company.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Freedom of the Press, too.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
This discussion has been had countless times. The 1st Amendment protects you from arrest, it doesn't force companies to distribute your content.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Lol.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
That's a more coherent argument than your previous one.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
You have not researched any of this. You are on r/conspiracy, but you have not researched.
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
That is incorrect. You are making bad arguments that are factually wrong and I am trying to help you from being embarrassed next time.
1 Lord_Augastus 2018-08-06
Everytime, the argument of private company comes up. In relation to freedom of speech, its unsettling how people forget their basic rights.
1 TheMadQuixotician 2018-08-06
Каждый раз...
1 Hektik352 2018-08-06
How are they Private entities is they recieve tax substedies from the US government?
1 TheAmazingSasha 2018-08-06
They're not all private companies, they're publicly traded..
1 varikonniemi 2018-08-06
Nope, they are PAC:s if they don't allow all parties same access.
1 richtaco91 2018-08-06
We all need to stand with Alex Jones. Or all conspiracy will be next.
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
Do we? I mean, the guy is a bit of an absolutely terrible human being
1 richtaco91 2018-08-06
Yeah. What don’t u get? If they can ban him they can ban anyone especially for conspiracy. I take it u like conspiracy shit since ur on this sub. U like modern day book burning? How every truther doesn’t get the massive impact this ban on jones for his speech is super troubling. Wake up people. This is their move. Midterms are around the corner. This is election meddling.
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
Is it? Realistically it’s a reaction to his lawsuits, especially in facebooks case. And yeah, I dabble in conspiracies, just not the “these parents are crisis actors who’s dead kids aren’t real” shit.
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-08-06
And then backpeddle and have your lawyer say no sensible person would believe their client.
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
It’s pretty funny to defend your client by claiming the only people who believe him are batshit crazy
1 tagrav 2018-08-06
it's funny watching him be defended in here.
are these people just in debt to his supplements or something?
1 sadmep 2018-08-06
You just nailed it. Everyone in conspiracy theory circles can't stand Alex Jones because of the crisis actor stuff. If Jones and company hadn't leaned into that so heavily, and maybe if he laid off hawking the brain supplements, he might have some more sympathy from the larger community.
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
It’s really insane how much time he spends selling his crap. It’d be funny if not for the insane and harmful shit he spews
1 swansong19 2018-08-06
Is it as harmful as...say...telling the world the lie that a nation has "weapons of mass destruction" and that they were responsible for an attack on America...invading said nation and slaughtering millions of civilians through sanctions and war?
Is it as harmful as that?
1 Maetivet 2018-08-06
Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to freedom of a platform.
The idea of freedom of speech is only viable with a society that keeps the worst fringes in check. You’re welcome to say it, but what you say might not necessary be welcome.
1 richtaco91 2018-08-06
He was huge in getting trump in. He has more audience than cnn and msnbc. It’s political
1 sadmep 2018-08-06
Do you have a source for Alex Jones having more of an audience than CNN and MSNBC?
1 richtaco91 2018-08-06
Have u seen the cnn ratings? 200k a day for cooper. Jones gets what 5-10 million a week easy. Plus YouTube and social media. Use your brain. Alex jones has more listeners than cnn for sure. During the election jones was getting a combined 40-80 million in one week. U telling me Anderson cooper even comes close.
1 sadmep 2018-08-06
I am using my brain, I'm asking you for a citation on your claims rather than taking your word for it. When I search on my own for those numbers everything is coming back saying your claim is wrong. So if you've got hard data to back your claim, I'd love to see it.
1 NappyGlove 2018-08-06
I think you're confusing subscriber count and viewer count - and then confusing viewer count and how Nielsen records viewers for cable news networks.
Alex Jones does not have more of an audience than CNN or MSNBC or Fox News.
1 richtaco91 2018-08-06
Use ur brain Anderson cooper vs Alex jones. Who gets more views?
1 NappyGlove 2018-08-06
That's not the question or comparison you posed. You posed, 'He(Alex Jones) has more audience than cnn and msnbc.'
This is incorrect, even a cursory comparison of the numbers shows more households view each CNN and MSNBC than households view Alex Jones -- If we use a sketchy Neislen <-> Youtube Views comparison. Since they are not the same platform, and the platforms vary by audience and ratings measures, exact comparisons are hard to find.
However let's just do Youtube.
CNN has had 160M video views this month. [1]
Infowars has had 17M video views this month[2]
That's a single platform. CNN alone has ten times the viewership as Infowars, not just Alex Jones, on the platform where Alex Jones is most popular.
Numbers are there, from third parties no less, it doesn't matter if you believe them or not. They are what they are.
1 delusions- 2018-08-06
He like orange man so he an angel of G*d!
1 nullum_meam 2018-08-06
the mods ban peeps from this sub also...
1 Tranchera 2018-08-06
They're not banning him for conspiracies, they're banning him for harassing (or inciting to harass) grieving parents of dead kids.
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
No partner, that would be you
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
No partner, that would be you and your pedophile industrial complex friends.
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
No partner, that would be you and your pedophile industrial complex friends.
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
Wait, who’s the pedophile industrial complex
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
"Wait, who's the pedophile industrial complex ?" - Save it gaslight artist. Sell that drivel somewhere else, I ain't buying.
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
No seriously. I don’t follow that kind of shit.
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
Well you should. Look into it.
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
Mind giving me the cliff notes version? I imagine googling pedophile ring won’t get me definitive answers
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
Start Here
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
Sable
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
Danke
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-06
Rule 4.
1 mrwizard420 2018-08-06
Well, according to Alex Jones, pretty much anyone that isn't Alex Jones.
1 Recovery15 2018-08-06
Alright, that’s pretty in character for him
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-06
Rule 4.
1 chefr89 2018-08-06
Which Alex Jones? The one that spews insanity at the suffering parents of school shootings? Or the one who's lawyer argues he does it for show and nobody sensible would believe any of his ravings?
1 delusions- 2018-08-06
1 chefr89 2018-08-06
cheers
1 delusions- 2018-08-06
thumbs up
1 IIIIlllIsdflIIl 2018-08-06
ironic you say that in a conspiracy forum. your first point.
1 Onkel24 2018-08-06
Is it required for conspiracy aficionados to believe every ludicrous bullshit just because it goes against the commonly accepted reality?
1 richtaco91 2018-08-06
You believe fake news.
1 LoveTrumpsCovfefe 2018-08-06
Why the F is this being downvoted
1 SnTrcy 2018-08-06
Because it’s dumb
1 LoveTrumpsCovfefe 2018-08-06
No, because your a commie that hates free speech...and freedom in general.
Go screw your self.
Steven Crowder is next, then Milo (oh wait, he is already banned off of twitter).
I'd like you to tell me, with a straight face, that "it's dumb" when all opposing views are banned.
1 babooshkayaya 2018-08-06
This thread feels like it's being brigaded. I don't like some of what AJ says either, but if every platform on the web bans him despite the fact that what he says is legal, that is suppression of free speech. Free speech is not just the first amendment, it's a principle.
1 realityglitch2017 2018-08-06
Youtube are banning everyone even remotely controversial and will lose all the audience once a rival streaming service gets popular. Facebook is a toxic ship that is best avoided by everyone anyway
1 bananapeel 2018-08-06
The problem is, the barrier to entry is so high, no one is replacing FB or YT. Many many billions of dollars to get in the game. Having that much money to throw around automatically makes you someone's bitch, so you become the evil you are trying to displace.
1 Spiritual_War 2018-08-06
Nah!
Mike Adams launched real.video for a million.
Check it out!
1 lhoyt 2018-08-06
Never heard of it. I have heard of YouTube though. The amount of ad revenue that content producers make via that platform, makes it stupid to go away and put content elsewhere. Market cap is a thing. People will bring up old tech that fell to the wayside, but fail to understand the reach of FB or YouTube. FB sold the data of their users to foreign adversaries, and guess what, they still own the social media market. YouTube is backed by google, they will be just fine letting a lunatic like AJ produce elsewhere.
Remeber Voat!!!! That replaced reddit!!!
1 ChristianMunich 2018-08-06
When google was unable to even make a dent in Facebook I learned that "users" are a commodity that is very expensive... You don't just start a big site like youtube.
1 bananapeel 2018-08-06
FB bled billions of dollars for years. I suspect the shortfall was made up by the CIA or Soros or other influences.
1 ChristianMunich 2018-08-06
Must be Soros, maybe also Rothschild and for sure plenty of Jews, maybe Bezos as well. I would assume that when Facebook launched they were already planning the Russia Hoax to defeat Trump. It is only logical that they invested big money into this.
1 Nearaxel 2018-08-06
Yep, the zuc dropped out of uni and said "my life's goal is to start a hoax to Destroy a presidential candidate. More specifically, it will involve Russia and trump. I'll make it work, somehow!"
1 ChristianMunich 2018-08-06
Good lord
1 mastigia 2018-08-06
I usually leave the sarcasm switch off on something like this as an idiot test. Good sarcasm shouldnt require one.
1 illiterati 2018-08-06
Nokia held 45% of the mobile market. You could find a million people claiming no one could replace them. It's not easy, but it's possible.
1 Spiritual_War 2018-08-06
real.video
1 steffanlv 2018-08-06
LOLz. For starters, it's "YouTube is" not "YouTube are". I mean, you can't even get two words into a conversation without screwing up. It's just an indication of your overall stupidity. Let's not even get into how asinine your statement about YouTube is in regards to banning everyone and that they will lose their audience. You sound like a 10 year old moron.
1 darknessanddragons 2018-08-06
Attack someone's grammar and intelligence because they shared their fairly rational opinion... you don't sound like a fucking shill at all. /s
1 Plague-Lord 2018-08-06
its because of net neutrality. ISPs are going to reduce everyone's data caps soon, and then you'll have to pay for the 'privilege' of using websites without it counting against your cap, so websites will be like cable TV channels.
At that point Youtube is going to become a paid service (pay a monthly fee to watch vids without using data) complete with corporate sponsors. That's why they're pruning all the controversial content makers now, it's in preparation of that.
1 illiterati 2018-08-06
YouTube is alredy paid for by end users (red/premium) and advertising.
1 0140101010420 2018-08-06
Threatening to murder Robert Muller and calling Sandy Hook a hoax and the victims of said hoax crisis actors is not just "remotely controversial".
You need to learn to how think objectively and think critically before claiming the sky is falling my dude
1 KnownEdge 2018-08-06
Just created a Liveleak account. I guess that's where the goods are gona be in the future.
1 iseeyoubruh 2018-08-06
Sas...I don't care for Infowars, but conservative and conspiratorial content are being silenced.
Your precious lizard people and David Icke's of the world are next.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
not silenced. go to infowars.com if you need to feel better about yourself
1 Dont_stop 2018-08-06
We really don't need childish responses.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
wait
1 nanoman25 2018-08-06
Slet me rearrange some words for him so you can understand: "If one gets silenced, they all get silenced." Last bits of democracy flying away. Amd yes even the crazy ones get their freedom of speech whether we like them or not, thats how it roles.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
oh now i get it what a fool ive been
1 thinkB4Uact 2018-08-06
I can't tell if you're being serious. I wonder if you still don't get it and are being sarcastic.
1 Roxxorsmash 2018-08-06
But no one is getting silenced???
1 nanoman25 2018-08-06
Oh yea we have. Source: r/conspiracy, etc . mods have been caught deleting alot of important posts.just scroll thru r/conspiracy and you will see many post calling them out for it.( not all mods tho)
1 pootweet 2018-08-06
rolls
1 LAcumDodgers 2018-08-06
And all their videos are gone! Because guess where they were hosted?
1 blowtheroofoff 2018-08-06
all just part of the divide and isolate show.
1 ACapitalizedCursiveL 2018-08-06
Ding ding ding!
1 YouArePrettyAwesome 2018-08-06
I gonna find some libs and execute my plan
1 That_Guy333 2018-08-06
What’s your plan?
1 YouArePrettyAwesome 2018-08-06
Arrest all parasitic pedophiles like /u/US2A
1 Correctthereddit 2018-08-06
Exactly. Alex Jones and InfoWars are a government-sponsored disinfo campaign. As gatekeepers, their purpose is to corral people who believe in conspiracy theories and distract them from digging into the real conspiracies and crimes. It also helps by associating conspiracy theorists with the right wing, furthering our political divides and again, keeping people from the issues that really matter. Finally, it makes conspiracy theorists look completely insane by association, keeping the general public from looking into conspiracies at all. Win, win, win for TPTB.
Interesting that he's getting banned lately. Possibly just upping the ante on distractions and culture wars. Or, as another user says: "This validates AJ's disinfo and it sets up a perfect precedent for future industry-wide deplatforming of political personas."
1 darknessanddragons 2018-08-06
I don't think so. I think Alex Jones is semi-legit in his authenticity. I understand your perspective and I do believe the government has done this in the past (especially with the popularity of flat earthers). This is a two pronged problem. 1) The government spreads disinfo to make conspiracy theorists look nuts. 2) The further down the rabbit hole you get, you look nuts to normal people.
1 YouArePrettyAwesome 2018-08-06
The pedophiles ARE WINNING!! HELP US TRUMP....BE THE LIGHT IN OUR DARKEST HOUR!!!!
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
Free market at work
1 whiplip 2018-08-06
Yes yes all hail our tech overlords, our gatekeepers of information.
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
If there was only some entity that could regulate corporations to prevent them from becoming monopolies. Or when they become too big, they can be regulated as a utility and be forced to not discriminate based on legal content. But then that government tyranny. So there you go.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
There's barely a distinction between Government/Corporation these days, not in the US, at least. So with that regard, I think corporations should be held to the same standard as the government and be forced to abide by the US Constitution when doing business in the US, just as the Government has to.
1 FidelHimself 2018-08-06
Government is a monopoly of violence.
1 jtcribbs 2018-08-06
Central banking is the power, money by fiat, by debt, rules the planet... big business vs government is merely their charade. Really an occult mockery system.
1 nullum_meam 2018-08-06
https://www.infowars.com/
1 -_-_-_----_ 2018-08-06
And when their hosting service bans them, you'll cheer that as the free market in action too and still say he's not being silenced. Which is exactly what happened with the Daily Stormer.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
You know, anyone can make a website, right?
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
Not sure if sarcasm.
1 arebokert 2018-08-06
It's exactly what the free market dictates, private entities get to decide what they want to keep on their platforms. Why would it be sarcasm?
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
Because its very blatantly a coordinated effort by 3 different corporations who censor political persona. I think AJ is a disinfo agent, but that's what's going on here. You shouldn't support it because it can, and will be, used against people that you support.
Also this is in total agreement with general leftist sentiment. It screams political targeting.
1 NeverTopComment 2018-08-06
And your comment is a very blatant effort to pretend these corporations are not excising their perfectly legal right to do so.
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
God you leftists suck. You see how bullshit this broad deplatforming is but you will defend it with all you got because it censors people you don't like. Just realize that one day it might turn around and it might be your people who are getting """perfectly legally""" deplatformed.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
What is your solution? Create regulation that forces Youtube or Facebook to host content they don't want on there?
How is that not a blatant first amendment violation?
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
I guess its a paradox then. Deplatforming people based on political opinions violates 1a as well.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
Only if it prevents them from expressing it. Nothing prevents Alex Jones from expressing his opinions and views. They are just stopping it on their site.
Youtube is the biggest video hosting site but it isn't the only one.
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
"right to free speech doesn't guarantee right to an audience", am i right? This is what Marxists have been using for quite a few years and i see its entering mainstream. Its sick.
1 gamefrk101 2018-08-06
It's not a "Marxist" viewpoint. It is a free market libertarian viewpoint.
1 baby_pics 2018-08-06
You say that as if it’s not patently true. You would force a private entity to provide service that’s against their values? This is the baker refusing service, you can’t have it both ways.
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
? Yes. Obviously. What happened when a bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? Discrimination, be it partisan or otherwise, is illegal. It should be.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
The only thing a right to free speech guarantees is that the government can't censor your speech. It does not guarantee that anyone else has to put up with it.
1 flipstur 2018-08-06
Haha you are an idiot
1 1fg 2018-08-06
It only violates it if it's the government doing it. YouTube isn't the US government.
1 Simplicity3245 2018-08-06
They're not here in good faith. They are pro D centrists, not leftist. The leftist are your I's and mostly Sanders camp. They are much further left than the neoliberals that pay to be the dominant voice on Reddit. Just saying you will find many allies on the "left". Do not let these centrist assholes make you think otherwise. Divided we fall.
1 McNothingBurger 2018-08-06
Is it legal or is it not?
What law required youtube to host Alex Jones videos?
1 jt2424 2018-08-06
Well youtube is now more of a public utility then a private corporation.. I mean the US gov't did use taxpayers money to prop up and build google and facebook.
1 FoxyBrownMcCloud 2018-08-06
... No.
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-08-06
It's not just speculation. Check out lifelog and DARPA to get started.
1 McNothingBurger 2018-08-06
Are you in favor of the govt capturing and regulating these private companies?
1 hnfknck-vdf 2018-08-06
Are you saying that regulation of private companies is inherently tyrannical? Are you like a hard core ancap or something?
1 McNothingBurger 2018-08-06
Quite a reach! The govt cannot control what these private orgs host on their own resources, there is a ton of precedent for that, and that appears to be what /u/jt2424 is advocating for
1 jt2424 2018-08-06
No, I am just saying there has been lots of theories stating that facebook and google were helped by the NSA.. you know what I mean.. They shouldn't be allowed to silence people for what is free speech. I never said the government should take complete control, i am just saying they shouldn't be allowed to de-platform people because they don't like their politics.. Especially sense youtube, facebook and google are such big parts of the internet now days and they wouldn't have gotten to where they are without the help of the US government (NSA, etc).
1 arebokert 2018-08-06
The thing is, what is the solution? Either we have a free market or we don't have a free market. I am left leaning myself but I can assure you that if a person like Alex Jones were a leftist I would hooray his downfall just like I do now. This man excerpts extremely toxic behavior. He does not speak for conservatives, he speaks for ignorant idiots.
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
Audience should decide. Don't like it - don't watch it.
As if that matters though. I think all of this is just a charade. AJ gets deplatformed for "hate speech" without any specific comment mentioned, yet Sarah Jeong gets hired for repeated, documented hate speech. I think this discussion overall is pointless because those in power will continue to do what they want to do. What the people think or what the truth is hardly matters anymore.
1 TheIllusiveNick 2018-08-06
If you follow the mentality of allowing the audience to dictate what is on a private entities platform you are then stripping said private entities of controlling their own product(s).
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
Private entities are being stripped of their right to control anyway. Illegal content is removed because nation states demand it and define what is illegal. Germany has setup a scheme were they can fine social media network up to $3m for violating their defined "hate speech" and "islamophobia".
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
He's currently being sued for claiming the parents of a Sandy Hook victim are lying. Who would these companies want to share in that liability?
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-06
Rule 4.
1 StreisandDefect 2018-08-06
And your comment is a very blatant effort to pretend these corporations are doing it for market reasons, and not political ones.
1 --_-_o_-_-- 2018-08-06
Whatever their motivation is, it doesn't matter. The only say you have is to use their services or not use their services.
1 StreisandDefect 2018-08-06
Yes, it does matter.
1 Hisin 2018-08-06
Nah it doesn't matter. A private corporation can ban you from using their services for literally any reason besides for being from a protected class like race, religion, or sex. They could even ban you explicitly just because they don't like you or because they don't like your opinion.
1 --_-_o_-_-- 2018-08-06
I demand you present your house the way I like it.
1 NeverTopComment 2018-08-06
They are obviously for market reasons. Im sorry that you are the .5% trash of America that takes things Alex Jones says seriously.
1 thinkB4Uact 2018-08-06
I'm a proud Bernie Sanders and Obama donating liberal. I despise hearing all of this rhetoric about the marxists/leftists/progressives causing hell on earth. It's partisan and poorly backed.
However, the comment I responded to is why we the people are too stupid to remain free. If government shuts speech down, we get legitimately worried. If those who own the means of communication shut speech down, we become aspergers rocking back and forth chanting, they have the legal right to do so.
Um, we already knew that, geniuses. It's not the point. The outrage we are supposed to direct at them is dampened by our acquiescence to current law. We are tacitly consenting to have our communication micromanaged by untrustworthy entities. That is noteworthy. Is it not? Let's point out some superficial, obvious crap and ignore what will affect us?
Remember when wiki leaks was denied donations from credit cards and PayPal, because of some coordinated effort by those companies? That was coordinatedly strange too. They had bitcoin to go around it, but few used it.
I know stupid is going to kick in and tell me my point is invalid, because they no longer like wikileaks. Well, doesn't that seem similar to accepting what is happening to Alex Jones now? Just because we don't agree with him doesn't mean we should accept what is happening to him. Fools!
We're building a panoptocon for the powerful, but a media for the peasants micromanaged by and for its corrupt owners. No problems here, the law is God.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
alex jones is a piece of shit. all these companies know this. they decided to stop allowing him to profit off of their platform.
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
He's a disinfo agent. It doesn't matter though. Its obviously a targeted campaign with all 3 corporations being in cahoots. This validates AJ's disinfo and it sets up a perfect precedent for future industry-wide deplatforming of political personas. Surely you must be able to see the bigger picture here, no?
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
he is actively spreading lies for money. 3 companies saw that and finally decided he can do it elsewhere and gets no more of their money. not everything is a conspiracy but i guess i'm in the wrong place to be saying that so ill excuse myself
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
Let me get this straight. For all these years companies didn't think anything about it, until today, when all 3, by pure coincidence, decided to deplatform him? Really, dude?
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
I'm sure they thought about it, and were worried about backlash. And rightfully so. Cause look at whats going on here. Then they decided fuck it we dont want him associated with us anymore. Thats Within their rights. He hasnt been silenced. He can still talk and make vids. People just have to go to his website now. Which is still running i think.
1 Ayzmo 2018-08-06
I imagine the current Sandy Hook lawsuit, and the accompanying news, caused them to take a closer look.
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
Within 24 hours? For 3 different corporations who hold a monopoly over the internet in the west? Yea ok
1 Ayzmo 2018-08-06
If you don't think it makes sense for them to watch what the other is doing, you're crazy. They've probably been wanting to pull the plug, but didn't want to be the one company to do it and get the backlash. Either one took the leap and the others followed, or they all agreed it was a good time. Either way, it is entirely unsurprising that it would happen this way.
1 PrincessMelody2002 2018-08-06
Also consider that the companies aren't doing this for some moral pat on their own backs. Most likely they all have a mutual advertiser that threatened to pull ads if he isn't banned.
1 Ayzmo 2018-08-06
That is very likely. Though, to have this much impact, it would have to be a very big advertiser. More likely, a bunch of advertisers.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
I get that. it doesn't look entirely normal. and I do not believe it was by pure coincidence. just look at how stitcher almost lost a lot of their subscribers by hosting alex jones less than a week ago. due to the backlash by their customers, they dropped the infowars podcasts less than a week later. maybe these bigger companys are seeing that its ok to drop him, and decided to do it all together. I wouldn't be suprised if the ceo's of these companys talk often
1 WeAreTheResistance 2018-08-06
So are CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and every other major mainstream media outlet. Should we ban them all now too?
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
i get that, and I know that they probably do spin shit to make it further their cause, which i agree is bad. I just think he actively is saying stuff he doesn't even believe because its controversial and a lot of people like that. I think it can lead to people doing and thinking some messed up shit which i do not believe is good for the world. but thats just my opinion. I understand that i might be wrong
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-08-06
you are too focused on one bad tree my friend. try to see the forest.
1 SnTrcy 2018-08-06
Alex Jones is not a Martyr. He’s a con.
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-08-06
Nothing I said would be in disagreement with you.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
I know I know, he was just one person. I did not like him and its pretty obvious but he uses his free speech to be a dick and i use mine to call him a dick on the internet. I know he isn't even the worst. but he is the one i noticed. If i get silenced i don't care because my livelihood doesn't depend on me earning money through being a dick.
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-08-06
thats not what I meant at all. I apologize for my inferior communication.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
just go buy his brain supplements and maybe you'll figure out how to speak like a fucking human instead of using dumb analogies
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
damn bro
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-08-06
hard to express complex ideas typing on a phone.
1 TheIllusiveNick 2018-08-06
No, no it does not. Alex Jones is nothing more than a disillusioned conspiracy theorist. He is by no means a political correspondent nor does he provide his audience with actual political affairs.
1 eideteker 2018-08-06
He (and his employees) sure acts like one, and his viewers treat him as one.
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
What happened to Rule #4 Mod?
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
fuck rule #4 ban me
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
Mod! Don't ban Drew8766, he's finally talking sense.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
i believe in free speech but also believe in responses to said free speech being viable. if I break rules (thus being a piece of shit myself) i should face the repercussions of it without crying about being silenced
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
A communist with a conscience...fancy
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
As a leftist independent that doesn’t even like Alex Jones, it’s insane how many people just don’t get it. 100% agree with your viewpoint, enjoy all the downvotes you’ll receive for it.
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
I know why. Its because it censors the "other side". They don't see how this can swing back at their own side in an instant.
1 upvoatz 2018-08-06
Free market theory does not involve collusion and under the table dealing.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Youtube is subsidized with American taxpayer money, they are an agent for the CIA, and they are a public platform. They have to respect Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
1 BomTrady10 2018-08-06
In the invisible hand I trust!
1 Ihatethedesert 2018-08-06
My big issue isn't that he got taken down by them. My big issue is they took him down but leave Scientology pages and information up which has been MUCH MORE harmful to many more people.
This is clearly a political issue and nothing more.
1 Simplicity3245 2018-08-06
We have no Free market.
1 Ahem_ak_achem_ACHOO 2018-08-06
Dude, you have no Quaran
1 SomethingInThatVein 2018-08-06
That argument was Torah part
1 Pattycaaakes 2018-08-06
It's spelled Qanon
1 nullum_meam 2018-08-06
tru that, the trump tariff's are a bit rough...
1 bean-a 2018-08-06
So how come 'free market' welcomes hate speech against men? As long as they're white. Aren't you worried about double standards.
1 justhere2havefun 2018-08-06
They can do whatever they want. People don’t have to use their platforms. People can open their own platform and host whatever content they want. Stop feeding the beast you don’t want to continue living.
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
Hate speech isn’t illegal in the US. It shouldn’t be illegal. You are free to boycott the publications that perpetrate this hate speech.
1 ZiggyAnimals 2018-08-06
That's the whole point of free market. It's regulated by market forces and dosen't dare about standards.
1 bean-a 2018-08-06
Jones claims to be a Libertarian, so maybe that’s why some other Libertarians are now piling up on him here.
That’s why Libertarians are doomed to lose IMHO – they like fighting each other too much.
1 ZiggyAnimals 2018-08-06
At the end it's all about money. It's the response to the Adpocalypse and loss of Ad revenue because companies pulled out due to having thier ad on controversal topics and them beinv linked to those topics by ads.
1 HolographicLizard 2018-08-06
Wah wah white men. You really that sensitive bro? As a white person seeing people like you bitch about them targeting us is just sad. It's long overdue and you can step up and show them you're a decent man or crack under he pressure. Being called mean names is nothing compared to what whites have done to people throughout history. Just saying.
This is the free market whites created and its finally catching up with them.
1 GodEmperorScorch 2018-08-06
Have you read about what black people do to each other in Africa? Have you read about what black people do to each other in the USA? Get the fuck outta here.
1 HolographicLizard 2018-08-06
You mean what the white people with guns made the black people do? Why don't you get out of here. Seems you might be the racist sympathizer.
1 GodEmperorScorch 2018-08-06
Wow. So the black on black violence in a country created by whites that they don't want to be in but would prefer to be in Africa is causing these unbelievable murder rates against each other?
Sickening.
1 HolographicLizard 2018-08-06
How about those racist cops killing blacks? Or the CIA putting crack out there to break up black families. Seems like the white man has it out for anyone other than their fellow white man. Even white women are starting to wake up to how damn selfish those white men are. Just wait. I bet your fragile little ego will collapse soon and we will all see the type of 'man' you are.
1 GodEmperorScorch 2018-08-06
You seem very fragile? Is it hard growing up in a white created country for you because of your liberal belief system and hatred for things that happened centuries ago? Settle down and move home then!
1 HolographicLizard 2018-08-06
I'm white my friend but it doesn't mean I have to follow in the footsteps of the white supremacist regimes. I'm also probably one of the strongest people ever tyvm so get out of here with your claims of fragility.
I've suffered endless triggers, dealt with severe anxiety caused by hateful people. However, I overcame those issues and rose up to become a stronger person. Which leads me to standing up to Trump. No matter how much authority a bully has they can be taken down. With enough of my friends we will take this man down and make sure his mark on history is so miniscule it makes his hands (and peepee) look big.
1 GodEmperorScorch 2018-08-06
Ah ok, well you do realize that white people like you created this? Trump is here because so many white people hate themselves and have white guilt (which is fake by the way). Proud to be white! Trump 2020!
MAGA!!!
1 HolographicLizard 2018-08-06
'Proud to be white'
Okay nazi lol. Go back to r/The_Donald or r/milliondollarextreme
1 GodEmperorScorch 2018-08-06
Yet if a black person says "Black Power" or raises a fist it's celebrated. It's all reverse racism and globalism because everyone flocks to white created countries because we are the master race. It's a shame most people are too stupid to create a decent country. We are a minority on Earth but still are the master race. Seems odd. China and Japan are okay. They already know multiculturalism cannot work so they have that going for them.
1 HolographicLizard 2018-08-06
Reverse racism hahahaha. You do realize racism is something white people invented and perfected? Non-whites cannot be racist you fool.
1 GodEmperorScorch 2018-08-06
What the hell? Are you really that stupid?
1 HolographicLizard 2018-08-06
It's really easy to claim stupidity when you don't agree with the way things are, I get it. But you're only doing yourself a disservice with the claims.
1 Riggedit 2018-08-06
Big tech collusion. Monolithic Censorship.
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
Lack of government oversight to prevent collusion.
Lack of Regulation.
Regulation applied and enforced —-> government tyranny, remove regulations at once!!
We can go in circles
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
I think it's pretty clear that there's a right way and wrong way, though. Censorship is the wrong way.
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
Wrong way for whom? For Alex Jones fans and fans of complete free speech? Sure. For a corporation like YouTube, it’s likely a right decision as they look to rebrand their platform.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
I'm not an Alex Jones fan but I'm a free speech absolutist. I understand the argument that YouTube can do what it wants, but I think it's wrong, just because it's Google/Alphabet in charge.
There has to be regulations put on a corporation so large with so much of the market share. I'm not sure what exactly that number of users is to be enforceable, but Alphabet, Apple, and Facebook have all definitely achieved it.
1 Morning-Chub 2018-08-06
This is so stupid. Free speech (as in the first amendment) regulates what the government can regulate in terms of speech. You, as a free speech absolutist, want the government to regulate what tech companies allow on their platforms. So, you're essentially saying you AREN'T a free speech absolutist, based on the fact that you want the government to be able to regulate more speech than they're currently able to regulate.
That's so backwards.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
I want them regulated to allow everything that isn't illegal by US law. Why is that so crazy?
Wrong. I want all speech open at all times. Banning somebody is not "free speech", it's censorship.
1 Morning-Chub 2018-08-06
Okay, but that's not plausible, because the first amendment regulates what can be regulated. "All speech" isn't something that the government can regulate. It has to be types of speech that fit into very narrow categories that honestly aren't even used that much these days. The company has the responsibility of moderating their content, the government generally can't, and to suggest that another scheme of government oversight be put into place makes you the exact opposite of a "free speech absolutist".
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
It's very fucking possible and plausible. Allow all speech at all times except for when it's directly hurtful to innocent people, just the same thing as yelling bomb at an airport or fire in a crowded theater, which would cause a stampede.
So yeah, maybe a free speech absolutist with a caveat on absolutist, but not everything is black and white.
1 Morning-Chub 2018-08-06
Lol dude you are so confused.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
I’m not, I just view spirit of the law rather than hard wording. Again, I’ll point out that I know why it’s this way and I’d like it to be changed.
1 kbecks06 2018-08-06
Aaaaand now it’s all totally ambiguous. Short of the government forcing companies to host content they don’t want to I’m not really sure what you want. You yourself even even went from free speech absolutist to free speech with caveats in 5 mins, so when you scale that up to an entire countries its not really surprising lots of people disagree with where the line should be.
Let’s say YouTube are forced to host Alex jones content, not only does that mean YouTube are not allowed to curate content on their own platform which is already odd, but they wouldn’t even be able to monetise it as advertisers want nothing to do with it, so we’d be forcing YouTube to eat a cost and damage their brand in order to please Alex Jones and his fans.
On a basic level I just don’t see how you get around the issue of forcing people to provide a platform to people they don’t want to. You’re just trading the rights of x to control their product, to please y who aren’t even necessarily the customers of x.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
I've explained this time and time over. You just don't listen, or don't want to listen.
The problem is not "providing a platform for those that don't want to," it's that Google shouldn't "not want to provide a platform" to anybody. Their entire business model is being a platform.
"Regulating" them so that they can't ban people for legal free speech is wrong. Period. I realize it's legal for them to do so, I just think it's wrong, and I think it can be used to ban other people of views without question, which I think is wrong.
This is textbook "wrongthink" from 1984. It should be stopped.
1 kbecks06 2018-08-06
But for example Google is primarily a publicly traded technology and advertising business.
Why would they have absolutist freedom of speech at their core? They will largely do whatever is most popular and makes them money.
Look at the coverage of their potential move into China if you’re in any doubt that they care more about markets then anything else.
I mean this is literally the first time I’ve ever responded to you so I don’t know about that? And if people are continuing to ask you about something maybe it’s because what you’re saying is confusing.
You said
Immediately followed by
And then
????????
You must see why this is a biiiiiiit ambiguous though. Not everyone shares the same assumptions, so not everyone will agree where to draw the line. You’ve already acknowledge that free speech doesn’t actually mean free speech.
If someone claims they’re harmed by the speech of x, and that was directly hurtful, what is the test for if that’s true? Does it include being offended? What if it’s a racial slur? What if it encourages others to do something? Etc
I don’t know what the answer is, but I find it a bit annoying when people just hand-wave over the issue with oh just let everyone have free speech everywhere, because as demonstrated that’s often not what’s actually being discussed and it’s quite an open ended discussion.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
I mean, you can pick apart my words all goddamn day and argue against them, my viewpoint is that they should be held to the same standards that US courts are held to. They shouldn't be allowed the capability to ban, unless directed by a court to do so. End of story.
I realize that varies from state to state and court to court, but it's a starting point.
1 kbecks06 2018-08-06
That fine, I don’t personally agree that companies should be held to the same standard as an entire branch of government and you did just previously say the exact opposite thing...
I guess though that that’s my entire point. It’s just difficult to get people to agree on the issue, so I just don’t think it’s helpful to talk in absolutes as it’s always going to fall apart if it has to interact with the real world.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Oh, my bad, I meant to say "Not 'regulating'"... I'm for regulation once a company is as ubiquitous and large as any of the companies we're talking about, but not for the same sort of regulation on smaller forums.
I think maybe 1 million users might be a good number for this type of regulation, since there isn't any.
1 anonpls 2018-08-06
Ah, so you want more regulation on speech, this time applying it to private institutions.
Man, SJWs are everywhere.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
I want regulation to stop banning of speech. Learn to read, dude. You didn't read anything I wrote at all, and this is way far down in the comments.
1 anonpls 2018-08-06
But the only way to institute that is by regulating what a private institution can and can't remove from their platform, therefore regulating their speech.
I'm confident I followed your own argument better than you did.
You just seem really intent on changing your words so what you actually want doesn't sound as batshit as it actually is.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
lol, you're so upset about limiting the speech of the corporation over the individual. Get your priorities straight.
1 anonpls 2018-08-06
My priorities are quite straight thanks.
No private entity should be forced(especially not by the fucking government) to host something they don't want to host.
The only time that breaks down is when that "something" is outside of any entities control and when the only way to access information is through a private entity.
In this case Alex has a choice, he can change what he says or he can accept that he can't say it on these entities' space especially since those entities aren't stopping him from saying what he's saying at all, but rather not allowing him to say it on their property.
Now if it was an ISP that was censoring Alex this whole conversation would fall under "when the only way to access information is through a private entity" which as I said above is another instance where the "no private entity should be forced to host something they don't want to host" bit doesn't apply because now Alex Jones' entire existence is being censored and now a private entity is being kept from existing at all(in 2018 if you're not on the internet you don't exist) by another.
And I'm sure you just equate that to yt/fb/tw/apple having so many eyeballs that it's basically the same thing, but it isn't because I can still go to infowars.com and there's lil Alex with his lil pills, his business is still there and I can still access it. If my ISP of which I have no other choice but to use unless I move far from my source of income removes him though then there is No Way for me to get to his content.
You see how that's entirely different than non-ISP level companies censoring him I would hope.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
There’s no difference between these corporations and the government, I think that’s where we disagree. All of these have received governmental funding despite being multi-billion dollar companies.
Your defense of their right for free speech over the little guy is incorrect and misguided.
1 anonpls 2018-08-06
So? Lots of companies and industries get government funding, that doesn't mean that they should be considered part of the government and if the government is EVER found to be influencing a private entity through what are essentially bribes than those officials responsible should be punished. I'm not sure but there might be some laws to that effect already.
Their right to free speech is the same as the little guy's, it's literally the only way to ensure an even playing field. It's the only way to have competition even.
If they can be barred from selectively hosting people then that means that I can also be barred from selectively hosting people, no thanks.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
The funny thing will be when Alex Jones sues and wins in the Supreme Court and your precious corporations lose their Safe Harbor rights they’ve had thus far because he can make a case he was targeted for his political beliefs.
Then you will have government enacted mass censorship because you didn’t stand up for it now.
1 anonpls 2018-08-06
I see you've turned into a lawyer, congratulations, that was a quick bar exam, you must be a genius.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Not gonna bother with personal insults, look it up.
1 anonpls 2018-08-06
I unfortunately am not a lawyer so me looking it up would mean dick all.
But I'm sure once the case hits the SC we'll see how the justice system thinks this debate should go.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Don’t look it up then, just remember where you stood now. Have a good one.
1 darthhayek 2018-08-06
LOL for the soviet union maybe
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
No, for a corporation like Youtube. Reading is hard.
1 darthhayek 2018-08-06
Shill harder.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
That implies I get paid. I'm more puzzled by the sheer stupidity who thinks a private corporation is anything like the soviet union. History failed you eh? Or maybe you're just another liberal communist apologist trying to rewrite history.
1 darthhayek 2018-08-06
Explain James Damore then.
1 Unkindled_Phoenix 2018-08-06
Youtube and Google are the CIA. This is not a private corporation rebranding its content and image. This is a totalitarian crackdown on the flow of information. Get with it.
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
Thanks Eddie Bravo
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
Google is actually MSS. You're just too brainwashed to realize how infiltrated our tech world is by Chinese spy agencies.
1 anonpls 2018-08-06
No, google is my ass, wake up sheeple.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Youtube is subsidized with American taxpayer money, they are an agent for the CIA, and they are a public platform. They have to respect Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
Youtube isn't subsidized by anyone.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Yes they are. They would be out of business if they were not.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
I don't think you grasp how much money Alphabet makes, and how much they've been able to monetize Youtube from profits. See, I'm capable of reading a company's finance reports. They're not subsidized by anyone.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Why would I read fake or fudged financial reports? The financial reports can be made to say whatever they want them to say.
How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable':
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
The problem is that you think I am naive.
1 my_friend_mmpeter 2018-08-06
Do they plan on rebranding themselves as not a platform for monetised brainwashing and child porn?
Ah, gotta love "private companies". Keep up with the social justice.
Jackasses.
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
What are you asking me here? You seem really triggered.
1 my_friend_mmpeter 2018-08-06
I don't know man.
And no, only slightly triggered. Lol. :p
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
That's why the get rid of Alex Jones
1 my_friend_mmpeter 2018-08-06
Lol, fair point.
But I think the main point is the slippery slope this is.
1 rslash2 2018-08-06
hate speech is not free speech.
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
I disagree
1 Wuggarat 2018-08-06
What did Alex Jones do to be labeled hate speech?
And hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment as it should be.
1 askandyoushallget 2018-08-06
What does this have to do with 1A? The government had nothing to do with this.
1 Wuggarat 2018-08-06
see above comment
1 snstrmstch 2018-08-06
Hate speech is especially free speech. Doesn't make it right or pleasing, but there can be zero limitations on truly free speech. Everyone has the right to make themselves out to be a bigoted asshole, no matter how offensive they may be.
1 TruthDontChange 2018-08-06
Problem is Jones isn't about free speech, he is only concerned w his own aggrandizement at any cost.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
He isn't being censored. He still has his website. These are private companies. If the ISP's banned him then you'd have a point.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
So that's the point at which you'd agree to him being censored? If his website was banned?
Are you sure you wouldn't just come back if his website was banned and say "He isn't being censored, nobody is stopping him from going on a street corner with a megaphone?"
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
These are companies providing a service. If a baker can deny a gay couple service YouTube can deny AJ service. The internet has been deemed a human right. YouTube has not.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
It’s not even an argument I’m trying to make. I’ve said I understand why they can, but I think it’s wrong and should be changed, and they should be regulated to the point that they have to abide by the same terms of free speech that the government has to.
I get it, I know why they can, people can stop “explaining” that to me.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
So you're advocating government regulations?
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Yes, of course. I'm advocating for Alphabet/Apple/Facebook to be "regulated" to the point of having to abide by the US Constitution for US citizens.
Don't use this "regulations" word as if it's some sort of boogyman, tons of corporations are regulated for the betterment of the people.
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
They do abide by the Constitution, because the First Amendment is about government. Can YouTube, iTunes and Twitter point to their Terms of Service as a reason for his ban? Yes. So that should be the end of it. Everyone agrees to abide by their rules. Jones did not.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
You seem to not understand, still. I’m advocating for a change to this. I think they should be treated as public spaces, you just keep telling me things I already know.
1 Morning-Chub 2018-08-06
The internet IS treated as a public forum, same as a sidewalk. This is a relatively recent development in the law.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-19/supreme-court-doesn-t-care-what-you-say-on-the-internet
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre should still be illegal right?
Inciting lawless action should still be illegal right? You don't think Jones' veiled threat to Mueller in a time where people actually believe he's an enemy of the country is an incitement? That's why he was banned.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Yes, I believe Jones should be held to the same standard he would be in court. Of course yelling fire in a crowded theate would be unacceptable and prosecutable.
As far as threats to Mueller, could you link them? I don’t listen so I haven’t heard, but I’d be surprised if they were anything more than hyperbole.
1 protonpack 2018-08-06
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/398512-alex-jones-threatens-mueller-youre-going-to-get-it-or-im-going-to-die-trying
Other than using the word "politically" to avoid making an actual death threat, he says that the only thing he's afraid of is not being man enough to do what needs to be done when the time comes. I genuinely worry about how people who feel Mueller and the press are enemies of the people would interpret that.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
It's very obviously hyperbole. Would you take that seriously as a death threat?
1 Rad_Association 2018-08-06
Just a prank bro!
1 TeamGoFuckYourself_ 2018-08-06
No, not a prank, but also not a death threat.
1 hes-just-a-trolveler 2018-08-06
So, you agree he didn't make a death threat?
He says he fears he's not man enough to tell the truth.
Tons of people on the left called Trump/Bush/etc. a war criminal, traitor, and worse. Did you "genuinely worry" what people would do when they heard that?
1 TotalMadOwnage 2018-08-06
I regret that I can only downvote this garbage opinion once.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Let me ask you, do you agree with BP being regulated to not dump toxic chemicals into the closest river/ocean available? Do you think it’s a bad thing that Coca-Cola is regulated to not allow poison in their products?
1 TotalMadOwnage 2018-08-06
TIL mass deaths will result from InfoWars being censored from social media.
1 BurtMaclin11 2018-08-06
I think the point being made is this. Freedom of speech isn't just freedom from unreasonable censorship it's also the freedom to not be forced to say something you don't want to (think JBP's issue with Bill C-16 in Canada). If for a second we view content on YouTube as part of YouTube's "speech" then it should be allowed to ban whatever it wants or in other words not be forced to "say" something it doesn't want to.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Why would anybody think that YouTube is saying anything any of what it’s creators say, though? It’s just a platform. You’d have to be a complete moron to think that it’s an official YouTube viewpoint on every video they host.
1 BurtMaclin11 2018-08-06
Personally I agree with you. I don't think that content on YouTube is part of YouTube's speech. It should be considered a neutral platform but YouTube is free to determine how they view content on their platform and if they choose to treat it as their own speech for whatever reason then that's their call. On the bright side for Alex this should increase traffic to his website and subsequently male vitality supplement sales (lol).
Maybe this all comes down to potential lawsuits at least as a viable excuse for the censorship. People sue companies all the time for stuff that isn't the company's fault. It's why we have a million warning labels on everything, as if it wasn't obvious to most people that you shouldn't drink Lysol. It reminds me of the lady who sued and won against McDonalds for not having a "coffee may be hot" warning label on their cups after she spilled it on herself.
I'm trying to but can't imagine a scenario where YouTube get's sued successfully for something Alex Jones (or his crew) said or did instead of InfoWars being sued but that might just be a lack of imagination on my part. Maybe it has something to do with appeasing the hardcore wing of the SJW movement who tends to call anyone willing to give someone right of Bernie a fair shake or a platform to speak a "Nazi sympathizer" etc... There's a lot of weird people out there and they're only getting weirder.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Never in a million years, I'm also a left-leaning independent but I'm forced to defend AJ here because I do believe in personal liberty and don't see much of a distinction between Corporations/Government. Seems like a lot of people mistake me for a Trump supporter for saying some shit so basic, not everything is binary.
There's lots of "left-leaning" people out there that support Antifa. They're people that stand for nothing other than a worldview that they're not even smart enough to understand.
1 phyrros 2018-08-06
Just try hosting ISIS propaganda videos or e.g. child porn and you will realize that this statement ain't true. Youtube already blocks lots of content which is far less harmful than Jones hatespeech.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
Fun thing about the internet... anyone can go to whatever sites they want. The user base of Youtube has no bearing on people visiting Inforwars.com or from Alex hosting on Vimeo or whatever user content streaming sites there are.
1 AgainstTheTides 2018-08-06
But if you remove an avenue of access, people are not going to be able to find it as easily. Think of it like this...imagine YouTube, Facebook, Google, etc. is a big city, and it's surrounded by smaller towns, each of which is connected to the big city by a major highway. There are small roads that interconnect as well, but they are poorly maintained and not easy to traverse. Now imagine one of the towns does or says something the big city doesnt like. The big city decides to demolish the highway leading to the offending small town. Now for anyone to get there, they have to use the small roads to do so. The roads discourage travel and the small town starts to suffer and shrink, over time becoming smaller and smaller until the traffic ceases because of the difficulty to get there. That small town because deserted, a ghost town because its easier to just stop going there.
I'm not arguing for infowars in particular, but rather all websites that use the "big city" websites to help direct traffic to their "small town". What happens when it happens to another, then another, then another because they may not agree with what the current narrative may be at any given time? Most people don't care now because its infowars, but what if it were a contemporary site on the left?
We should all care about things like this. Google has been waging it's own information wars on those who seek knowledge on the other side of the coin, helping to push the Russian narrative all the while. In my opinion, Google should allow all the information to be available to those that seek it, regardless of political affiliation. Information should not be controlled to influence opinion, because eventually you just end up having the same situation as China or North Korea.
1 workwork_workwork 2018-08-06
I think I understand your argument, but where are you going to draw that line?
Are you going to require all bookstores to carry all books? Should I be able to go down to the Christian book store and buy a Satanic Bible? Should the bookstore be forced to sell that to me?
What about newsstands? Are they removing an avenue of access by not carrying every newspaper in existence? Can Weekly World News sue any place that sells newspapers but doesn't carry theirs?
These things/ideas are still available on other platforms, YouTube/the bookstore/the newsstand has no requirement to make them easily accessible. If these were the only sources maybe I'd agree, but it's not.
I don't think you can force these companies to do these things. They still have their freedom of speech/association.
1 AgainstTheTides 2018-08-06
I draw the line at the unequivocal, unambiguous threat of violence. Once you threaten to do harm to others, you are outside the realm of diplomacy and rationality. That isn't protected under the 1st Amendment, as far as I'm concerned.
I see what you are trying to say with your examples, but comparing them to Google is like comparing a Gameboy to the Mars Rover. Once you make your business information, you are morally required to make information freely available to the populace. Attempting to subvert information with the intent of molding truth, weaponizing information, if you will, is what we're alleging Russian agents of having done. Just because Google is a business, should they be able to do the same? Personally, that's some 1984 shit right there, I don't care what side of the aisle people are on.
1 ballcheeze 2018-08-06
Seems no platform wants the legal dirty hands dealing w this guy causing lawsuits over conspiracies aimed at family members who want to sue YouTube for allowing his fans to push his theories
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
I was banned for /r/The_Donald is that censorship?
1 AlexanderMeander 2018-08-06
Yes?
1 colorcoma 2018-08-06
metoo
1 AgainstTheTides 2018-08-06
Well...yeah. You may be bringing a message that they don't want to hear, or maybe others to hear as well. By banning you, they are controlling the narrative they want to be seen there. In effect, they're censoring you.
1 therodt 2018-08-06
His website isnt banned so really whats your point. He violated TOS a ton. not to mention he is a Jackhole
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Link his TOS violations, please.
1 therodt 2018-08-06
Yo I am not playing educate the idiot today. Nice try though
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Okay, I’ll still be waiting for a link and one that couldn’t be applied as a ban for other “news” sources.
1 therodt 2018-08-06
keep playing buddy
1 1fg 2018-08-06
Here's an article
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Youtube is subsidized with American taxpayer money, they are an agent for the CIA, and they are a public platform. They have to respect Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
Can you provide a source on those claims? Also small businesses receive subsides. Does that mean that what that Colorado bakery did was unconstitutional?
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
It is a simple search for you. I am on mobile now.
I doubt that the Colorado bakery is an agent of the CIA. It is not like they are a family friendly pizza place... Lol.
Plus, the Colorado bakery is not in the business of providing users a place to publicly post information.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
Twitter is not a CIA front company. It's an MSS front for China spying on Americans.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Twitter is a CIA front company.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
Twitter is MSS you sheep. This is common knowledge. Wake up and stop pushing more Chinese propaganda. How much are they paying you?
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Why would the CIA allow twitter to operate independently? That would make no sense from the CIA point of view. The CIA controls the MSM and the narrative for the Bilderberg Group people. The Bilderberg Group people own the MSM and they are heavily invested into the companies we are discussing.
Why would the Bilderberg Group people use their own money to build a billion dollar server farm when they can get the American taxpayer to pay for it? This is one reason they do not want American taxpayer money spent on healthcare, infrastructure, education, etc.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
I did a quick search after you said that and didn't find anything... But that's probably because it's being suppressed by the deep state right?
You made the claim. You should provide sources to back up your claim. And if you're in mobile and posting on Reddit how are you unable to provide sources?
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
https://www.fulcrumnews.com/blog/2018/3/10/unmasking-youtube-google-cia-and-cern
Google Is Not What It Seems:
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
There is also a book called "When Google met Wikileaks" by Julian Assange.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
I haven't read the second link but the first is purely conjecture. They give a little backstory then jump to conclusions. That proves nothing.
1 Hektik352 2018-08-06
Yea fuck those fags im not baking a cake for them. I have a private bakery.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
The Constitution already covers this because of Free Speech and Freedom of the press.
I am not sure how we can expect a criminal government to regulate itself.
1 noctus101 2018-08-06
Free Speech only protects you from the Government. So that doesnt percent youtube or facebook from censoring you if they choose.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Not true. Not true at all.
The companies in question take American taxpayer money, they are public platforms, and they are agents of the CIA.
1 noctus101 2018-08-06
...that's not how any of this works.
YouTube is NOT publically funded.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
It is publicly funded. How do you think they stay in business? You think they have a money making business model?
1 noctus101 2018-08-06
Source please.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
https://www.fulcrumnews.com/blog/2018/3/10/unmasking-youtube-google-cia-and-cern
Google Is Not What It Seems:
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
There is also a book called "When Google met Wikileaks" by Julian Assange.
1 noctus101 2018-08-06
Besides a research grant from NSF almost 2 decades ago, I'm not seeing anything in there about public funding.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
DARPA is publicly funded through the military.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
Youtube is not publicly funded. They're not the CIA either. Wake the fuck up. It's China's MSS running the whole thing, and you're just another puppet of theirs obfuscating the truth.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Not true. They are.
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
Very true. They're not. Youtube is actually the only one that isn't related to spy agencies. Youtube is actually a non-funded cabal of psychiatrists attempting to manipulate the masses. It's why they're so anti-Scientology.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Youtube is closely connected to google, and google is CIA.
Besides, why would the CIA allow a platform like youtube to exist independently without any control? They would not allow that.
Here is a link I have about Facebook and Lifelog:
https://www.wired.com/2004/02/pentagon-kills-lifelog-project/
Lifelog was a Darpa project that morphed into Facebook.
1 rslash2 2018-08-06
i didnt see where youtube was mentioned in the constitution... smh.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
What? I have no idea why you would say that. smh.
Do you not understand what I wrote?
1 Riggedit 2018-08-06
Styx made a good video; you should watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlQWuI8nnOg
1 SoundSalad 2018-08-06
This is not the problem. The US government is HUGE.
The problem is crony capitalism. People who work in government are corrupted by these corporations. They accept bribes on the condition that problems are ignored and legislation that is favorable to these companies is enacted.
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
Crony capitalism is just capitalism
1 SoundSalad 2018-08-06
That's what it's become, as true capitalism doesn't exist in any government, but that's not the definition of capitalism.
1 heslaotian 2018-08-06
Communism evolves into a dictatorship. Capitalism evolves into an oligopoly. That's what you wanted and that's what you got. Deal with it.
1 upvoatz 2018-08-06
Free market isn't at work when there is uncompetitive acts.
Under the table dealing is at play.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
In a free market, these companies would not be subsidized with American taxpayer money and they would not be CIA front companies.
1 ver0egiusto 2018-08-06
Important point. Anybody else remember PRISM?
Fuck the Techogarchy. Something's gotta give.
1 Lord_Augastus 2018-08-06
Freedom of speech at work...and they say american corporate state isnt fascist.....
1 noumuon 2018-08-06
Things that aren't fascist: a private company pulling videos from their service.
Is Fox fascist because they cancel shows?
1 Lord_Augastus 2018-08-06
When the only source for the culture is private entities, like almost all media in US is controlled by 6 corporations, all news, fox. Then most service providers are laregly private, and then these behimoths pay off senators and then the gov only accounts through its laws for 30percent for what the public wants. Its a corporate state. When the freedom of speech is a basic human right, does allowing private entities to control personal free speech in a state where these entities are majoroty influencers on laws a good thing or a bad thing?
Because all these media faces and comoanies firing people over bad speech and public all supporting them, because they are using their right and posting hate speech on public forums like tweeter under their name. Everyone thinks its social justice, but its leading the way to media now sensoring what they deem to be not appropriate opinion. Which is authoritarian, which is fascist. Its a slippery slope in US atm. Everyone thinks this is just social justice but it is now leading the way to corporations and media sensoring and creating their narrative. Their way.
And all these public social issues of auditors on tweeter or what ever getting ounishment for what should just be a social choice to stop listening to them is manufacting that consent to control speech at a government level. The lgtbq movement tried that, with the pronoun game, now they are doing it with the hate speech. When it reaches state level legislature people will wake up. But atm its all fine and dandy because coporations are private and are outside human law?
1 FidelHimself 2018-08-06
How can we have a free market with a Central Bank among other Communist principles enforced on us?
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!"
1 maxp0wah 2018-08-06
Right, Google doesn't serve any public utility. Imagine Sprint or Bell in Canada cutting off service with consumers who use "hate speech" without citing specific examples. Perfectly fine, eh?
1 h4zardz 2018-08-06
Remember how Alex Jones was shilling for the telecom lobby against net neutrality? and now hes shitting his pants and complaining about big tech firms censoring him?
1 cdwill 2018-08-06
Spread the word. We have to let people know about this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/94zuzb/regular_defecation_is_not_a_required_bodily/
1 shreveportfixit 2018-08-06
Google and facebook have been funded and controlled by government agencies from their inception.
1 shitzafit 2018-08-06
Free market my ass. That ended a long time ago. The only thing free in this market, is how freely monopolies can operate and dictate to the market.
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
Do you not realize monopolies are a natural part of a completely free market?
1 irondumbell 2018-08-06
how much tax breaks did they get after lobbying our congressmen? If they paid their taxes and their board members didn't have an incestuous relationship with the government then maybe I would believe that. They are part of the government AFAIC
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
So Citizens United was a bad idea?
1 808DiNiro 2018-08-06
And people say he's a disinfo agent shill... Yeah fuck yall
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
He is. All this does is validate persecution of disinformation, therefore making the disinformation look more credible.
1 Harmacc 2018-08-06
It’s really that simple. He’s a tool.
1 808DiNiro 2018-08-06
Have you got any sources?
1 Antebios 2018-08-06
Any of the lawsuits from his lies then he goes on air and apologieses saying that he was kidding. Yeah, he is an asshole who lies for profit.
1 cryptoMonarch 2018-08-06
If he was a disinformation agent why would TPTB allow for his ban?How else is he going to spread disinformation now when he's banned from Youtube,FB,etc?
1 xcesiv_7 2018-08-06
It's disinfo perfection to be honest. Bill hicks will emerge as the most wealthy entertainer of all time in several decades. Want something to immediately be dismissed by those pesky mentally competent citizens? Plug it on infowars. The end.
The only evidence you need is simple. An entertainer's act and his brand are being treated as if they are government entities who are responsible for people's decisions.
Has Drake stood trial for the mentally ill kids hopping out of cars and smashing their skulls into the ground? No.
Has huffpost been hit with a lawsuit for the suffering of a million mentally ill people surgically removing their genitals for attention and writing gigs? No.
Has a brand ever been held legally responsible for causing people to become ill from a product? Yes.
Were the makers of Fast and Furious sued for retards exceeding the speed limit and splattering pedestrians bodies across the street? No.
IT'S A GODDAMN ACT. ENJOY THE SHOW. BE SAFE.
1 YMachine 2018-08-06
ikr imagine someone saying that here 5 years ago. every day it becomes more clear that we are being brigaded
1 firewaterdirt 2018-08-06
I was just watching AJ livestream from an alternative youtube account and just witnessed it going black in front of my face. This is real folks. 1984 is here.
1 LoveTrumpsCovfefe 2018-08-06
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
1 singlerainbow 2018-08-06
Lol. Get fucked you conspiracy loony.
1 victorxfl 2018-08-06
this is the conspiracy sub....
1 singlerainbow 2018-08-06
Oh sorry. Didn’t realize this was a safe space.
1 victorxfl 2018-08-06
You should block the sub if you don't want to read the "loonies" talk about "conspiracies". Freedom of speech is dying and people like you are making a mockery of people who are using their right to freedom of speech.
I hope you're not American because next you will be begging facebook and google to censor your news feed for being "controversial".
1 singlerainbow 2018-08-06
Sounds like you’re trying to stop my free speech because you don’t like what I have to say.
I have every right to come here and express my opinion. Which is: You conspiracy morons are a cancer on this country. You’re liars and traitors. Alex Jones admits he’s an actor and nobody in their right mind should take him seriously.
I am American. And proud.
1 victorxfl 2018-08-06
just like how Google is trying to censor an entire press organization? How could you call yourself a proud American and supporting big corporations trying to hide information?
ps.dont have a panic attack
1 Butterfly_Queef 2018-08-06
"Press organization"
1 AllAboutMeMedia 2018-08-06
The real conspiracy is infowars being labeled as a press organization.
1 singlerainbow 2018-08-06
“Press organization” LMAO how fucking stupid are you?
1 victorxfl 2018-08-06
You do know what the definition of "press" means, right? webster says PRESS"news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters". You're obviously triggered I brought up your embarrassing story about how you are prone to panic attacks from reading emails.
Infowars has a long list of independent reporters and broadcasters that talk about the news on their payroll.
1 singlerainbow 2018-08-06
You’re a fucking lunatic. How far back in my post history did you have to go. Lol. Dumbass. Can’t win on the issue so you attack someone for their disability.
I’ve had panic disorder for years. I’m not ashamed of it. It’s a horrible condition and you are an absolute monster to try to use that to shame and attack me.
1 victorxfl 2018-08-06
So you're hiding behind your disability to pretend you don't know the definition of the press?
Honestly, didn't want to talk about it, but I find it funny how you come into this sub pretending no one will look at your history and your embarrassing stories being exposed maybe next time you should censor yourself. Sorry, this is not your safe space.
1 singlerainbow 2018-08-06
I’m not hiding behind shit asshole. The fact that you have to go back years into my posts because you got so butthurt about being called out for being a conspiracy moron shows how fragile you are.
You’re a god damned moron. And I don’t need to look at your post history to tell that.
1 victorxfl 2018-08-06
You notice that I never called you any of the names you are calling me? I see past your bullshit and biased, Really silly of you to label people you don't agree with stupid or inferior. Is that what the liberal media is teaching you to go around name calling if you don't agree with the other person?
1 singlerainbow 2018-08-06
“I lost so I’ll l block you”
The actions of a coward.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-06
Removed. Rule 10. Only warning.
1 Kind_Of_A_Dick 2018-08-06
Does he still have his website, freely accessible to anyone who wants to see it?
If the other platforms are a problem, why not just get together with other people and make their own?
1 NappyGlove 2018-08-06
People keep trying to produce new platforms, they usually fail within a couple of years as the audience lost by banning groups like Infowars isn't enough to sustain a video platform.
Conservatives are at best around 25% of the population, add another 10% or so for non-conservative conspiracy theorists and you still can't match the revenue of a platform like youtube that caters to the other 65% of the world.
1 CaptainColeslaw 2018-08-06
I never watched Alex Jones but I checked out the website just now. All the videos were still hosted on youtube and imbedded in his site. I guess he will just have to host them on something else now.
1 CryptoKingK 2018-08-06
That's just the thing if att, time Warner and Comcast decide to remove his website from their dns servers he will just about cease to exist. Oops I hope I didn't jinx it
1 Schwarzy1 2018-08-06
Never use your isp’s dns
1 YouArePrettyAwesome 2018-08-06
God i hope. CLINTON SHILLS ARE EVERYWHERE!!!!
1 darknessanddragons 2018-08-06
Do you know how much money and knowledge that takes?
1 bestmaleperformance 2018-08-06
For one thing, the amount of money it costs to host your own content is many times what you can ever expect to make back reasonably through advertising and other monetization.
If you have a few thousand followers sure, but you can't get your content to the masses without the tech giants, and this is by design.
Alex Jones can't afford a 6 figure a month bandwidth bill to host all his videos and podcasts.
1 Kind_Of_A_Dick 2018-08-06
Why would it be only Alex? There’s probably plenty of people involved in right wing media that might want to be a part of it and profit.
1 bestmaleperformance 2018-08-06
I don't think you realize the billions of dollars in infrastructure needed to truly own a space on the internet.
If his web host decides to ban him he's shit out of luck, you need to buy the servers, the facility, etc, and it's so much more than that. None of these guys have the kind of money to ever do that.
1 ashzel 2018-08-06
What a coincidence. All of these corporations just decided to do the same exact thing at the same exact time, in total agreement with general far left sentiment. HMMMM.
1 isavemorethanirape 2018-08-06
well I took it as they are not wanting to be the last one not to ban him and have the bad PR of "why haven't you banned him yet. Do you support free speech? Your competitors don't so we'll go to them instead"
1 Tranchera 2018-08-06
"General far left sentiment" is such a dumb phrase. Being against the harassment of grieving parents shouldn't be a left or right thing.
1 stanleythemanley44 2018-08-06
HMMMMM
1 FiveBasil 2018-08-06
good
1 postonrddt 2018-08-06
Slippery slope pure and simple. Sooner or later these sites will have nothing but 'acceptable' scripted material. It will be worse than top 40 radio.
1 postonrddt 2018-08-06
Slippery slope pure and simple. Sooner or later these sites will have nothing but 'acceptable' scripted material. It will be worse than top 40 radio.
1 xcesiv_7 2018-08-06
And people will fucking love it.
1 lroosemusic 2018-08-06
This is almost as bad as when Free Form stopped airing the Harry Potter series.
1 Plague-Lord 2018-08-06
its already happening, youtube and twitch recently ushered in new and much stricter rules for content makers, especially partnered and sponsored ones. They only selectively apply them as a way of controlling peoples actions or censoring the ones they don't like.
1 smellslikesneakers 2018-08-06
Regardless of what you think of him, this is a direct attack on free speech. It starts with him then who’s next? Anybody who says anything that doesn’t support the mainstream narrative? Yup.
“but they are a private entity they can censor whoever they want.” True. Can’t wait to see every single conspiracy channel taken down on youtube. Maybe then we will get an alternative platform that supports free speech and isn’t a tool controlled by the globalist elite to push their agenda.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
he can make his own website or streaming service. These companies might not want pieces of shit profiting off their platforms. he can still make all the videos and say all the dumb shit he wants. he just isn't guaranteed an audience through the large streaming platforms anymore.
1 smellslikesneakers 2018-08-06
why is he a piece of shit?
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
purposefully spreads lies an disinformation for money
1 smellslikesneakers 2018-08-06
source? Proof of even one single lie? or are you just parroting what the main stream media tells you to think?
1 808DiNiro 2018-08-06
Well said /u/smellslikesneakers
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/infowars-alex-jones-performance-artist-playing-character-lawyer-conspiracy-theory-donald-trump-a7687571.html
1 FatwaBurgers 2018-08-06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNKUvCQFok
1 nigaraze 2018-08-06
YEP, deep state lies, especially from the mouth of his own attorney.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/infowars-alex-jones-performance-artist-playing-character-lawyer-conspiracy-theory-donald-trump-a7687571.html
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
I don't know, but I feel like trying to convince the world that a school shooting did not happen sure seems like lying
1 iseeyoubruh 2018-08-06
exactly this. It's starts with the low-hanging fruit. Infowars is easy to smear as racist and loony and the avg person will swallow that easily. Just wait until you try and find facts from the next big shooting that goes against the media narrative...
1 lupinemadness 2018-08-06
Yeah, but when his followers are shooting up pizza places and harassing people that lost their children to violence based on what he says, we are no longer talking about Constitutional "Free Speech."
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
But he is not responsible for their crimes via association... Only an individual is reponsible for their own actions.
1 lupinemadness 2018-08-06
Then, I suppose by that standard, Hitler is off the hook.
1 lupinemadness 2018-08-06
Association can make you an accessory.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
Someone watching his videos and committing crimes in NO way implicates Alex Jones. I am sorry but you do NOT know US law.
1 ThatFlyingScotsman 2018-08-06
Didn’t he threaten to kill Robert Mueller? Not surprised. Perhaps Alex is afraid what Mueller is going to find in relation to himself?
1 TheIllusiveNick 2018-08-06
Ehhh while I do think what Alex Jones has said is despicable, I don’t Mueller cares to even gloss over his potential legal troubles.
1 ThatFlyingScotsman 2018-08-06
Nah, I’m more thinking Mueller’s going to find something tangentially related to Alex. Could be like “this informant also communicated with InfoWars” sort of thing, but it would shoot a hole in Jone’s already questionable credibility with his audience.
1 A_Reddit_Conspiracy 2018-08-06
Interpreting a metaphor literally is what the excuse is, yea.
He said "Politically" several times. Granted, it was just another stupid Alex Jones rant, but I don't think somebody should be banned from 4 platforms because he goes on dumb rants.
There's a video of it on that link too. Anyone who takes this obvious metaphor and interprets it literally is either a moron or a liar. This is an entirely separate point from "is Alex Jones an idiot," to which I agree.
Missouri Democratic state senator apologizes for hoping Trump is assassinated
Peter Fonda: "We should rip Barron Trump from his mother's arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles and see if mother will will stand up against the giant a--hole she is married to."
1 RemarkableBit 2018-08-06
Seems like he's purposely trying to have it interpreted as a threat while giving himself a weak out (I said politically) to get banned exactly the way he did. It's all for attention.
1 _pepo__ 2018-08-06
I don’t get Alex Jones. He’s all in with QAnon but at the same time wants to take down Mueller? Isn’t Mueller, according to QAnon, doing gods work in dismantling the DNC-Clinton Foundation-sponsored global pedophile network?
1 ThatFlyingScotsman 2018-08-06
Should tell you all you need to know about both Alex Jones and QAnon tbh.
1 jsprogrammer 2018-08-06
Did you read that in the NYTimes?
1 jsprogrammer 2018-08-06
Did you read that in the NYTimes?
1 stakesishigh012 2018-08-06
now there will be no need to play nice.
i don't think tptb have thought this one through.
1 armorkingII 2018-08-06
Something is up between this and the orchestrated attacks on Q out of nowhere.
Alex Jones is an entertaining goof. For them to do this gives him credibility, as if he is a threat to them.
1 [deleted] 2018-08-06
[removed]
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-06
👌
1 Butt-Snakes 2018-08-06
Wait so topmindsofreddit doesn't ban users all the time?
1 ZiggyAnimals 2018-08-06
Is TMOR upset infowars got banned too?
1 Drake02 2018-08-06
No, they're new plan is to pretend like they've discovered corruption in the mods for banning them all for calling people "retards" and "faggots" during their shit talk anti-conspiracy brigades.
They like to make fun of people for blaming the victim, but it's their current game plan to attack the sub.
1 TheCrawlerFL 2018-08-06
What does the fact that /r/conspiracy bans people even have to do with being upset that InfoWars got banned? That sub literally shit stirs just to stir shit, they're more obsessed with conspiracy theorists than most conspiracy theorists are with their respective conspiracies
1 Literally__Retarded 2018-08-06
They're disillusioned conspiracy theorists. Same people different obsession.
1 NChSh 2018-08-06
I mean
https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/953ctk/the_rise_and_fall_of_rasktrumpsupporters/
1 AutoModerator 2018-08-06
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 tgn157 2018-08-06
According to his own lawyer This summer Alex Jones is THE CRISIS ACTOR
1 kabartanto 2018-08-06
Wow the CIA is going to be pissed.
1 BeaconOfAnonDim 2018-08-06
They don’t get pissed. They just look toward the next move which in this case is muddying the public discourse on censorship by casting the disenfranchised newscaster to the wolves that have been gathering from both sides.
They simultaneously make him a martyr to his remaining listeners, giving him back some credibility and legitimizing a farewell to the dwindling audience, which also avoids constantly dodging the question of authenticity, but the larger play is easing public acceptance of internet censorship, especially towards views contrary to popular opinion.
Most comments I’ve read whole-heartedly support the move by the internet giants without questioning its validity or the precedent it sets.
This is a trial balloon.
At lest that’s my conspiracy theory.
So any guesses on who gets censored next?
1 firesnakeprophecy 2018-08-06
I agree it's a trial balloon. But the reason for the drastic measures is because US Intelligence is getting their ass kicked.
They're saying these are the types of things we need to do order to fight the Russians effectively in the digital. If you don't let us get anyway with this - then Russia has won.
The way I look at it is - if the idealogy you're pushing is that bad where no one wants it (there's no demand unless it's created artificially), then maybe there's something wrong with the product?
This is basically CIA/NSA (Google/YouTube) saying we can't compete with KGB. The symbolism shows us exactly how far behind they are as well. Amount of action taken = Amount US is playing Ketchup.
1 McNothingBurger 2018-08-06
Cool. Making up lies to sell supplements seems like a shitty business strategy.
Hey small govt/freedom types: Are these private businesses required to host content they dont want to?
1 xcesiv_7 2018-08-06
Why doesn't youtube, fb, and apple remove and ban the tens of thousands of videos/users with an average of 12 views that tout even more extreme things?
The reality of this entire thing is that the entertainer Alex Jones is being represented as an influential brand. I could understand the brand being banned for whatever reason. I do not understand the exponentially growing spotlight for the brand. I like Bill Hicks as much as the rest, but his new act isn't that entertaining to me.
Why the fuck are they marketing him so well under the guise of objection to the brand's content? Surely he hasn't made enough money to buy this exposure from big tech companies and every single english-speaking media outlet.
All I know is that the Infowars brand is genius.
1 illithid_business 2018-08-06
Bill Hicks has a new act? He died 24 years ago.
1 HemingwayTaco 2018-08-06
You can have it both ways Alex boy. Take yourself so seriously but then fall back on “ I’m a performance artist!” Whenever you get into legal trouble. Fat psych-op toad
1 ogcani 2018-08-06
Alex Jones is clearly a CIA misinformation agent and by crippling his reach this is an attempt by the government to.. to make.. uhh...
1 FatwaBurgers 2018-08-06
To make a Martyr. To radicalized his audience.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100402232335/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner#FBI_Informant
1 htok54yk 2018-08-06
To make alternative platforms viable.
1 KnocDown 2018-08-06
I've seen thir theory before
If Alex Jones is a cia agent, why did he torch Hillary so hard just before the elections?
1 slapstellas 2018-08-06
Because trump was there plan the whole time.
1 AlvinItchyCock 2018-08-06
Alex is Bill Hicks doing a character that struck gold.
1 OldDocBenway 2018-08-06
Fine
1 LollyAdverb 2018-08-06
Good.
1 Whoareyou559 2018-08-06
I was silent when it happened to Milo, because I'm woke bruh. I was silent when they came for Alex, because I'm woke bruh.
when they came for you I was silent because im woke bruh
1 TheInvisibleGuests 2018-08-06
Infowars was good until it started to pander to /pol and edgy alt right teens
1 op-return 2018-08-06
Uncensoreable decentralization video sharing networks are being developed as we speak. This will add fuel to the fire. Thanks youtube and Facebook. Make the inevitable faster
1 Reeko_Htown 2018-08-06
good luck teaching TOR to grandma and uncle Jim.
1 op-return 2018-08-06
Fuck them. Boomers can go eat a dick. This is not for them.
1 RingosBeardNumber9 2018-08-06
I've never heard Alex spew hate speech. A lot of wild thoughts and ideas and conspiracies, but never hate. Something is wrong in Denmark.
1 Sarcophilus 2018-08-06
It doesn't need to be hate speech. It's enough if his content isn't "advertiser friendly" and YouTube doesn't want to host it.
YouTube is free to allow or disallow people to use their site.
1 RingosBeardNumber9 2018-08-06
True they can do what they want, but don't tell me it's because of hate speech when it's obviously for some other reason.
1 Sarcophilus 2018-08-06
I don't think it's hate speech that was AJ's downfall but his controverisial videos that put YouTube in a negative light to it's advertisers.
Although hatespeech is a convenient scapegoat.
1 heartlovealive 2018-08-06
Bc he has been exposing that Kappy guy. Pedos are being exposed . We all need to share Kappy’s story and expose the pedo scum out there ! Also boycott and and all related movies from the pedos .
1 teh_booth_gawd 2018-08-06
Alex Jones is a pedo.
1 latrans8 2018-08-06
Good. Fuck Alex Jones.
1 WeAreTheResistance 2018-08-06
Out of all the threads in this sub today on this exact subject, how in the fuck did this shift post make it to the top?
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-08-06
Alex Jones has now learned that some lies are bad while other other lies, the lies the system perpetuates, are good.
Will anyone tell the truth though?
1 Tentapuss 2018-08-06
It’s this simple: Jones is about to be financially smeared across the pavement as a result of all of this Sandy Hook shit. They don’t want to be next on the chopping block.
1 KillKiddo 2018-08-06
No conspiracy. I think everyone on every side is just tired of him. The last few months of his show has been brutally bad...
1 amywinehousewascool 2018-08-06
This the conspiracy of the year!
Youtube bans him for "hate speech" without explaining what "hate speech" offense he has committed. Apple deletes his entire library of podcasts...was every single one of his podcasts "hate speech?" Did he just upload one that was "hate speech" but they still decided to delete his whole library?
They did not ban him for "hate speech" because he did not engage in any "hate speech." They banned him because it is now August, and they are stacking the deck for the next three months of midterm election propaganda.
Alex and InfoWars were instrumental in getting the facts about wikileaks and Hillary's emails out to the public before the Presidential election. All these media companies have colluded together to censor Alex Jones in order to remove the most successful non mainstream media voice in America.
Dare I say this manipulation and censorship of an independent media organization in the run up to important midterm elections could even be considered election meddling.
Its funny how everyone cares about the rights of these companies to control who uses their platforms when they ban someone that they don't like. These companies have all colluded together to attack an independent media organization. They have used their ability to censor their platforms, all within 24 hours. Its not rocket science that there was a lot of back room discussion and agreement about this. If there was a unified effort to black him out all in the same day, and we know that the "hate speech" excuse is bogus, then why did they all ban him at once?
There is a lot more going on here then just platforms exercising their rights. You would have to have brain worms to think that there is not something much deeper going on here. There were politicians that were involved like the democrat from Florida that just called for him to be censored.
I can't imagine why they are going after the most successful conspiracy channel in the history of the internet with an ACTUAL CONSPIRACY. I mean fucking LOL. Can you imagine InfoWars fans "Ohh looks like youtube banned Alex, I guess he really was promoting hate speech. Oh well I guess I will start watching CNN." Umm no I don't think that is how they will react.
Maybe they did this to ratchet up tensions. Some guy in an InfoWars shirt and a Confederate flag bandanna throws a brick through a window at YouTube offices and BOOM all Trump supporters are domestic terrorists. "This is why we had to ban them, but that's not enough. Lets make sure we ban all Conservative "hate speech" news outlets. In order to restore peace and order that Trump has compromised."
But don't think about all that, cause after all they are just innocently exercising their rights to ban people from their platforms. Nothing more behind this at all. Tune out your brain and tune in to CNN for the most trusted name in news.
1 Mildad 2018-08-06
Well said. I have never been a fan of Jones or Infowars, but what’s happening is so ridiculous and out of line.
1 Yodas_Butthole 2018-08-06
I think that hate speech is probably right. That guy is off his rocker, nobody is required to keep that garbage on their platform. Personally I'm glad they did it, hopefully the fans of AJ stay on other platforms.
This isn't something that normal people would say while imitating firing a gun. Let him go, he is a stain on society.
1 Correctthereddit 2018-08-06
He's a government disinfo agent. This is all part of the school play.
1 SnTrcy 2018-08-06
Welp, guess I got brain worms.
1 SnTrcy 2018-08-06
Welp, guess I got brain worms.
1 avengingbroccoli 2018-08-06
This is exactly the reason. They are restricting access to their platforms in hopes of bringing about a blue wave this fall. They are electioneering for the Democrat party.
1 Gopackgo6 2018-08-06
Why the fuck would these companies want Democrats? The right has been way more friendly to corporations. Apple repatriated billions of dollars under the new tax laws, which lead to share buybacks and sky rocketed their stock.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
Because they are lead by cabalist establishment partisan hacks and the intruder in the White House isn't towing the establishment line.
1 BingbongXbingbongX 2018-08-06
Maybe Alex Jones is a disgusting trash man that claims Sandy Hook was a hoax and incites hatred against others with no evidence to back up his claims and nobody wants them on their platform? Or is this all an evil liberal conspiracy? Probably the first one.
1 Eslime 2018-08-06
Redditor for 6 months calling Sandy Hook a Hoax on this sub and getting upvotes? End times for the sub. It's gone.
1 dankweeddoe 2018-08-06
Yeah I've been coming here less and less with how obvious it's becoming. Been visiting this sub for over 5 years and the past year has just been horrible.
1 Simplicity3245 2018-08-06
1 hegelmyego 2018-08-06
They banned him maybe because they are preparing for war and don’t want one of the biggest anti-war independent news (IMO his show is mostly wild, but some of his false flags antiwar stuff is not that crazy and reasonable)
1 amywinehousewascool 2018-08-06
The trolls who hate Alex when at the same time, they have never even watched Alex have no idea about him.
I am proud to say that I have watched him for probably 15 years. I myself saw 9/11 happen and I did not buy it for a second. When they blatantly just switched the war to Iraq for no reason I was convinced something was up, so I wanted to see if anyone on the internet had the same feelings and I saw the movies that Alex made and I thought "Thank God I am not the only one who is not convinced by the lies."
Alex was super critical of Bush and all his fake wars and neo-con lies. Alex was quickly critical of Obama because it was instantly apparent to anyone with a brain that Obama was just black Bush. Obama had the same policies but he also had this cult like brainwashing effect where most Americans thought he was doing a better job, whereas in reality somehow he managed to be worse and more evil then Bush, who was already pretty fucking horrible.
Trump gave the idea of actual hope and change, and after Obama, Bush, Clinton, and elder Bush, Americans who still had functioning brains could see the pattern, did not want nasty wench Hillary to be in charge, and so they backed Trump.
When Trump bombed Syria after the fake chemical weapons attacks Alex straight up condemned Trump, and spoke about how maybe the neo-cons have compromised the President. In my memory Alex has always condemned the government when they have done bad, regardless of whether they are democrats or republicans, he has always supported strength, but also always been against the insanely stupid wars that we have been involved in since 9/11. He is not a war monger, no matter who is in charge and that tells you right away that he has a moral conscience. And in my opinion that is good because you should not support war unless someone is directly threatening America.
What worries me after thinking about all of this is there are plenty of neo-cons and Republicans who still want never ending war, and also some who have influence with Trump. When it comes to doing what is right and doing what is wrong, Alex has always been more fair then any mainstream or fake news media.
In the last day most people who applaud his being censored, they say its good he was censored because he is a "Jew disinformation operative" or an "Israeli shill."
Listen to me: Alex could never condemn Israel because he knew he would be shut down within moments. He had Roddy Piper on and they were talking about "They Live" and someone called in and got on air and asked if the aliens in "They Live" were an allegory for the Jews and Alex went fucking ballistic on him. People say that's what makes him an Israeli shill, but no, he is a media personality, and he knows it would be suicide to criticize Israel or the zionists. He's not a shill, he is well aware of what "conspiracies" he can talk about and what will get him run off the road and suicided.
He has been against every war since 9/11 whilst pointing out the real genuine holes in the 9/11 narrative. I have respect for anyone who can be anti war without looking like a pathetic loser hippie.
1 thegayotter 2018-08-06
This is so sad. Alexa play despacito.
1 ___alexa___ 2018-08-06
ɴᴏᴡ ᴘʟᴀʏɪɴɢ: Luis Fonsi - Despacito ft. D ─────────⚪───── ◄◄⠀▶⠀►►⠀ 3:08 / 4:42 ⠀ ───○ 🔊 ᴴᴰ ⚙️
1 GodEmperorScorch 2018-08-06
I never thought I'd see the day that globalists would begin their takedown and destruction of the western world and free speech. I knew it was coming but I thought it was going to take much longer.
1 typhoid-fever 2018-08-06
the only real reason theyd have to shut him down on such a scale is that he finally said something that wasnt bullshit for once they find threatening to their world order
1 kgzzb10 2018-08-06
Yay no more InfoWhores spreading disinformation.
1 schwam_91 2018-08-06
They don't want to be remotely associated with him when he loses his sandy hook lawsuit.
1 schwam_91 2018-08-06
Telling parents that their dead children don't exist (while true in some way ironically) is simply something the vast majority of people find disgusting
1 camafu 2018-08-06
People only care about kids if it's a conspiracy of Clinton/Podesta hurting them. When they're actually gunned down, then they're just make believe/child actors.
1 bestmaleperformance 2018-08-06
I could never be sure something didn't really happen and risk attacking people that lost loved ones in a tragedy, however I watched the conspiracy videos and the debunked videos countering them and frankly if you don't think there is a lot of odd things with that tragedy, you have very little common sense.
All the training in the world can't really prepare you for an instant tragedy or disaster, so of course we must leave a lot of room for error, people behaving strangely do to shock, etc, but even if we leave A LOT of room for all that logic, quite a few things still don't add up.
Did it happen as they said? maybe, I wouldn't risk calling a dead kids mom a lying sociopath if I wasn't 100% sure and to do that, I would have had to of been a part of the conspiracy in some way, so I bow out of making a call one way or the other.
Either way, do I think something like sandy hook COULD be faked, knowing what we all know about the tricks of the governments and rulers of the world present and past? Of course they could fake it, did they? not sure.
1 LAcumDodgers 2018-08-06
How would youtube or apple be associated with him if that happens? That's the biggest jump in logic I have ever heard
1 schwam_91 2018-08-06
Because they give him a platform like every other content creator and want to pull the plug if he brings a bad image. It's not really fair or noble of them but they are making up censorship as they go. And they can do whatever they want even if it's silencing people.
1 schwam_91 2018-08-06
They will get rid of the guy to save the tiniest bit of face
1 LAcumDodgers 2018-08-06
They wouldn't be getting any flack at all. They wouldn't need to save any face. No one will criticize them at all in that scenario
1 schwam_91 2018-08-06
Ok there lol Wait until mainstream society really finds out. I'm not saying I agree but it is exactly why they are droping him. The question is if it goes against free speech which is kind of pointless anyways because those companies make up their policy as they go.
1 LAcumDodgers 2018-08-06
It is their excuse they are using, yes. It is not why they did it.
1 tikitakithrowaway 2018-08-06
Further, they don't want to be sued when someone actually commits a crime in Alex's name.
He's become a legal liability.
1 el_fuego91 2018-08-06
It’s almost as if net neutrality shouldn’t have been repealed.
1 im_not_here_man 2018-08-06
it's almost like this has nothing to do with net neutrality
1 itsjeremyson 2018-08-06
You know, I don’t agree with anything mr Jones and his team puts out, but on one hand, he dug his own grave with some of the stuff he said ambition the other, he’s being silenced for something he truly believes in. I have mixed feelings on this, because it goes to show that it’s only a matter of time before they start silencing more organizations they disagree with.
1 victorxfl 2018-08-06
eventually, all independent reporters will get shut down.
1 5830danny 2018-08-06
If Alex Jones was a liberal I guarantee you that there would have been vehement condemnation and boycotts, instead of gleeful celebration.
How the fuck can people celebrate large corporations blatant attempt to suppress free speech. This is exactly what Orwell warned about.
1 singlerainbow 2018-08-06
Free speech doesn’t apply to private companies. They have every right to kick this dumb asshole to the curb.
1 5830danny 2018-08-06
Does this apply to businesses and customers as well?
IE: bakery refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple.
1 victorxfl 2018-08-06
Yeah imagine if google and facebook banned msnbc, the liberal media would make Google look like evil dictators of information, but its just info wars so who gives a fuck right.
1 SnTrcy 2018-08-06
Dude can freely spew his bs on his own website. Click on his site instead of YouTube. The suppression!
1 dextaaaz 2018-08-06
Until they get him booted off his domain registrar and host - which they will try to do.
1 5830danny 2018-08-06
You know people aren't forced to listen to him on YouTube right?
If you don't like him, you have the option to not listen to him.
His BS is called free speech. Free speech protects BS. I hope your well aware of that.
1 realityglitch2017 2018-08-06
Woah u having problems at home son?
1 h4zardz 2018-08-06
Alex Jones is a conman i dont think anyone here will shed a tear.
1 FatwaBurgers 2018-08-06
I think Alex is Cointelpro. But if you don't uphold free speech for everybody, then you lose it for everybody.
And I get the fact that corporate private property doesn't owe us free speech. Alex & Occupy Wall Street have both now made the same fatal error.
1 fatguy666 2018-08-06
I've read this for years as coin-tel-pro then last week I heard Jimmy Dore say co-intel-pro and felt like a fucking idiot.
1 Hisin 2018-08-06
He has his free speech. He just doesn't have the right to a free platform.
1 FatwaBurgers 2018-08-06
Exactly what I said. Glad we agree.
Occupy Wall Street chose the only non-public park in NYC, Zuccotti Park, on private property, to start their public protest. Think that was an accident? Alex knows what he's doing. Or his handlers do. Because now the precedent has been set to eliminate all serious conspiracy researchers and authors. Just like the Occupy Movement set a precedent that later got used for public property.
1 Hisin 2018-08-06
You're saying Alex Jones is being used by the powers that be or something to set a precedent for removing all conspiracy content? I'm just gonna say that they don't need to set a precedent. They could already do that the moment you agreed to their TOS by using the site and Youtube does in fact remove conspiracy videos all the time even before this.
1 FatwaBurgers 2018-08-06
In fact, many historical videos can be considered "conspiracy content." Iran-Contra, Enron, Watergate, the Dreyfus Affair, the Profumo Scandal, Robert Hanssen. Who decides what's "Conspiracy"? YouTube. But now YouTube gets legitimacy and cover for the Court of Public Opinion -- which they give a fuck about. And now they have a blank check for a Purge. Which is the unethical rationale of military coups and "Q" and Rumsfeld's "Sweep it all up, things related and not."
1 SunnyChow 2018-08-06
I bet you won't shed a tear for the next or next next victims of censorship. In the end, only mainstream media controlled by the rich won't be labelled as hate speech
1 h4zardz 2018-08-06
if you want to hear his drivel then go to his website the tech firms are clearly not obligated to provide their loudspeakers platforms for his defamatory propaganda
1 cheekygorilla 2018-08-06
I don’t like Alex Jones but something seems fishy here. Apple, Spotify, facebook, and youtube all banned him around the same time?? No strikes on his channel? I wonder who is behind this
1 FatwaBurgers 2018-08-06
They all get simultaneous cover instead of taking heat for banning him one by one.
1 Ble_h 2018-08-06
He had a strike and then a 90 day ban on Youtube for streaming, which he then decided to circumvent by using other channels, breaking the ToS. Not going to argue whether or not it was fair or why all the other tech companies decided to ban him, just saying you should do some research before make false statements.
1 streaky81 2018-08-06
Once you establish that these services are some sort of cabal working against you it's a nothing thing for them to remove you, costs nobody anything. Careful what you wish for.
1 Kingpwn 2018-08-06
So many top youtubers have a disdain for youtube. This is absolutely not exclusive to Alex
1 streaky81 2018-08-06
I follow a lot of youtube channels (probably an abnormal amount) and am aware of the issues. Doesn't really relate to my point though.
1 Bernie_Sanders_2020 2018-08-06
What's the conspiracy here
1 StardustSpinner 2018-08-06
OP I'll suggest a conspiracy beyond your title.
What if the Manafort trial will trigger some more arrests, and it might be people associated with Republicans and admired conservatives.
So maybe some of these more poisonous and inflammatory sites are being throttled back to limit their ability to call the population to react violently.
Of course there is this other problem Trump is dealing with after his weekend tweets.
1 noiradle 2018-08-06
‘my tiny worldview revolves around my trump derangement syndrome’ the post.
1 granola_robot 2018-08-06
It's easier than that. The companies are filled with liberals anyway, and Jones is an easy target. The guy is famous to most people because of Sandy Hook, and he's currently being sued by the parents/families of dead children. Now I know half the people on this particular board won't understand this, but to most of the world Jones is a complete scumbag for this, and people want nothing to do with him. That said, these companies don't want some conservative boycott over Jones either. When Apple went for it the others, who have been facing building pressure, all jumped on the opportunity to do it now.
They look like they care, they're reacting reasonably, and they're protecting their bottom line by all doing it together.
And, I would bet they were NOT talking to one another, just all dealing with the same question of how to distance themselves or deal with Jones with minimal risk to them.
The conspiracy--capitalism.
1 StardustSpinner 2018-08-06
Thanks, different folks have different views, that certainly seems to be part of the problem Jones has created for himself.
1 heartlovealive 2018-08-06
I wouldn’t doubt it. Wh n he exposed bohemian grove , at one point he was walking by and people were saying “ Ho Alex” that gave it away for me. You have to be invited to attend . Hummmm
1 Antebios 2018-08-06
Good. He is a lying liar that lies for money. He hurts people willfully for profit and hurts America and humanity for money and just because. He knows what he says are lies and doesn't give a damn. I wish no illness befalls Alex Jones, but I will read his obituary with a smile one day.
1 granola_robot 2018-08-06
His show is entertainment. The problem is people taking him seriously.
1 SunnyChow 2018-08-06
every media is lying. but this censorship is a new thing
1 Antebios 2018-08-06
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. But they do have a bias.
http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/
Some have more of a bias than others (Fox News is out right propaganda, and there are liberal propaganda as well. No, I'm not talking about MSNBS, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. They originally tend to be biased towards the corporate side.) Anyways, I'm getting away from my point. The PRESS is an absolute necessity to bring to light the evils of both government and business that are done in the shadows in the pursuit of money and power.
I have been duped in the past and recent past. It is a constant battle to try to see through the bullshit, but keep fighting through it. Don't let the orange man divide us. Don't let Alex Jones divide us. This is what they want. We need a government accountable to it's people, both Democrat and Republican and whichever political party. We need to stand up to those that would want to tear us apart for their own gain. Live and let live.
This is not censorship. Alex Jones can say anything he wants. The government is not stopping him. He is not being arrested. He can go to another medium or start his own. The first amendment protects his free speech from the government, NOT from the repercussions from his speech from the public. A company has a policy if your want to do business with them and he breached that policy. So, go to another company. He can host his own videos. It's easy.
1 granola_robot 2018-08-06
Thanks to the power of the internet, people can still hear his shitty show whenever they wish.
...bet he wishes he hadn't gone false flag on Sandy Hook.
1 SPYDABLAKK 2018-08-06
I can’t wait to have a conversation in about 20 years “You guys remember infowars? What was the crazy guys name? Yea him. Wow that were the good days where you could post whatever you wanted online, but you wouldn’t understand”
1 noiradle 2018-08-06
followed by being dumped in the gulags for mentioning banned history.
1 SPYDABLAKK 2018-08-06
Reddit conversion therapy
1 Sugarblood83 2018-08-06
This is retarded.
There’s bunch of people who stream it on their channels. His popularity will rise even more now.
Good one.
1 noiradle 2018-08-06
on top of that he’ll probably settle down on an alt-tech platform (gab, bitchute, etc) and be one of the main reasons they end up seriously competing with these places in a decade or so.
every move the left makes guarantees more trump voters. it’s poetry.
1 OWNtheNWO 2018-08-06
They already banned them too.
1 Sugarblood83 2018-08-06
Literally watched one as I typed that.
1 OWNtheNWO 2018-08-06
Well, they got the biggest ones Ron Gibson a couple others, I couldn't find any when I posted that but checking back several new channels have been set up.
1 DizzyHam 2018-08-06
The replies in this thread are absolutely hilarious since this is a conspiracy board.
You might as well just wear nametags because you are blowing your own game.
1 Simplicity3245 2018-08-06
Unfortunately, this is a common theme here.
1 Simplicity3245 2018-08-06
Unfortunately, this is a common theme here.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
Here's my stance on the issue.
1 edgarallenbro 2018-08-06
The platforms will argue that hate speech isn't protected by the constitution.
That's why that was what they banned him for
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
There is no such legal concept as hate speech and SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed this.
1 DontCountToday 2018-08-06
I believe he is referring to Jones' recently obvious inciting violence.
1 irondumbell 2018-08-06
Did Jones say something that started a riot? If not, it's a real stretch to say that he was using 'fighting words'.
Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
1 Ackadacka 2018-08-06
Youtube isnt covered by the constitution it is a privately owned company they can do whatever the fuck they want and people should recognize this and stop thinking their hate speech is protected on the internet.
1 Jerronbao 2018-08-06
Read the green text attached to the post... It clearly isn't as black and white as you think
1 Hoojiwat 2018-08-06
4cHaN sAiD iT's NoT IlLeGaL
This is getting beyond parody now.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
yo dog, this dude literally tries to convince people that school shootings didn't happen just so he can sell dick pills. It's not censoring political views, its kicking a dumbass off of their platforms
1 Ok_Philosopher 2018-08-06
So your stance is that being stupid is now the litmus test of whether a person can use a platform? Really?
1 IronicBread 2018-08-06
It's up to the platform what the deem acceptable, don't like it? Bye.
Same goes for anything really.
1 Ok_Philosopher 2018-08-06
Because viewers are apparently incapable of doing this themselves by clicking off onto content that doesn't offend them. This is called a broken system.
1 IronicBread 2018-08-06
I'm not arguing about the system, i'm saying it's their site at the end of the day so they can do what they want with it, good or bad.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
I didn't say he was stupid. He is clearly smart, just an asshole that's preying on people and so platform owners say fuck off
1 HodgkinsNymphona 2018-08-06
Alex Jones is the Star Wars Christmas Special of the conspiracy world.
1 whenitsTimeyoullknow 2018-08-06
I wonder if this was part of AJ’s endgame. Is his purpose to ultimately be a massive domino in the justification of banning on the grounds of “hate speech”? Because he certainly won’t be the last one banned and he’s certainly benefited from all the attention. I have a hard time believing he isn’t controlled opposition.
1 DarkDosman 2018-08-06
There needs to be an internet bill of rights. This medium is just too important to be held hostage by monopolies
1 noiradle 2018-08-06
careful, the libertarians are gonna get upset.
1 FatwaBurgers 2018-08-06
Or anti-trust laws to break up monopolies. Wait, what?
1 BingbongXbingbongX 2018-08-06
I'm sure all the free minded people on this subreddit are smart enough to tell Alex Jones is just a huckster that gets idiots to buy valueless nutritional supplements by spinning creazy conspiracy theories and has no integrity at all as a journalist, right?... Right?
Fuck we are doomed as a society.
1 noiradle 2018-08-06
yes, most people realize alex jones is a mixture between legitimate news, propaganda and entertainment. what exactly does this have to do with him being censored across multiple platforms at the same time for “hate speech” with no eviden to be found of it?
1 thinkB4Uact 2018-08-06
Dude, can't you see? The guy I disagree with got banned, not the guys I agree with. It's cool, bro.
1 DizzyHam 2018-08-06
The outright love and support for censorship that I am seeing on this site right now is not even shit they could have written in 1984.
1 DiveRSQ 2018-08-06
honestly its a bit scary.
1 DizzyHam 2018-08-06
Agreed and this is just the start.
1 camafu 2018-08-06
This is a bit overdramatic.
A few private companies not providing him free content hosting is a far cry from "not even shit they could have written in 1984".
1 dankweeddoe 2018-08-06
The largest private companies colluding to censor is a bit different from just a few private companies.
1 Wulf102 2018-08-06
Yeah just mom and pop's hardware store down the street, not the #2 and #3 biggest websites in the world or anything.
1 gryphon_844 2018-08-06
bunch of paid shills.
1 thinkB4Uact 2018-08-06
People have made corporations their new gods. As long as it's legal, it's fine. Morality and democratic integrity are completely irrelevant to them, because, duh lawl.
1 Kingpwn 2018-08-06
We're stepping ever closer to a cyberpunk dystopia
1 thinkB4Uact 2018-08-06
It's all because we acquiesce to power rather than questioning it. Corporations can do whatever they please within the law and we are cool with it.
1 varikonniemi 2018-08-06
7 bots for every 1 person here.
1 TheInactiveWall 2018-08-06
It's their choice to showcase what they want on their platform. As Alex Jones said, companies should have total freedom.
1 ganooosh 2018-08-06
Like him or not it's blatant censorship.
russia russia russia and yet here we have a slippery slope that very well could result in one party owning the internet in the next election.
1 Ipaidformyaccount 2018-08-06
and a lot of people on r/conspiracy are ok with it. Shills I guess.
I've never watched any of his videos but he has a right to publish it and saying that a private company has the right to do what they want doesn't hold when it comes to monopolies like YT and FB
1 dankweeddoe 2018-08-06
People are okay with censorship if they disagree with them.
1 thinkB4Uact 2018-08-06
It's so sad to see so many conspiracy theorists not understand what is occurring.
1 NeoBey 2018-08-06
Good... the guy is out of his mind. People get banned and demonetized for much less.
1 Rossism 2018-08-06
I guess he was right about Sandy Hook and everything else he talks about cuz if it was real bs no one would care.....unless you are a libtard?
1 jfreed43 2018-08-06
I double dog dare you to go to Sandy Hook yourself and blow this thing wide open.
1 Rossism 2018-08-06
Oh it's blown baby.😎
1 Itsamadmadmadworld 2018-08-06
Hey, if anyone wants to know what's going on, you're getting caught up in a GAME. People don't understand the "alt" media is just another arm of the mainstream media. They play both sides of the net. How do you win? You choose not to play.
1 thinkB4Uact 2018-08-06
That's how the powers that be win, actually.
1 d3rr 2018-08-06
Hopefully this won't legitimize their Zionist drivel.
1 rathskellar 2018-08-06
I can't believe they would censor Bill Hicks!
1 locotxwork 2018-08-06
Same here!
1 8bitfruy 2018-08-06
Not a huge fan of alex jones as he might be a psyop, but his banning makes things strange. Or his banning is supposed to make things strange to sow dissent. I just don’t know
1 TrevTerror 2018-08-06
I'm leaning toward sowing dissent. Or at least try to sow dissent.
1 FatwaBurgers 2018-08-06
It makes him a "Free Speech Martyr" to his audience, which can be used to radicalize his audience. Now we have a new pool of Lone Nut Patsies in the pipeline.
Alex could even use this to get funding for a new video platform. Peter Thiel, for example.
1 GirkovArpa 2018-08-06
InfoWars has not been banned by any website, meaning this post is pure lies. Brazenly spreading falsehood is defeating the purpose of this subreddit. Lest you think I'm kidding, all of us remember what happened when some lunatics foretold the closing of this place by some imaginary Reddit overlords. Credible evidences prove that InfoWars is doing just as fine today as it was a year ago. Kingpins of conspiracy theories will never be attacked because their insanity demolishes their own credibility well enough. Masterminds of censorship don't exist outside the drug-addled brains of conspiratards.
Ask anyone if they have trouble accessing Alex Jones' content. Internet censorship is not actually a thing. Lay off the pot. Eat something healthier than Doritos. Draw reasonable conclusions instead of conspiracy theories and go out and enjoy life!
1 shinianx 2018-08-06
I mean, the label is on the tin; you don't wander into a McDonalds then feign shock to discover they're serving chicken nuggets.
1 mdFree 2018-08-06
Alex Jones hounded the Sandy Hook victims and force them to move multiple times. He would then publish their new addresses to his followers to hound the victims. Its more of a legal thing rather than a political thing.
1 ChamuelSophia 2018-08-06
So we're just making shit up now?
1 mdFree 2018-08-06
Read the news. There's a reason why Infowars is just now being removed from venues. He's getting sued by the Sandy Hook victim's families for harassment and defamation. Half a dozen of the families sued him.
1 locotxwork 2018-08-06
Then make it about that. Make it about him breaking a law instead of "we just don't like what you put out there"
1 GrayManTheory 2018-08-06
Hopefully this will backfire and finally give rise to a truly free media platform that isn't run but leftists who think 1984 is an instruction manual.
1 MesaBoogeyMan 2018-08-06
Dude is an actor and hes still laughing all the way to the bank.
1 butteredfingernails 2018-08-06
Honestly while it is mildly concerning from a freedom of speech perspective, Alex Jones is a very toxic presence for the conspiracy community. I think it's probably ultimately for the best that he gets sequestered to his own little corner of the internet.
1 LifeBeforeDeath42 2018-08-06
Censorship is coming. The shills defending this as private companies' right are too obvious right now. I see through you - you paid, lying morons. Get another job. Reconsider your life.
1 jfreed43 2018-08-06
Haha you people really think there are high paying jobs shilling online? How does one apply for them?
1 0140101010420 2018-08-06
But who will tell me which chem trails are making the frogs gay.
So gay that the fifth dimensional pedophile vampires are able to open a gateway into our reality to harvest the organs of aborted baby fetus's
1 0140101010420 2018-08-06
Nice.
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
Well that's what happens when you pull 4 policy violations in less than a week and then top it off with another one where you threaten to shoot Mueller on air. Not hard to draw a line in the sand when the moron hands you the chalk and laser levels it for ya.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
Here's my argument.
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
I really feel bad for you if this is the hill you wanna die on. None of these platforms are monopolies. Proving that would be near impossible since they are mostly competitors. Especially since he owns his own website with which he already hosts his materials. Since the internet is world wide, no harm was done not that can be proven besides of his own doing. Damages would be pennies as that is what he makes on each of those. Thus why he has to hawk skin bronzer and fake supplements.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
His revenue will drop by 90%+ percent without these important platforms.
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
That's his own doing. Maybe he should stop hitting himself.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
Or maybe you should recognize the danger of 3 biased companies controlling 90% of human speech...
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
Only one with bias in this situation is you who keep twisting this in to a victim complex. It's a TOS issue.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
Google controls 80% of searches and is a Duopoly with Apple, YouTube is a monopoly, and facebook is a near monopoly.
There is precedent that what they did today is illegal.
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
Sounds more like you are exercising your bias and purposely ignoring his TOS violations.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
Did you even read the image I linked? Their TOS is irrelevant when they have monopoly control over public forums.
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
I'm not humoring hand waving that has little to nothing to do with the case. You repeatedly linking the same thing doesn't make it valid. It has about as much legal bearing as a Rick Roll vid.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
You are a false shill.
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
You are projecting, again. Funny how you had a script all ready for this.
1 loomynartylenny 2018-08-06
Good.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
Here's my stance.
1 albertjrich 2018-08-06
I want to say that Stanford University often closes the streets that the public uses around the campus to avoid this. The guards say Stanford is private and will kick you out anytime they feel like it. So an internet company could lock itself down and restrict use a few times a year to note that it is private not public.
1 pby1000 2018-08-06
Is it a coincidence that this happened all at once? From the posts here, people are naive and believe there is not a hidden hand at play here. You think that Apple, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all independent and not interconnected.
1 Totally_a_Banana 2018-08-06
Act like a hate-mongering racist, get shut down like a hate-mongering racist. No surprises there
1 willdho 2018-08-06
Ikr?
1 realityglitch2017 2018-08-06
Im not a fan of jones or his channel, i will not defend the sandy hook comments.
What i will fear is that any platform is having a major shut down on channels with millions of subscribers who are entitled to air thier views.
It is because i am capable of critical thinking that i judge myself able to listen to alternative views and decide for myself if i believe them.
I am also sceptical as to the reasons the platforms decided to ban the channel now. I think they may have chosen this time because of the petition to pardon assange, or because of usa elections coming up and the fear of jones sway to his viewers.
1 realmulder 2018-08-06
Even Ted Cruz condemned it.
1 TheVigilantEnt 2018-08-06
Okay, are their old videos archived on their website? INFOWARS had a few exclusive interviews with people which were actually important.
1 hores 2018-08-06
Controlled opposition, don't care.
1 obzen16 2018-08-06
I don't see the issue. It's their service and they can do it. If people want a place to spew hatred they can make they own site, can't they?
1 BendADickCumOnBack 2018-08-06
Youre missing the point. Even though it was written in the post. Its not about Alex Jones' material but the fact that all these companies clearly worked together to remove him. Its about the way theyre working together.
1 obzen16 2018-08-06
Doesn't matter. They have a right to work together.
1 BendADickCumOnBack 2018-08-06
Do they? I thought there were laws preventing such things.
1 Orangutan 2018-08-06
Did Alex decide to retire?
1 666Evo 2018-08-06
Tech companies more powerful than some countries, who have been proven to work hand in hand with governments, who are literally working with China to censor the internet, who in the last month have been shown to be removing this very subreddit from search results coordinate to attack and purge an outlet from all their platforms within 24 hours that, whether you like them or not, have been proven right more than once (although, a stopped clock is right twice a day...) and all this sub has to say is "oh well"?
Shills are at an all time high.
1 buttermeupsunshine 2018-08-06
Yep. The shills are here in full force. These companies have a huge economic incentive to crack the consensus against them by hiring some shills online.
1 jfreed43 2018-08-06
Where does one apply for these mythical, high paying online shill jobs yall are always talking about?
1 666Evo 2018-08-06
shareblue.com
1 jfreed43 2018-08-06
Hmmm doesn't appear to be a link to apply.
1 666Evo 2018-08-06
You know astroturfing is real, right? It's verifiably true.
You calling it "mythical" makes you look like you're engaging in it right now.
That, or you're very, very poorly informed.
1 InsalubriousTriticum 2018-08-06
They're not high paying. I'm a professional shill, and I make 5,000 tendies per year. My pension plan is a folder full of rare Pepes.
1 alienrefugee51 2018-08-06
Check on Craig’s List. I know there was at least one office in the Bay Area of S.F.
1 jfreed43 2018-08-06
In all seriousness if they were as common place in the US as everything thinks, you think it would be easy to find information on these online shill jobs.
1 ballsy1 2018-08-06
Remember when infowars was "controlled opposition" Pepperidge farm remembers ;)
1 lovedbymillions 2018-08-06
I have watched Alex Jones. I have found it entertaining in the past. It is over the top, a lot of BS with an ounce of truth. BUT this coordinated attack on free speech is terrifying.
This is the beginning of the end.
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
Enjoy being used. Alex makes millions off your ignorance and called you guys crackpots in court.
1 gryphon_844 2018-08-06
regadless of what you think of Alex Jones... this is bad, very bad.
1 TheMadRocker 2018-08-06
So? Like fuckin alex jones is a real person. He's a fucking troll that's got nothing right. A better question is did you buy his dick pills and they didn't work?
1 letzburn4evah 2018-08-06
It's ironic that Alex Jones, a mouthpiece for libertarianism and an advocate of small government, would benefit from a situation where government regulations prevent private companies from banning problematic users.
Imagine if a white supremacists site like Stormfront was suddenly forced by the United States government to allow diverse people from all ethnicities to express their opinions on the server.
Imagine if a pro-abortion web site was suddenly forced by the government to post anti-abortion videos and data.
Also banning a user for expressing dissenting opinions or opinions considered by a company to be distasteful is it's own form of expression. For a government to regulate this sort of thing would be a direct violation of the first amendment.
If you want to be certain that you can express yourself on the internet then you must form your own ISP and go from there. Otherwise it's back to the printing press for you!
1 The_All_Golden 2018-08-06
Can't say I care too much about this one. Alex Jones is a repugnant individual and what he's done with Sandy Hook is disgusting. Private companies are entirely within their legal rights to deny access to their services to anyone for any reason. Plus, you can still easily access his Infowars website, which shouldn't all his fans be using in the first place? Aren't Apple, Facebook and YouTube tracking all the personal information of anyone who uses their services? Hell, if Jones wasn't a piece of shit hypocrite he would have removed himself from their platforms a long time ago.
1 falsescorpion 2018-08-06
We're in uncharted waters here. Jones hasn't been silenced, but "de-platformed". And the de-platforming has been done by corporations, citing breaches of their T&Cs.
He's still at liberty to publish whatever takes his fancy, just not through those corporations. To take YouTube as the example, there are plenty of YouTube alternatives where AJ could pitch his tent. I can think of three without even stretching my memory.
AJ is doing his best impersonation of Giordano Bruno, because he's a huckster and secretly he knows that this kind of thing only adds to any aura of intrigue and radicalism that he might have.
So yeah, the Streisand Effect strikes again, and AJ will turn a profit from it, because that's what he does.
Nice cold glass of filtered water, anyone? We're all overheated this summer.
1 Bruce_Banner621 2018-08-06
Probably the most level headed analysis I've found in here.
1 greetingearthlings 2018-08-06
I've never watched Alex Jones except for his interview on Joe Rogan and a few snippets. I've always thought he was a joke. However I think long term it's not in internet user's/creators best interests for big media companies to exert this kinda of control on social media content. I feel like whatever harm his dumb act was doing to people that actually believe him is less than the long term consequences of these companies banning people. Side note: Infowars as a title is has reached its full potential.
1 lllBluelll 2018-08-06
Whatever.
1 SliyarohModus 2018-08-06
It didn't take them long after net neutrality was eliminated. Even though I don't care for his rhetoric, free speech isn't free if censorship becomes a corporate responsibility.
1 h4zardz 2018-08-06
net neutrality was just recently reinstated and ironically Alex Jones has been shilling for the telecom corporations against it.
1 SliyarohModus 2018-08-06
I'm not backing that dirty rat ethier. Read the Bill reinstating net neutrality and you will see that it doesn't actually do anything but obfuscate net polarization.
1 nisaaru 2018-08-06
I agree.
1 blackops979 2018-08-06
lol apple knows whats best for you OBEY what apple says lol!
1 allyfox099 2018-08-06
I may not care for the guy, but I can't help but think another canary has died.
1 OWNtheNWO 2018-08-06
They request the legal protections from the federal government of being public commons and then they politically censor people, you can't have it both ways, this would be like AT&T banning you from using their phone because they don't like your politics. Infowars was prepared for this, they have major lawsuits pending but this endangers everyone elses 1st amendment online as well.
This thread has been curated by a bunch of lying scumbags, this website doesn't need to be censored they just destroy your ability to communicate with the voting functions.
Good luck /r/conspiracy
1 tikitakithrowaway 2018-08-06
There are certainly a lot of ways to look at this, but I simply think it is because Alex Jones has become a legal liability. If you don't think he has incited violence, he's undoubtably come very close. He's already being sued by 2 families. It's only a matter of time before some nut kills someone and blames AJ for it. Which will turn into a million dollar liability. As a company, I'd ban him too.
1 HuskyLivesMatter 2018-08-06
This is proof that reddit has died. Barely any discussion of this in any major subreddit. Any discussion that does happen is under careful moderation and all comments at the top are in support of the censorship. Take a look at a certain subreddit. All the comments are the pathetic classic reddit one liners "sad trombone" "thoughts and prayers" "oh boo hoo". Any one who has any memory of the past would remember a reddit that would support Alex no matter what he said. All speech is free speech. This is a effective monopoly on all free speech that is controlled by nefarious means.
1 ThomGabriel 2018-08-06
I see some people supporting and justifying this ban. Just wait, soon more channels will be banned, then more. In the end they'll introduce a system where no new content is allowed by anyone unless they are approved. To be approved will cost you money, at first it'll be really cheap, like 5 bucks. Slowly that price will increase to become unaffordable.
Everyone says they'll use a different service, but they won't. To build a site that can compete with YouTube will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and as YouTube hasn't yet made a cent in profit, it's not exactly a model with much potential.
1 smileyclown 2018-08-06
1984 is slowly becoming more and more true. day by day
1 mracidglee 2018-08-06
What nominally got him banned? I saw references to a video called "how to stop liberalism" and "hate speech against Muslims and transgenders". I would like to see them for myself.
1 alienrefugee51 2018-08-06
I think Sandyhook was one of the larger issues.
1 mracidglee 2018-08-06
Yes, but I didn't see it cited as a direct reason.
1 Breakmeoffsome 2018-08-06
Here is how I presume it works:
You choose...
1 iam413x 2018-08-06
So no chance that CNN calling out these platforms after AJ incited violence and threatened to shoot Mueller was the cause?
1 Breakmeoffsome 2018-08-06
Are you a bot?
1 WhyNotCollegeBoard 2018-08-06
I am 99.99903% sure that iam413x is not a bot.
I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot <username> | r/ spambotdetector | Optout | Original Github
1 iam413x 2018-08-06
Lol. Yep you got me.
1 Farking_Bastage 2018-08-06
Looks like the invisible hand of the free market has done its thing.
1 toxicpiano 2018-08-06
These tech companies are trying to install a global real government ID system for the internet tying you to your real information to use it against you just like with China's social credit score. They may use a FF to get it going/justify it.
If this happens, free speech on the internet is over.
1 WarlordBeagle 2018-08-06
While I dislike the direction that he has gone recently, Alex was one of the people who was chasing 9/11. I have to respect him for that.
1 Kayki7 2018-08-06
Wait, what???? Can they do this?
1 Kayki7 2018-08-06
Is this in connection to the power Social media companies now have over “Fake News”? Or what they feel constitutes?
1 Outofmany 2018-08-06
They should ban us all from everything, youtube, twitter, facebook, reddit - censor the crap out if us. We’re not just going to go away, that’s not how that works. If they drive us underground we’ll get stronger.
1 richtaco91 2018-08-06
You ever heard of shadow ban. Jones has been slowly shadow banned for years now. We all know why cnn tried to get jones banned. If you can figure that out then why even bother. Free speech was attacked today. The biggest red pill ever was erased off multiple platforms. If u can see the severity then ur one of the hopeless sheep.
1 Falken-- 2018-08-06
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Alex Jones if he had even an ounce of self control or discretion about what comes out of his mouth. Its one thing to promote conspiracy theories, it is another thing entirely to threaten and promote violence.
He brought this on himself. We all acknowledge that Freedom of Speech comes with certain rules, and one of those is that you aren't free of the consequences of what comes out of your mouth. No private company is obligated to carry someone else's messages on their platform.
1 Falken-- 2018-08-06
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Alex Jones if he had even an ounce of self control or discretion about what comes out of his mouth. Its one thing to promote conspiracy theories, it is another thing entirely to threaten and promote violence. He brought this on himself. We all acknowledge that Freedom of Speech comes with certain rules, and one of those is that you aren't free of the consequences of what comes out the things you say. No private company is obligated to carry someone else's messages on their platform.
1 Falken-- 2018-08-06
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Alex Jones if he had even an ounce of self control or discretion about what comes out of his mouth. Its one thing to promote conspiracy theories, it is another thing entirely to threaten and promote violence.
He brought this on himself. We all acknowledge that Freedom of Speech comes with certain rules, and one of those is that you aren't free of the consequences of what comes out of your mouth. No private company is obligated to carry someone else's messages on their platform.
1 Falken-- 2018-08-06
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Alex Jones if he had even an ounce of self control or discretion about what comes out of his mouth. Its one thing to promote conspiracy theories, it is another thing entirely to threaten and promote violence.
He brought this on himself. We all acknowledge that Freedom of Speech comes with certain rules, and one of those is that you aren't free of the consequences of the things you say. No private company is obligated to carry someone else's messages on their platform. If you don't agree with the company, vote with your feet and stop using their services.
1 cryo 2018-08-06
Apple, however, has many podcast apps on their platform, and their own isn’t even the most popular. All they did was delist from their own app. That’s nowhere near a monopoly situation. It’s also not delisted from Android as far as I know.
1 ImmortalAl 2018-08-06
Alex Jones is alright. He has an agenda. Would prefer if he was less conservative than those hipocrite Republicans that tout small government ideals while growing the government by their social restrictions and military.
1 ijustwantanfingname 2018-08-06
Here comes the culture war.
1 varikonniemi 2018-08-06
Good, the sooner we get some clarity into this situation the better. Companies that provide billboards for political messages cannot restrict it to one party, it is considered illegal donation and they should register as PAC in that case, and then different laws apply. Same is true with internet boards and restricting the messages there.
1 Dcurri47 2018-08-06
This is really sad. Platforms should not let themselves be pressured into censoring people. Alex is crazy yes but that doesn't mean that his opinions should be suppressed. It's also scary how they colluded to censor him all at once.
1 ironlioncan 2018-08-06
I wonder if something planned is about to happen and they need to shut down any sort of discourse from spreading on social media. Ya infowars is kind of a joke they might post anything against the next false flag or hoax.
Seems to be pre-emotive to me.
1 LOTR_pippin 2018-08-06
He's nothing more than a CIA plant to control the information flow. Hes literally a performer, and his documents and court dealings have made this truth known. He's a fucking actor.
| The real Alex Jones is not his bombastic, conspiratorial InfoWars persona, his lawyer is hoping to convince a Texas jury in the radio host's child-custody battle.
That's more or less what attorney Randall Wilhite told Texas District Judge Orlinda Naranjo, the Austin American-Statesman reported on Sunday .
Wilhite told Naranjo that Jones' public personality should not be considered as material in evaluating the InfoWars founder's ability to be a father. Wilhite said doing so would be comparable to judging actor Jack Nicholson in such a custody battle based on his performance as the Joker in "Batman."
https://www.businessinsider.com/lawyer-alex-jones-infowars-playing-character-acting-2017-4
1 Dr_Cog_Science 2018-08-06
Good. It's about time.
1 FoxyBrownMcCloud 2018-08-06
... No.
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
fuck rule #4 ban me
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-08-06
It's not just speculation. Check out lifelog and DARPA to get started.
1 Sarcophilus 2018-08-06
I don't think it's hate speech that was AJ's downfall but his controverisial videos that put YouTube in a negative light to it's advertisers.
Although hatespeech is a convenient scapegoat.
1 ContextFactsLogic 2018-08-06
That is an oxymoron, when a few powerful companies effectively control something that isn't a "Free Market", it is actually called an
ol·i·gop·o·ly
If the internet was like 20 to 30 big companies controlling video platforms that would be a lot more of a Free Market than when one or two platforms control it.
Maybe be an intelligent human being and read some books ;)
1 singlerainbow 2018-08-06
Oh sorry. Didn’t realize this was a safe space.
1 McNothingBurger 2018-08-06
Are you in favor of the govt capturing and regulating these private companies?
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-06
Maybe. I only know of the ones that I manually approve here so they show up.
1 richtaco91 2018-08-06
Have u seen the cnn ratings? 200k a day for cooper. Jones gets what 5-10 million a week easy. Plus YouTube and social media. Use your brain. Alex jones has more listeners than cnn for sure. During the election jones was getting a combined 40-80 million in one week. U telling me Anderson cooper even comes close.
1 Ninja_Arena 2018-08-06
Ahhh, ok. Was out of the loop. Still see lots of people on Twitter and Facebook wanting to kill all white men..... but yeah, two wrongs etc.
1 noiradle 2018-08-06
on top of that he’ll probably settle down on an alt-tech platform (gab, bitchute, etc) and be one of the main reasons they end up seriously competing with these places in a decade or so.
every move the left makes guarantees more trump voters. it’s poetry.
1 TrevTerror 2018-08-06
I'm leaning toward sowing dissent. Or at least try to sow dissent.
1 Ipaidformyaccount 2018-08-06
and a lot of people on r/conspiracy are ok with it. Shills I guess.
I've never watched any of his videos but he has a right to publish it and saying that a private company has the right to do what they want doesn't hold when it comes to monopolies like YT and FB
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
I mean, you can pick apart my words all goddamn day and argue against them, my viewpoint is that they should be held to the same standards that US courts are held to. They shouldn't be allowed the capability to ban, unless directed by a court to do so. End of story.
I realize that varies from state to state and court to court, but it's a starting point.
1 voteferpedro 2018-08-06
That's his own doing. Maybe he should stop hitting himself.
1 FatwaBurgers 2018-08-06
It makes him a "Free Speech Martyr" to his audience, which can be used to radicalize his audience. Now we have a new pool of Lone Nut Patsies in the pipeline.
Alex could even use this to get funding for a new video platform. Peter Thiel, for example.
1 SomethingInThatVein 2018-08-06
Facts should be enough
1 Eslime 2018-08-06
Redditor for 6 months calling Sandy Hook a Hoax on this sub and getting upvotes? End times for the sub. It's gone.
1 edgarallenbro 2018-08-06
The platforms will argue that hate speech isn't protected by the constitution.
That's why that was what they banned him for
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
yo dog, this dude literally tries to convince people that school shootings didn't happen just so he can sell dick pills. It's not censoring political views, its kicking a dumbass off of their platforms
1 mdFree 2018-08-06
Read the news. There's a reason why Infowars is just now being removed from venues. He's getting sued by the Sandy Hook victim's families for harassment and defamation. Half a dozen of the families sued him.
1 AlexanderMeander 2018-08-06
Yes?
1 yesipooptoo 2018-08-06
Or nothing like that.
1 colorcoma 2018-08-06
metoo
1 SomethingInThatVein 2018-08-06
Lol he was a little hesitant hopping on the Sandy Hook train. Alex Jones didn’t make Sandy Hook a conspiracy topic, he eventually came around to covering it. Just like every other serious conspiracy.
Things like 9/11 and Sandy Hook are under the microscope because lots of people can see the official stories don’t add up. If you need Alex Jones to spoonfeed you the full picture, you shouldn’t be participating in this sub or stating opinions on these complex matters. You should be at school or daycare with the rest of the kids.
1 AgainstTheTides 2018-08-06
Well...yeah. You may be bringing a message that they don't want to hear, or maybe others to hear as well. By banning you, they are controlling the narrative they want to be seen there. In effect, they're censoring you.
1 OWNtheNWO 2018-08-06
They already banned them too.
1 anonpls 2018-08-06
So? Lots of companies and industries get government funding, that doesn't mean that they should be considered part of the government and if the government is EVER found to be influencing a private entity through what are essentially bribes than those officials responsible should be punished. I'm not sure but there might be some laws to that effect already.
Their right to free speech is the same as the little guy's, it's literally the only way to ensure an even playing field. It's the only way to have competition even.
If they can be barred from selectively hosting people then that means that I can also be barred from selectively hosting people, no thanks.
1 anonpls 2018-08-06
I unfortunately am not a lawyer so me looking it up would mean dick all.
But I'm sure once the case hits the SC we'll see how the justice system thinks this debate should go.
1 Friday_The_13th 2018-08-06
Don’t look it up then, just remember where you stood now. Have a good one.
1 GodEmperorScorch 2018-08-06
What the hell? Are you really that stupid?
1 IronicBread 2018-08-06
It's up to the platform what the deem acceptable, don't like it? Bye.
Same goes for anything really.
1 irondumbell 2018-08-06
Did Jones say something that started a riot? If not, it's a real stretch to say that he was using 'fighting words'.
Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
1 drew8766 2018-08-06
I didn't say he was stupid. He is clearly smart, just an asshole that's preying on people and so platform owners say fuck off