I'm not sure CNN is banned here. Some people frown upon it because it's pretty fucking fake news, but I wouldn't get behind outright banning it from this sub. Your premise is false.

CNN is banned here.

Really? Since when? Yeah that's kinda weird then.

CNN is not banned here. You just have to archive it.

No it isn’t, direct links are. You can post archived links all day to your heart’s content.

CNN is demonetized here.

Which is exactly what's happened to Infowars. No mas youtube $$$$$$$$$$$.

There's a difference between "banned" and "demonetized", though. Infowars was demonetized from YouTube for years, but only banned until a week ago.

Fair point.

I'm just sick of right wing smearing and lies. So sick of lies. Ugh.

I'm with you, I hate that I'm having to defend Alex Jones. I honestly don't even know what I'm defending anymore in the past few years, just trying to focus on my core beliefs.

I hate that I'm having to defend Alex Jones.

Oh, that's a beautiful phrase. I'm your new left wing fan +1

I am left wing (mostly) and a progressive independent.. I'm pro gun and pro choice, though, also hated Clinton. As Dan Carlin says "I'm a political Martian."

My political beliefs align very closely with Dan Carlin (not left-wing) and Jimmy Dore (left-wing). Both independent free thinkers. Not everything has to be so binary.

I'll suggest listening to Carlin and Dore.. Jimmy Dore's stuff can all be found on YouTube where he has his show, Dan Carlin's stuff can all be found on your favorite podcast app under the shows "Common Sense" and "Hardcore History", and probably YouTube as well.

This thread is literally a lie

Links to CNN are literally banned in this sub

I had no fucking clue. Wow.

You can still link to CNN through archive.is. It isn't banned, just demonetized.

Is CNN banned?

Yes.

Yea CNN was banned because apparently they dox'd someone.

Only direct links to CNN are banned, because they dox people, but you can post an archive of a CNN article no problem.

Who did CNN dox?

CNN threatened to dox a redditor if he didn't delete a post. CNN published his information anyways.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-criticized-threatening-dox-reddit-users-identity-2017-7?op=1

The article you just posted never mentioned them publishing his information.

In mentions them threatening to and they threatened doxxing him for a cartoon meme on public television.... and your defending that.

You glow in the dark.

I didn't defend them I just pointed out that your comment wasn't entirely accurate.

So what's the guys name?

Great question. Also what's the difference between banning and removing comments/posts in this forum vs. YouTube doing it? I honestly can't figure this one out. I mean, we have mods here banning people left, right, and center and yet the homepage is filled with anti-censorship posts because InfoWars was removed from other, free platforms.

Countdown to post being deleted and you and OP being banned...

3

2

1

Well frankly I’m impressed you made it through this comment

You can actually look through just banned users with this; https://snew.github.io/r/conspiracy/about/log?type=banuser. I'm fairly sure you can edit that last bit and replace it with any of the various mod actions you see in the Mod Log linked in the sidebar if you only want to see certain ones. You used to be able to click on them but it seems that function was removed.

The day is still young...

What exactly do you have to say to get banned on this sub? What level of insanity (or truth?) do you have to say to warrant a ban haha?!

just defend yourself against someone calling you names, swear words, attacks, etc. Fight back against that and it'll happen

Well, I got called an Uncle Tom the day haha. Who banned that guy?! No one -.- not that I care, but whatever.

Take it easy Tom.

Ha ha ha, I’m rolling in laughter.

My bad dude, just messing around a little bit.

You might want to add /s next time. Reading jokes is always hit or miss online. We’re fine, Tommy boy :)

Calling out shills directly. Shills are kinda protected here oddly enough. Makes me wonder.

Haha I’m still somewhat naive and I think reddit users are regular people like me why waste too much time on message boards, nothing nefarious. But I ought to know better by this point...

Reddit is an enormous platform. Shills have been caught promoting products, films, services on certain subs. Lotta money involved. Covering up certain topics that threaten the state is another thing entirely..

I knooow but still I’m so naive about that type of stuff. I mean, I think this is part of the reason why people don’t believe it when I tell them a ridiculous amount of elites are pedos - they can never imagine themselves doing it, so they assume no one else does it. Make sense? I “forget” that people have sinister agendas. Plus, sometimes it’s hard to check people because they’ll have looong histories so you just assume they’re crazy and not “shills”

"I'm not evil, therefore no one else could be."

Exactly! We read about rapists and murderers with total disbelief because the majority of us could never bring ourselves to do it, so we assume it almost never happens.

Who’s the quote from?

I got banned recently from a simliar sub for calling myself "full blown retard".

Hahaha Hahahaha Hahahaha I’m sorry. This is hilarious to me. That’s retarded :)

Watch out now! lol

Ahaha I’m living on the edge :)

I mean, we have mods here banning people left, right, and center and yet the homepage is filled with anti-censorship posts because InfoWars was removed from other, free platforms.

So, so true.

So, so true.

i just got a 3 day ban for nothing, from a mod known to have a trigger finger for bans. Now I live in perpetual fear of being permabanned and am basically limiting my replies to links, 1 sentence, or more red pills.

Also you know this sub is going down hill when normies are trying to bring CNN back, lol

Least you got a warning and/or a shortened ban before a permanent one. The mod logs usually just show people being banned permanently without warning.

yeah, I guess. All it did is make me fear for saying anything about anything anymore. Im just gonna reply with links and red pills. Literally anything I say gets me a warning or ban from one of the real bad mods known for being ban crazy

cnn.com Check out this CNN article, it's the top story on CNN right now. There you go, I have linked CNN. See how CNN is not banned?

That's a link to archive.is of a screenshot of CNN's website

Yeah, that’s the rule to linking to CNN. It’s the number one story on CNN right now. Not banned.

There is no difference.

There is a difference and its not very hard to understand. It's about the extent of their respective ability to publish and have your message heard.

CNN has a cable news network available all over the country and has access to all social media platforms. Limiting their ability to have posts in one niche community on reddit constitutes effectively zero limiting of their ability to speak and publish to an audience.

Alex Jones got most of his views and listens on via youtube and podcast downloads/streams. Completely taking away those channels of communication takes away more than half of his outreach and ability to get a message to consumers.

This makes very little sense. I think both should be allowed but I also believe private orgs (like this sub) have every right to rescind a platform their money pays for.

Can you read? Nothing about what you wrote has anything to do with my point.

My comment said nothing about legislation, private vs public action, or even the Constitution. I didn't take a position on that. I merely laid out the reasoning for how the two situations were substantively and conceptually different.

I even said in a specific sense that my point has little to do with the final analysis and insinuated strongly that I wasn't taking any position on the issue whatsoever.

Can you read?

Not anything you type if you are going to be nasty like this.

Take care.

You didn't seem to care enough to attempt to understand my point before vocalizing your disagreement claiming it didn't make sense.

Thats more nasty than anything I said IMO.

Have a good day.

You didn't seem to care enough to attempt to understand my point before vocalizing your disagreement claiming it didn't make sense.

That's all /u/garyp714 doed around here lately. Just bouncing around with a 3-4 upvotes in 1 minute deep in subthreads. Derails your comment. Calls it unreasonable. And moves on.

Onlookers come by later and think he owned you because of the votes. It's fascinating to watch.

Thats more nasty than anything I said IMO.

Have a good day.

Thanks for taking the high road.

Yeah that's real fair James. I started this tree answering the question in the post honestly. Everything else is me responding to disagreement, you know, like how discussions should be?

Your characterization is hostile and unfair.

Yeah that's real fair James. I started this tree answering the question in the post honestly.

Nobody said you were dishonest. This is what I'm talking about.

Everything else is me responding to disagreement, you know, like how discussions should be?

No, everything you've been saying is

zomg Republicans

So that's also not true.

Your characterization is hostile and unfair.

It's neither of those things, if you read what I said and read what you've said.

lol, you're exhausting. Have a good night.

So, no response again?

His is the most obvious case of vote manipulation I've seen in months, tbh.

My response was up voted equal to him about an hour ago and it completely switched in a matter of like 15 minutes.

It's amazing.

It's like his primary goal on r/conspiracy is to derail topics.

Meh, what about if CNN were banned from 2 subreddits? What about all of reddit? What about all of the internet?

There is no logical place to draw the line with your argument, therefore it is not a logical argument.

I didn't make an argument of where to draw the line. I didn't make an argument that there should be a line. I didn't make the argument that there shouldn't be a line.

I laid out how the two situations are obviously drastically different in terms of the degree that speech is being limited.

You drew a big thick line by defining there to be a difference, between CNN with a large audience and Infowars with a small audience. There must be a point at which small turns into large. There's your line.

I'm pointing out that size/popularity/reach/influence cannot be used as a rule to allow censorship, as the value at which censorship can be applied is arbitrary.

CNN with a large audience and Infowars with a small audience

No the main line I drew was with the LEVEL AND EFFECT of censorship action.... the size of the audience is only tangentially related to the primary point.

The main way the two censorship actions differ is in how many members of the audience is eliminated with the censorship. CNN loses nothing from r/conspiracy making people post the archived version of their stories.... Alex Jones just lost more than half his viewers.

This is an extremely simple point. Don't play dumb.

Can you see that the rule you've invented for this specific CNN/Infowars case can't be used to justify censorship in general?

Can you see that the rule you've invented

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Since when is pointing out a difference creating a rule?

How about this.... tell me what rule I "invented" and where i invented it and I'll show you where you didn't understand the words I wrote.

The important point is that the rule cannot be generalised, therefore cannot be true.

What rule?

The rule

Media with a large audience can be censored here but media with a small audience cannot.

Cannot be generalized and is therefore a bad rule.

Media with a large audience can be censored here but media with a small audience cannot.

But I didnt say that. I said the situations were different and specifically went out of my way to write that I took no position on whether they should be treated differently.

You're imagining something that I didn't say.

I laid out how the two situations are obviously drastically different in terms of the degree that speech and ability to reach audiences is being limited.

Lmao you aren't dizzy from these circles yet? Stop being so dense.

I made a simple point and the only circles are from people misrepresenting what I said.

Show me the circle you're imagining and I'll try to walk you through a simple explanation of where you're mistaken.

The sole fact that you yourself can't recognize that you're contradicting yourself because you are so focused on proving yourself "right" means we would continue on this circular rollercoaster ending in you probably hurling insults my way. Nah I'm good homie

It's a pretty simple thing to understand. Here's an analogy for you with the following Question: How is a bank heist different from a mugging?

My answer was that one of the primary differences is the amount of money that's being stolen (i.e. the monetary degree of theft). And I left open the possibility that the two should be treated the same or different by the public outcry or the law (I specifically didn't take any position on it).

And everyone's response was.... why are you defending a mugger when he was participating in theft, or why are you pro-theft... when I said nothing like that whatsoever.

The question of degree of impact doesn't have to be even associated with something criminal. You could ask me what is different about buying a homeless person a sandwhich and building a homeless shelter and I could correctly tell you that one of the differences is the amount of people being helped.

Mentioning that difference isn't taking a moral position on which is better. There are plenty of situations in which the guy buying the sandwhich could be seen as more morally praiseworthy. For example I could say the guy who bought the sandwhich was poor himself and it involved a bigger sacrifice or something.

But the point is I didn't take a position on the larger issue. I merely stated very specifically one of the obvious differences between the two situations.

Tbh I don't even care if you read this because you and most others responding to my comments are even taking the time to read what I'm saying. But I'll leave it here anyway for the people taking the time to read through these threads.

Completely taking away those channels of communication takes away more than half of his outreach and ability to get a message to consumers.

Good.

Here is why this reasoning is completely fallacious, by the same exact argument you could say that I myself shouldn't get banned from Youtube because I now have even less exposure than Alex Jones.

If your reasoning that his distribution channels are smaller than CNN and therefore its unfair to take them away what about the thousands of people who are smaller than Alex Jones who get them taken away? Isn't by your own definition this even worse because now instead of stealing from a big corp or a small time corp it's just a single person?

Or perhaps should you judge the basis on what is and isn't allowed by something other than size of audience reach...because that makes zero fucking sense at all.

I simply stated a major reason the situations are different.

I never said anything about whether it was right or wrong or made any claims about what should or shouldn't be censored.

This is the most horseshit argument I've ever wasted my time reading.

Alex Jones has a smaller viewership, so he deserves more rights and access to certain platforms than CNN? Wow! That's some toddler-level critical thinking there. It's almost like your position on this is completely influenced by your personal opinion of the subjects involved and isn't rooted in logic or reason whatsoever.

Alex Jones has a smaller viewership, so he deserves more rights and access to certain platforms than CNN?

lol wow, I literally didn't say anything close to that.

I said the situations where demonstrably different. I said nothing about Alex Jones or CNN deserving or not deserving any rights. I took zero position on it and made that clear from the beginning.

CNN presents itself as an unbiased news organization (it's not) with factual reporting (lol).

CNN falsely presents itself as an unbiased news organization with fact based journalism.

CNN is not the only one guilty of this.

Ask them if the Undertaker threw mankind off the top of hell in a cell in 1998.

Jones is very similar to that of a WWE commentator or a heel. His personality and opinion is what draws people to InfoWars, like the personalities of PewDiePie and Philip DeFranco draw viewers to their channels.

Re-posting

Mainstream media operates as distributors of official news. When the mainstream press pushes narratives and false stories, there is good reason to call them out for it.

To contrast InfoWars covers conspiracies. The opinions of Jones and those that work for him are thus supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. They're 50/50 for hitting the mark and often get stories right when the mainstream press tries to suppress information or push narratives and propaganda that is not factual.

Examples:

https://www.infowars.com/activist-wikipedia-editors-forbid-any-mention-of-sarah-jeongs-racist-tweets-in-her-page/

https://www.infowars.com/candace-owens-swaps-white-for-jewish-in-sarah-jeong-tweet-gets-suspended/

https://www.infowars.com/facebook-bans-infowars-but-keeps-antifa-louis-farrakhan/

https://www.infowars.com/facebook-asks-u-s-banks-for-financial-info-to-boost-user-engagement/

https://www.infowars.com/globalist-grip-weakens-in-europe-as-merkel-and-macron-tank-in-the-polls/

https://www.infowars.com/hispanic-unemployment-record-low/

and Philip DeFranco

I mean, to be fair, Philip DeFranco is vastly different than Alex Jones and PewDiePie.

That's the point. They're all different but have the same effect

And Fox News literally ran an actual fake news story that FBI found evidence that Seth Rich leaked to Wikileaks, is the most popular Cable news network over CNN and tag line is "Fair and balanced". Yet, if its fake news wasn't upvoted enough, it probably would've been stickied.

And Fox News literally ran an actual fake news story that FBI found evidence that Seth Rich leaked to Wikileaks

It's not fake news, when Assange has hinted as much. Assange has stated multiple times that their Podesta and DNC leaks did not originate from Russia. Forensic analysis of DNC data (via Crowdstrike) by former NSA codebreaker/whistleblower William Binney has also shown that data transfer rates of the "hack" indicate that the data was copied locally onto a usb thumb drive, not via the internet.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/16/media/seth-rich-family-response-claims-of-wikileaks-contact/index.html

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/06/01/fox-news-seth-rich-conspiracy-theory/

Julian Assange on Seth Rich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

Published on Aug 9, 2016

Julian Assange seems to suggest on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered.

Mark my words, he's making it up for political purposes and doesn't have any actual evidence. If he had, he would have released it by Sep 2016 at the latest to hurt democrats in the election.

Wikileaks has a policy not to reveal their sources. However, Assange has gone out pretty far a number of times to discuss Rich.

Julian Assange talks 'revealing the truth' through WikiLeaks
Aug 25, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rLeuydV1xM

Kelly: Why are you interested in Seth Rich's killer?

We are very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources. The police have offered $25,000. We have offered $20,000. We are not saying Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications (DNC leaks, Podesta leaks), that is something that has to be established (by others), but if there is any question about a source of Wikileaks being threatened, people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone that may have been involved in some type of attempt to coerce or possibly in this case kill a potential source.

Wikileaks has a policy not to reveal their sources. However, Assange has gone out pretty far a number of times to discuss Rich and hint that Seth (panda)

Does that strike you as weird, saying you won't identify sources but giving out enough information that any jackass can figure it out? Always struck me as weird.

Does that strike you as weird, saying you won't identify sources but giving out enough information that any jackass can figure it out? Always struck me as weird.

It's pretty clear to anyone who isn't blind or biased.

Under normal circumstances he probably wouldn't have said anything at all. Seth Rich is dead. Assange was trying to not break Wikileaks policy while still signalling that Rich was the source and he was subsequently murdered.

Assange was trying not to break Wikileaks policy while still signalling that Rich was the source and he was subsequently murdered.

So did Assange break the policy or not?

Technically no,

Assange has insinuated that Rich could be Wikileaks source and has offered $20,000 for details of the murder of Seth Rich because Wikileaks objects to the killing of sources that possibly could be connected to Wikileaks.

Personally, I've never heard of wikileaks offering monetary rewards for info about anyone else's unsolved murder.

Infowars is banned from all of YouTube.

CNN is banned from a single subreddit, and you can still talk about what it says here without directly linking to it.

Scale matters.

So censorship is okay if it’s on a small scale?

It is still bad. Large-scale censorship is orders of magnitude worse.

Would you rather be banned from saying the f-word in my local mom-and-pop sandwich shop, or by your Internet Service Provider?

Which of those sounds worse to you? And is it just slightly worse?

They are not out right banned from this sub. You can post links to their articles using archive. This is to take away clicks and ad revenue from them after they doxxed someone on tv. Their articles can still be posted here, just not directly. Bill Hicks(hahaha I don't know if it's him but it's funny) is just outright banned on may platforms..

What was the name of the guy they doxxed again? Infowars doxxed a guy named Paul Combetta but they're not banned. Funny how that works out.

Can you show me where info wars was the first to connect Paul to stonetear?

Yep and you can show me the name of the guy CNN doxxed

Here is ccn article claiming exactly what u said.

So where's yours? I showed u mine

I can't find the guys name anywhere in that article.

If you read. It's a cnn article admitting the doxxed the guy. How they found out who it was. Where is the proof of your claim? Anywhere?

Doxxed means publishing someone's name, like Infowars did with Paul Combetta. CNN never published his name so they couldn't have doxed him, unless you come up with a new meaning of the word dox that means something entirely different.

Again, I never made an initial claim

Washington post doxxing paul

Idk how cnn doxxing hansasshole is comparable to reporting Paul combetta asking how to delete evidence.

CNN doxxed the T_D user? What's his name?

Hansasshole was an anonymous user who posted a gif. Cnn discovered who he was and attempted to harass him. Paul was testifying in front of the public, and then his online personal was discovered. They are so far from each other, you'd have to be irrational to think discover Pauls online name was worse than harassing some meme maker

Oh so CNN is banned for harrassing someone, not doxxing them? You mean like how Infowars harassed Roy Moore's accuaers by publishing lies about them?

Again, you're missing the fact I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't like infowars, so I don't know what they do. So, you made claims. Show me, please.

lol you are 100% right and the fact that you are downvoted is proof positive of astroturfing because no rational actual human user here disagrees with you.

Don't stop posting because of downvotes. The fact is they are exposing themselves when called out like this.

This fucking crack pot lmao. Fuck off dweeb

Btw, /u/katica is who discovered stonetear was Paul. Not infowars

The "first" doesn't matter when you're talking about a Reddit user, dude. Alex Jones has a huge platform and you're being obtuse if you think talking about someone publicly on that platform isn't doxxing.

Paul was in the public testifying. Someone discovered his online name and how he lied based on his online postings. If you think that's not news worthy reporting, you're being too irrational.

Ok so if I posted your name here do you think that would have as big of an impact as if CNN picked up that info and put your name on TV? Is it not doxxing if CNN uses their massive platform to spread awareness of your identity?

If you posted my name here you'd be doxxing me and would and should get banned. It's against reddit rules. Cnn has no business doxxing someone who isn't committing a crime. If it was a guy who was skinning animals and they found him, publish it. But it was a guy posting images and videos about them being aweful, and that's over the line. Paul was under investigation, testifying as a witness as oart of a plea deal. His testimony did not jive with what was discovered to have been said on his online postings. Damn right that's news worthy, and great journalism to uncover. Finding out who some user on a site is without knowledge they are or could be public figure, to smear them or harass them, is wrong.

That was reddit and 4chan who discovered who stonetear was. if I recall correctly. An infowarts ran with the story. That is my take so far based off the information i can find.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+discovered+stonetear&t=ffnt&ia=web

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Stonetear&amp;t=ffnt&amp;ia=web <this shows inforwars reporting on the FBI admitting stonetear was Corbetta, but not them doixxing him.

So its not really doxxing if you're not the first to report on it? How does CNN get banned for not actually doxing anyone at all, then?

Why isn’t this the top comment...

Brigaders

Infowars isn't completely banned from those sites either, just their official accounts. I could post Infowars video on Youtube right now and face no consequences.

Well CNN was accused of doxxing somebody they didn't but that's a different issue. Jones definitely called Sandy Hook a hoak which incentivised his listeners to harass the parents of dead children. He also sells fake supplements that have been found to contain lead. One the scale of bullshit Jones is way higher in this regard

which incentivised his listeners to harass the parents of dead children

That's BS. The only real harassment was the disseminating of information they didn't like/agree with.

Is it "harassment" when media reports on the alleged crimes of a given person? Is it "harassment" if I write an article on the Gulf of Tonkin false flag implicating the members of gov and the military that perpetrated it?

Is it harassment if I write about the millions dead in Iraq due to the lies told by members of the media and gov and call them out by name?

Granted a couple of loose screws actually took it upon themselves to call out these people to their faces or over the phone but to suggest they made up any significant section of those researching the event is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

The only "harassment" was the disseminating of information they didn't like/agree with.

They were calling the parents up and harassing them and threatening them over the phone. Calling a Sandy Hook parent up and telling them "You are a crisis actor. Your child never died!" is far from "disseminating information".

One person did that...ONE

They

She

One person

which incentivised his listeners to harass the parents of dead children

Granted a couple of loose screws actually took it upon themselves to call out these people to their faces or over the phone but to suggest they made up any significant section of those researching the event is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

He did not suggest that those are the majority of people researching the event. He suggested that the harassment of the families was incentivised by Jones’ rhetoric. Considering the number of lawsuits resulting from said harassment, he’s probably right

Any harassment...which amounted to one person making one phone call...was incentivized by the countless anomalies and inconsistencies in the official story...and the parents desire to be public figures, flying with Obama on AF1 and lobbying against an amendment of the constitution.

you’ll have to ask the lawyers of the 8(?) families with lawsuits against him

That's all you're going to address, eh? Figures. Don't let nuance or fact get in the way of a good witch hunt.

Granted a couple of loose screws actually took it upon themselves to call out these people to their faces or over the phone

This is why there’s a lawsuit. I don’t know what will come of it, nor do I care. I responded because you seemed particularly dense in understanding why there was a lawsuit. The plaintiffs claim Jones’ rhetoric is responsible for their targeting.

Speaking of dense...

Also...if you think Jones should be removed for his actions should all the MSM networks be taken off the air for the lies they disseminated which led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis due to war and sanctions? Did MSM "incentivize" Americans to despise the Iraqis and support an invasion?

Btw...can you show the person that made the phone call was a Jones listener?

Gonna answer those or are you one of these people that goes along with anything anyone say so long as it conforms to your world view?

Btw...the parent that was "harassed" is a liar who did a fair amount of harassing of his own.

http://insanemedia.net/the-real-sandy-hook-stalkers/5060

No. I'm pretty sure that calling up someone whose child was shot to death and telling them they're lying about it and that they're going to die for real definitely top what cnn did on the bullshit scale. There not really an argument to be made. That and the fact that in cut a said that nobody should take anything he says as true.

Millions of dead human beings takes a back seat to the hurt feelings of some parent.

You need help.

You should take your own advice lmao

Assuming you're being genuine I feel sorry for you and your ilk. You're so focused on ideological differences that you're blind to the fact that what is being directed at those with whom you disagree today could very easily be directed at you tomorrow.

Nah dawg, I just don't believe in a lunatic like alex jones and his theory that sandy hook is a fake crisis, crisis actors, harassing victim's parents, yada yada ... I do think people who buy into that shit should do a lot of introspection.

I'm pretty good and well adjusted, thanks.

Have you read the final report on SH?

InfoWars doxxed people in the Sandy Hook aftermath too.

Source?

He was just in court for it.

https://newrepublic.com/article/148562/legal-war-alex-jones

some of the families describe Jones as “the chief amplifier for a group that has worked in concert to create and propagate loathsome, false narratives about the Sandy Hook shooting and its victims, and promote their harassment and abuse.”

Your article says nothing about doxxing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/08/the-lasting-trauma-of-alex-joness-lies/566573/

"Jones insisted that the kids’ deaths were a great hoax, a performance staged by gun-control activists backed by the American government. As a result of that, Noah Pozner’s family says, they have been stalked and subjected to death threats by Jones’s legions of epistemically gullible yet digitally savvy followers—a fact that has, doxxing by doxxing, forced them to move seven times over the past five years, ever farther away from the body of their slain son."

Maybe this is what they are talking about?

No evidence in these articles that Infowars or Jones himself doxxed a sandy hook family. That was the original claim.

I was not making a claim about anything. I was putting forth an article.

I can make a claim about Infowars and Jones, but thats not relevant to my comment above.

Alex Jones produces videos that add to the conversation in a /r/conspiracy context. CNN doesn't. They are as mainstream as they come, and that's why... but I don't think we should ban links from CNN, either.

And CNN breaking original news stories about brand new developments in the Russiagate conspiracy don't belong here. Got it.

Of course Russiagate stuff should go here. If no one posts CNN's "original content" about the new red scare, how will I ever hear about it?

What is the official story, so far? Oh, yeah... Russia conspired to leak DNC documents to the American public, and a Russian marketing company ran political ads and organized rallies on both sides. Oh, yeah... Julian Assange and 100 other people are "Russophiles".

It definitely wasn't just a leak by Seth Rich or another insider who just gave the leaked docs to Wikileaks... it was definitely something communist or something, and Trump was definitely, maybe sort of in on this in some way.

So, yeah... totally post Russiagate stuff, because it's TOTALLY not a distraction from the fact that the DNC defrauded democrats and conspired with CNN to leak debate questions. It's a rock solid open/shut case, because Crowdstrike found cyrillic character encoding in some of the files used in the hack... which is a totally believable mistake for a state actor to make when hacking the most well armed and reactionary country on the planet.

God bless CNN.

I agree, please a make a list of sites and "conspiracies" that you think shouldn't be on here so we can ban them outright.

I mean, it's not like reddit has a downvote or hide button or anything that people can use to demote stories they don't like on here or an upvote button for what they do.

Oh, please don't misunderstand. I LOVE CNN, and ESPECIALLY on this subreddit. Wow... Manafort, Trump Jr. and Trump sound like a bunch of criminals.

I'm so glad you told me, because /r/politics never covers these stories.

THANK GOD FOR CNN and /r/conspiracy!!!

I dont visit /r/politics. Do you think a lot of people do?

Also do you think stories should be exclusive to subreddits? i.e if t_d coves a story with 10k upvotes, it doesn't belong here? I am actually ok with that idea.

CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo... bring them all here, and treat them as valid news sources. Make this into /r/politics, so people don't have to browse more than one sub. I just wish we'd get more Rachel Maddow up in this bitch. I don't want CNN banned here... that is philosophically inconsistent. I don't want anything banned.

Usually, if I want to see CNN stuff, I go to anywhere but here. CNN berates this community (which you are a part of) non-stop, so it's like posting David Duke videos in /r/BLM.

If CNN posts anything useful, they are late to the game with it, and it usually came from our community. When CNN latches on to a "real conspiracy", they either minimize it or they get it wrong and contribute to a witch hunt.

The cliff notes version: CNN is bullshit corporatist propaganda. They are talking heads who say what they are paid to say.

Oh and you say nothing about Fox News or Breitbard or any other conservative news outlet being way worse, it shows your agenda.

So, you're saying: "Hey! Conservative channels are way worse! You are biased!"

You see the irony here, right?

So do you think Fox News is also "bullshit corporatist propaganda. They are talking heads who say what they are paid to say." ? Or not?

Yes. They are talking heads that say what they are paid to say. They play to their reactionary conservative base.

Is it really important that I disparage Fox News in order to say that CNN is bullshit? Fine. Fox news sucks. I've never told someone they should watch Fox news for info.

Now that that's out of the way.

CNN is bullshit.

Honestly, the worst thing a media company can do is to fan the flames of war. Everything else pales in comparison. Fox and CNN both do that, so they are both SHIT.

My favorite conservative broadcasts are Sargon and Matt Christensen.
My favorite liberal broadcasts are TJDS, X22 and TheRealNews.

If you want me to say something nice about CNN, I've got nothing. That is so true.
If you want me to say something nice about MSNBC or Fox, I can actually think of some stuff. Maddow used to cover useful topics on MSNBC. Napolitano used to be pretty good on Fox. Tucker Carlson recently said some useful stuff about Syria.

Breitbart, the LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the NYTimes have decent stuff from time to time.
I don't give two shits about the "Liberal" and "Conservative" labels, except to say that otherwise intelligent people are completely brain-locked by the concepts.

Conservatism says - Let's not change everything. Some of our culture is responsible for the good we see around us.
Liberalism says - We need to continue to grow. Some stuff needs to be changed. All of our culture is not fabulous.

There are corporate talking heads on both sides, who just say what they are told for money. They are the enemies of freedom.

If you want me to be a liberal, you can focus on my "liberal" positions:

End the drug war!
Close the military bases oversees!
Background checks and mental health evaluations for gun owners!

Break up the monopolies!
Get out of Syria!
Scatter the CIA to the wind!
Legalize prostitution and gambling!
Provide a strong but limited safety net for the disadvantaged!
Prosecute cops VICIOUSLY when they break the law!
Stop fracking, especially injection wells!

Raise taxes on capital gains!

I'm pro-choice!

Protect whistleblowers!
Fund elections and debates publicly!

Make it easier for low income people to vote!

Control pollution with a smart system like effluent charges!
Disarm all the nukes!

If you want me to be a conservative, here's some cannon fodder:
I'm generally pro-gun!

I dislike minimum wages!
Um... I like low taxes on middle class incomes and ZERO tax on low incomes.
I want education money to stay local with almost no federal interference!

I hate cap and trade schemes. Put a price on pollution/unit and call it good. No quotas.
International pollution agreements are awful.

I have a few conservative positions and a lot of liberal positions, and I believe in compromise because everyone doesn't agree with me (for some silly reason). :p

Didn't k ow CNN was banned here, not sure why. I sincerely doubt many links would even be posted if they weren't.

Exactly. CNN loses nothing by people not posting their links here.

Alex Jones likely just lost significantly more than half of his viewers. You can love or hate Alex Jones and I'm not taking a position on it.

But the situations aren't even remotely comparable.

You can't post directly to CNN because they doxxed a user. You just have to archive it first then post

Ok, that's a legit reason to not allow them here.

They didn't actually doxx anyone. They did journalism and figured out who made a gif the president retwetted. They contacted the person for comments and promised not to reveal their identify. Apparently doing research is doxxing to some people here.

The person was a minor, and they threatened him iirc

We don't know if he was a minor or not. CNN never released anything they found about it. It seems more likely to me that the minor thing was a rumor created to try and make it sound bad. Plus, there's nothing wrong with place writing a news story about a minor.

By "threaten," all they said was they choose not to identify him but that could in the future. What that meant was that if he became news worthy again.

They didn't doxx that person though? I mean if they had you could tell me what that guys name is.

This is the epitome of the right at the moment: "We should be allowed to ban any voices that we don't like in our media, but we're going to cry censorship when you do the same to us!"

Non American chiming in.

Seems like the left is worse for that. Blocking "hate speech" by protesting the likes of... Ben, shapario?'s talks Whilst demanding safe spaces for themselves.

Left and right just divides further and there are bad on both sides

Right wingers are crying about not being allowed to spew propoganda in universities. Meanwhilr they control all three branches kf government. Right wingers are so coddled that they demand news programs to provide them a completely false view of reality because they cant handle the fact that their policies are garbage. "it seems like the left is worse for that" because right wingers have made million dollar industries out of being hurt when someone calls them bigoted for being bigoted.

I mean, they should be able to "spew propaganda" wherever they want though right? Freedom of speach and all that

How exactly is freedom of speech dependent o that? Are tech companies supposed to let me come into their office and give a speech about flat earth? Should I be let into the white house to tell everyone about the miracle of healing crystals? I can say it in public if i want but freedom of speech doesnt mean that people have to give me a platform to say whatever garbage i have in mind. It just means the government cant arrest me for it.

If the university has allowed a speaker onto campus to discuss their views and people attempt to block it. That's quite different to walking into somewhere and monologing.

You are gaslighting... pretending that CNN has had their ability to reach audiences limited in any significant way.

So is the important thing here the principle of free speech or how much something hurts Alex Jones? You're not consistent with your principles.

You could very well be talking about the left.

Except that a sitting US President publicly demanded that US citizens be fired from their jobs for engaging in peaceful protest. Then, according to the depositions of NFL owners, the President privately pressured the owners by explicitly threatening to continue using the power and prestige of his office to harm their businesses unless they agreed to enforce the politically correct behavior demanded by the President. Trump's effort to enforce his flavor of politically correct behavior is an unambiguous assault on the 1st Amendment. Yet this clear threat to free speech was applauded, and continues to be applauded by many of the same people who now attempt to venerate Jones as some sort of 1st Amendment martyr.

There should be public concern regarding the actions of Facebook et al, and we should insist that they articulate a coherent moderation policy and implement it objectively. But if we are concerned about censorship, the primary focus must always be upon government action. The President is using his office in an attempt to punish speech. This is an actual threat to freedom of speech, and should be unacceptable to everyone. Jones' is quite fond of the "first they came for..." poem at the moment, but how loudly did he protest when the President came for the NFL players? Perhaps he did, and I missed it, but I doubt it.

This! Couldn't have said it better

Maybe but he's not.

CNN isn't "banned" on this small sub. Their links just need to be archived because they threatened a redditor with doxxing so they don't get ad revenue.

This sub requiring that isn't the same as big corporations removing his entire show from their platforms.

If Reddit Inc. (The corporation) banned CNN altogether site-wide you might have a point. But you don't.

Jones should be banned here too, he's just as much a part of the propaganda mill as cnn, just playing a different role.

CNN along with all other MSM outlets disseminated false information that led to Americans being incentivized to hate Iraqis and support a war and sanctions that led to the deaths of well over a million people.

If we are to be fair they (all the MSM outlets) should have had their broadcasting license put under review...they should have recieived sanctions and fines if not actually pulled from the air.

Wtf is going on in this sub?

People taking issue with CNN are being down voted...people rightly pointing out the nonsense that is the Russiagate conspiracy theory are being down voted...people suggesting disseminating false info that led to the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis, including women and children is worse than Jones hurting the feelings of some parent are being down voted...

But hey...brigading doesn't happen here

Do you...well by all means inform me..

It's been heavily brigaded / taken over

OP's first-ever post was made 13 hours ago

Smfh

I think you glow in the dark.

Wtf is going on in this sub?

...

people rightly pointing out the nonsense that is the Russiagate conspiracy theory are being down voted...

Yes, wtf is going on in this sub when one of the biggest conspiracies in the last few decades, with Jr. openly admitting to the meeting, including releasing the email transcript, (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/donald-trump-jrs-email-tweet) is considered nonsense?

Israel has been meddling in US politics for decades...has dual citizens in the gov...has the Prime Minister side stepping the President (Obama) to speak directly to congress...has dual citizens operating the media...and you're worried about Russia...

The delusion and hypocrisy inherent in your hand-wringing is obvious for all to see

Except we weren't talking about Israel? You very specifically mentioned Russia, and I addressed it. Nowhere did I say there weren't any other conspiracies. Nowhere did I say there weren't any other problems.

As a matter of fact, I even qualified my statement by saying, "one of the biggest..."

Not the biggest.

But way to change the subject when called out on your shit.

Get over yourself.

One of the biggest conspiracies...for which there is virtually no evidence that anything Russia may have done had any impact on the election what-so-ever.

If that amounts to one of the biggest conspiracies then Israel must be the biggest conspiracy ever...in the entire course of human history.

CNN Lies and millions die...Jones tells an inflammatory version of the truth and some sketchy parent has their feelings hurt.

One is punished and one is allowed to continue on as if nothing happened and those lives don't matter.

And you're ok with that because only conservatives are worthy of scorn.

Ftr...I think Jones is as loony as a televangelist (whose right to speak should also be defended) and the 2 party system is a scam of the highest order keeping people arguing over minutia while the real problems remain regardless which figurehead they trot out.

One is punished and one is allowed to continue on as if nothing happened and those lives don't matter.

And you're ok with that because only conservatives are worthy of scorn.

Where did I say that?

Q: “How does anyone know if they’re being misled?”

A: “You are always.”

Fuck that, weak mindset.

Study up, take responsibility f your life, learn to think for yourself and trust yourself.

Yes, you have proposed the solution.

Where did I propose a solution.

CNN is not banned on this sub. You can post CNN articles through archived links. That means CNN is DEMONETIZED on this sub.

Alex Jones was DEMONETIZED on YouTube. He could post but wouldn’t get money from his videos. Now he can’t post at all, so he’s banned.

That is the difference.

CNN is not social media created from user submitted content to a platform that presented itself as a community that anyone could join and be a part of that community.

Is cnn even banned? I swear I see thier shit here all the time.

No, it isn't. You can post archive links of CNN content.

Bunch of people whining about nothing lol

CNN is fake news and not entertaining.
Everything they say is repeated by everyone else.

Infowars is unique and crazy, gets some facts in there once in awhile and is super hilarious.

Check infowars now and then to see what the crazies are upto.
But you never need to check cnn.
Their drones will come tell you over and over and over and over and over...

Anything that you did not directly experience yourself is hearsay.

We have little to no way to know what is true and what false.

This sub has mods with ties to the same groups that censored Alex Jones. This isn't news. They can censor people at their discretion.

CNN threatened to dox a redditor if he didn't delete a viral post that made CNN look bad. https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-criticized-threatening-dox-reddit-users-identity-2017-7?op=1

CNN doxxed this guy and contacted him to personally threaten to expose him and his anonymous reddit postings. He cringed, deleted his posts, and issued an apology. This sufficed and CNN agreed not to publish...for now.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Your link flat out disagrees with you.

After interviewing the user, CNN's investigative team said it chose not to reveal his identity because he apologized. In the interview, the Reddit user said he was worried about safety and public embarrassment if his real name were to be made public.

So after interviewing the individual, they were well within their right to name the person they interviewed. However, they didn't because they had no reason to after he apologized.

Kaczynski used Twitter to defend the outlet's decision, writing that the line meant only that the network had not promised to keep the user's identity a secret.

So it's a literal disclaimer to tell the reader that, if something changes in the future, they aren't reneging on an agreement because there never was an unconditional one.

The guy sat down with them, admitted to who he was, and went forward with the interview. If he didn't want CNN to know his identity then all he had to do is say they had the wrong person and they couldn't publish then because they'd potentially be slandering someone on a national level. He agreed to this privacy arrangement by giving them his identity.

Lastly, if they were legitimately blackmailing him by saying "behave or we spread your name": why would they put that in the article? You don't publicly tell people you're blackmailing someone. They would have said nothing about it because the person involved would know the consequences.

No, everything I said was factual.

The guy sat down with them, admitted to who he was, and went forward with the interview.

Yes, they doxxed him, tracked him down, then threatened him. This is when he admitted it was him.

You don't publicly tell people you're blackmailing someone.

CNN did just that, explaining it very clearly, and got away with it, now didn't they.

There is none. I got banned for making fun of the ridiculous arguments that Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists rely on. This is a heavily censored sub, but for some reason that's ok

If you read. It's a cnn article admitting the doxxed the guy. How they found out who it was. Where is the proof of your claim? Anywhere?

Btw, /u/katica is who discovered stonetear was Paul. Not infowars

Hahaha Hahahaha Hahahaha I’m sorry. This is hilarious to me. That’s retarded :)

Wtf is going on in this sub?

...

people rightly pointing out the nonsense that is the Russiagate conspiracy theory are being down voted...

Yes, wtf is going on in this sub when one of the biggest conspiracies in the last few decades, with Jr. openly admitting to the meeting, including releasing the email transcript, (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/donald-trump-jrs-email-tweet) is considered nonsense?

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/08/the-lasting-trauma-of-alex-joness-lies/566573/

"Jones insisted that the kids’ deaths were a great hoax, a performance staged by gun-control activists backed by the American government. As a result of that, Noah Pozner’s family says, they have been stalked and subjected to death threats by Jones’s legions of epistemically gullible yet digitally savvy followers—a fact that has, doxxing by doxxing, forced them to move seven times over the past five years, ever farther away from the body of their slain son."

Maybe this is what they are talking about?

Yes. They are talking heads that say what they are paid to say. They play to their reactionary conservative base.

Is it really important that I disparage Fox News in order to say that CNN is bullshit? Fine. Fox news sucks. I've never told someone they should watch Fox news for info.

Now that that's out of the way.

CNN is bullshit.

Honestly, the worst thing a media company can do is to fan the flames of war. Everything else pales in comparison. Fox and CNN both do that, so they are both SHIT.